Let me summarise my approach to criticism and its approach. The first assumption is the bible is a fake, a construction made to appear consistent but actually a product of a series of people or committees, with the aim to create a cultural identity to a tribal group living in Palestine.
So 99% of the text is set aside and hunting for small linguistical hints are looked for, like how God is named, the type of sentence structure, the coherence between books etc. Unbelief becomes the driving thread of it all, except one is actually dealing with the extraordinary, going backwards from the time of Moses. It is clear that for many centuries all that remained after the exile was the Torah and commentaries of one sort or another about the history of Israel. What has happened over the last 100 years is discovery after discovery of the historical accuracy of scripture and the people it mentions. Rather than a construction, it is records of witnesses passing through these points, with Kings and powers and really odd stand offs. One such odd situation is Hezekiah,
Sennacherib King of Assyria, and Isaiah.
The King of Assyria conquers Israel and is determined to crush Hezekiah. A plague saves the day, Sennacherib withdraws. Like a lot of events in Israel, it was a nation about to be destroyed, but it survives. Other historical sources show this story, though it misses out why Jerusalem was not destroyed, which is not surprising, as the hand of God is not exactly something you advertise.
Another area for me is the history of the Hittites, who were discovered as a group who prospered for 500 years in turkey and come into biblical history. So many of the biblical critics claimed these things are just inventions, fairy stories, and their foundation for saying this is how names of God were used in texts. If anything modern times has given us, is scripture is historically foundational, and a wonder from ancient times, no matter the implications, it is not like any other document we have.
Now I am not a 7 day creationist, but knowing that things are not what they seem, it does not matter. The thrust of the stories is God is sovereign and I need to seek out my greatest friend and Father.
There are some profound questions about the garden of Eden and creation. God himself is the only witness, and He alone dictated these perspectives. Within these perspectives are two versions of the story. A talking snake, a symbolic personification of evil, of temptation, of doubt, of ambition and elevation, over boundaries, relationship and trust. Eden in Iraq, a very desert dry empty place. Things have changed greatly since this story took place. But also what is unusual is placing such a story in a geographic historical setting.
For me this underlines another thread of philosophical thought, what is life for, our independent, emotional and relationship focused existence. We live on a globe with a skin 30 miles high, and literally everywhere else we die. Our whole lives are flowering in a field, enjoying the best life offers and then we fade and go away. And we desire certainty, absolutes, security, meaning, idealism, the stopping of suffering, and yet in this struggle we as a civilisation have created unbelievable suffering and death. So we are a contradiction, and our certainty is just self pomposity, rather than admitting everything is a compromise and our hearts need to walk the path we truly desire, the walk of love. God bless you
