I continue to pick up the pieces in Touchstone’s latest response to my original post on theistic evolution.
To follow the thread, first go here. Then here, here, here, and here for Touchstone’s four part piece. And lastly here for my first follow-up to Touchstone’s four parter.
In the materials I’ve read (which is a good bit on this question), the border is not identified by literary form between chapters 11 and 12, but by the contemporary nature of the story from Chapter 12 onward. Chapters 1-11 are considered the “primeval period”, the story of man’s development up until the were reified as a functioning tribe of Hebrews.
But on what basis does Touchstone draw the line between chapters 11 and 12? He says the divide is “not identified by literary form between chapters 11 and 12, but by the contemporary nature of the story from Chapter 12 onward.” Okay, so what does Touchstone mean by “the contemporary nature of the story”? On what grounds does he categorize Gen. 1-11 as “the primeval period” while the rest of Genesis is not? Again, where is his argument?
That is, the story of the Hebrew people as Hebrews begins in Chapter 12.
1. Good to know Touchstone is familiar with the story of Abraham. But all this proves is that the story now shifts its focus to Abraham and his family. It doesn’t prove that everything before Abraham is therefore to be considered part of some “primeval” past.
2. In fact, Abraham’s story actually begins at the close of chapter 11 with his father Terah. And, as chapter 11 relates, Terah is part of a chain that stretches back to Shem (who arguably could’ve been alive in Abraham’s own day, and whom orthodox Jews argue, although I don’t necessarily agree, is Melchizedek). Which one of Shem’s descendants from Arpachshad to Terah would Touchstone consider non-historical, but part of his nebulous, undefined “primeval period”?
Clearly, the genealogy in Chapter 5 is a stark contrast with the form of Chapter 1, for example.
Well, perhaps because Gen. 1 is primarily an ancient Israelite cosmogony while Gen. 5 is primarily an ancient Israelite genealogy. How is this saying anything of consequence to the issue at hand?
Which, BTW, Touchstone would do well to keep in his sights:
5. Furthermore, notice the TE might argue that only the first few chapters of Genesis (usually