Once again, you overlook the possibility of 'frozen words'. These are words
frozen in a language that really don't mean what they sound like. Setting
sun, north POLE, etc. That might not be any more of a concession than you
talking about a beautiful sun rise (which it doesn't).
>
>Their Mesopotamian neighbors already had the same concept of the universe;
>but, what a difference in the theology.
So tell me how one can be sure that God, who makes concessions on history
and science doesn't make concessions on theology? What is the difference.
Maybe the Hebrew theology was as screwed up as their history and science
yet God made a concession in order to talk to them? It seems to me that
once you have God making concessions to man, there is no legitimate end to it.
>In Genesis the waters and the firmament (Tiamat/Tehom) are completely
>demythologized. They are a part of God's creation, completely subject to
him
>from the beginning. God does not have to fight the waters with their
>associated goddess opposing him with charms, spells, weapons and allied
gods.
Great, so how do you know this isn't a concession to the Hebrews who didn't
view Tiamat the same as the babylonians did? It seems to me one can only
have the view you do if you restrict God's concessions to the subjects of
history and science, but always have him correct on theology. What is the
evidence that this is the way God works? Ruling out theology seems rather
ad hoc.
>Lastly, you said,
>
><<…I mean if God doesn't reveal history, he doesn't reveal science, how do
>you know he revealed any theology?>>
>
>One could go to great lengths here to talk about epistemology, but the above
>example illustrates what I find all through Scripture: the natural is the
>natural of the times, the theology is in contrast to the theology of the
>times-not always in the underlying idea but in the higher plane to which it
>is taken.
By whose standard of judgment? Yours? The Babylonians certainly felt their
religion was of a higher standard than the HEbrews. If they didn't, they
would have become Hebrews.
Even with the resurrection, a close study will show that the
>resurrection of Jesus is on an altogether different and higher plane than
the
>mystery religions, particularly in its appeal to eyewitnesses. The quote in
>Yamauchi from A. D. Nock, no small authority in this area, should not be
>brushed aside lightly:
>
>In Christianity everything is made to turn on a dated experience of a
>historical Person; it can be seen from I Cor. XV. 3 that the statement of
the
>story early assumed the form of a statement in a Creed. There is nothing in
>the parallel cases which points to any attempt to give such a basis of
>historical evidence to belief (Early Gentile Christianity and Its
Hellenistic
>Background, 1964, p. 107).
Once again, rather ad hoc. You have already said that God doesn't correct
the history mistakes of man when he is writing the scripture, but then you
seem to need a correct history at the resurrection. If the early chrsitians
made mistakes there, and said there was a resurrection when there wasn't,
this would be another example in which God didn't correct the historical
mistakes of mankind and thus consistent with your view. But consistency
there destroys Christianity. So, not being able to allow that, you state
that the resurrection is historical. So does god only correct the history
mistakes of people born in the AD, leaving the BC people to fend for
themselves?
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution