>You wrote earlier,
>> If this applies to future events, that a prophet whose prophcies do not
>> come true is not speaking for God, then why does this not apply to the
>> events of the past? It seems to me that a prophet who claims to be
>> speaking for God should be able to get it correct in both directions of
>I still agree with this. But as your objection to Is 51:18 shows, there
>are times when it is not appropriate to apply the test.
I wouldn't agree with this. The passage is not journalistic enough to know
what to expect. What does it meand to be watered like a garden and to have
my bones made strong. What journalistic information is being conveyed? If
those statements are a hebrew idiom that I am unaware of, then that might
impart more information.
>Thus, we are left
>with the obvious question, which happens to be what we've been talking
>about the entire time-
>When is it appropriate to apply this test? When is it appropriate to read
>a given text, such as Genesis, as a record of literal past events?
>Perhaps if we put the question on more formal, logical ground. We agreed
>earlier that answering the journalistic questions was necessary but not
>sufficient. Consider two texts, A and B. Both of them answer the
>journalistic questions. But only A purports to be a historical chronicle.
>Now, what literary differences MUST exist between A and B? What
>characteristics MUST A possess that B does not?
There must be something testable before a text can even be considered as a
possible journalistic type account. If there is nothing testable, then it
can't be journalistic. That is why "watering" is untestable.
>Now, I think it's time to be frank. We've gone round and round on this
>with no resolution. If we can't wrap things up in the next couple of
>posts, I think we should just put the matter to bed.
agreed, I am tiring of this topic. You can have the last word.
Foundation, Fall and Flood