How would you respond to these claims here: (I actually find Weeks makes some valid points)
Can you narrow it down to any specific ones here @Reggie_O_Donoghue? Of course certain Christians are going to reject the ANE. It’s not easy to do but just because its hard to do doesn’t mean we get to ignore it all and just pretend that the Bible is “God’s revelation transcending their time and place, of newness, and of change.”
@Reggie_O_Donoghue, I looked at your links but Weeks paper is 19 pages and assumes a background in the field.
I think there are parallels between Genesis and other ANE texts but I don’t think that necessarily means that Genesis borrowed from them, rather I accept the view that they borrowed from Genesis; or more precisely that Genesis was composed by Moses using older written and oral sources.
Just as one example the Babylonian flood story has an ark that is cubical and hence unseaworthy while Genesis has an ark of with dimensions that make it very stable and seaworthy. If you assume that one of these is true then it has to the Genesis account since the Babylonian version would have capsized. There are other points of comparison that support Genesis as the correct version.
Weeks main argument is that there is no such thing as a uniform ANE worldview, so we cannot use Babylonian texts to interpret the Bible, assuming they held the same worldview.
I think it is a valid point, and one which ECs should take hold of. But Weeks ignores that there are certain commonalities, or universals between Babylonian, Egyptian, Ugaritic, Hittite, etc texts. For example, people all across the middle east (as well as further afield) believed humans were made from clay, and the heavens were separated from the earth. The former is important (and Todd ignores it) because the Hebrew word for ‘forming’ man, is the same word used for forming a pot from clay. The latter is important for understanding what exactly the Raqia was, since Psalm 104:2’s parallel to day 2 of Genesis 1, compares the heavens to the veil of the tabernacle, i.e. a separating expanse.
There is this article as well. I’d like responses from people on the sections regarding the number seven regarding temple building.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.