Quote:
Originally Posted by AV1611  Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader Then the reason for posting the article stands. If you wish to read it, fine; if not that is also fine. | Having read the article, I still say it has nothing to with what I am arguing. The only mildly relevant bit is his argument against the view that "the most plausible explanation for the religion of Israel derives it by a process of ideological evolution from Israel’s neighbours" but I am not doing that. The other slightly relevant thing is his point that "the necessity of interpreting them against the Near Eastern cultural background is removed" but this is simply wrong. As I noted before, there is mythopoetic language throughout the OT. |
Here you show that it is relevant, but that you just disagree.
"These last two examples raise another set of problems. When it is said that God employed symbols common in that day is it meant that both the symbol and what is symbolized were already known or that only the symbol was known with a completely different connotation? The distinction is an important one. For this argument to be convincing the former must be the case. Otherwise one is saying that God gave the symbol a completely new meaning. And if he did that we are no longer dealing with symbols common at the time, but with new symbols. Then the necessity of interpreting them against the Near Eastern cultural background is removed. Whether there is any ultimate relationship” between biblical and Babylonian accounts as we now have them they belong to different ideological worlds. The symbols are not the same because the ideology is different. The goddess Tiamat defeated in a war by the god Marduk, if she may be called a ‘symbol’; must be seen as a symbol within the context of Babylonian polytheism whereas the creation of heaven and earth belongs within the context of biblical thought. It is meaningless to say that God used the same symbol but changed its meaning. It is then no longer the same symbol."
The onus is on you to demonstrate that not just the symbols but also what is symbolized is the same.
Quote:
His point is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Indeed, but there are different types (or forms) of Scripture. Poetry needs to be interpreted as poetry, history as history, prophesy as prophesy and cosmogony as cosmogony. That is where his point fails. The literary form sets the context, and we all know that sound exegesis demands we take into account the context.  |
Then it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) militates against the historicity of the account
due to the scriptures demanding such.
CT