Re: ugabooga god of the universe(was: Re: Chapp article)

Wayne Dawson (dawson@ims.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:19:28 +0900 (JST)

Cmekve@aol.com wrote:
[enormous amount of comments snipped]
> Just as science is evaluated on much more than just the "facts"
> (which are themselves at least partially theory dependent anyway),
> so Scripture and the God presented there are evaluated on far more
> criteria than just the "history" present. [So I won't be worshipping
> Ugabooga or sending Glenn money! ;-) ]. I highly admire concordism
> and the work that is so painstakingly attempted; I just think it
> results in (or from??) a shallow theology that is hardly worth
> defending.

For the non scholar-theologian who has not read the vast array of
opinions in the volumes of research on Mesopotamian myths and is
probably not even familiar with the documentary hypothesis, yet opens
the Bible to Genesis; how can they distinguish "myth" from "fact"?

At least with form/redaction criticism, we can (usually?) say that X
is a parable, not an actual event in the life of Jesus (for example) .
Yet what similar clues can we use to decide whether the authors of the
OT book of Genesis meant the writings to be factual, semi-factual,
alegorical, etc.?

This seems rather important for apologetics. I acknowledge the severe
difficulties in a scholarly endeaver (honestly), but if we claim "the
Bible is Truth", and then we equivocate on a skeptic's questions, what
can we expect the skeptic to say?

Yes, I think (personally) that the bible is inspired (it's mere
survival alone says something about its importance to human culture),
but whether I appreciate the Bible or not, most of my effort is wasted
on trying to convince people to get beyond the tiresome first book
debate.

by Grace we do proceed,
Wayne