Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the OT is folklore, does that matter for Christianity?
Of course it matters.
In fact, you can see how terrified christians are even now.
What does it say when christians still cling to the myth that X-Moses wrote the Pentateuch, while it is accepted by Jews that X-Moses did not?
The whole thing is an house of cards, with the Old Testament as the foundation for the New Testament, and once the Old Testament collapses, well, there you go. One thing I would say is that I've had a lot of contact with Jews over the years, especially with Reformed Jews at Hebrew Union University (established by Reformed Jews). Based on that contact, I would suggest that Jews as a group are emotionally and mentally more prepared than christians are.
What I mean by that, is when they find the earlier E, J or P documents --- and they will find them --- the event won't be as traumatic for Jews as it will be for chrisitans.
The lectures are open to the consortium (Hebrew Union, UC, Xavier, Miami and NKU) and often the public-at-large. I listened to a fascinating lecture on Deuteronomy and how it effectively was a brand new religion initiating the beginning of the shift to monaltry. Of course, X-Moses did not write Deuteronomy (Barcuch wrote it as dictated by Jeremiah) but try telling that to christians.
For that you have to at least give credit to the Jews for seeking and learning the truth instead of just closing their eyes and thumping the bible.
There's also obvious implications for Islam, since it is also predicated at least in part on the Old Testament. Not sure I would want to guess what the reaction might be.
This thread arose from a discussion on the first 7 books of the Bible.
If they are folklore rather than history, where does that leave Christian belief?.Discuss.
Those who say they are historically correct can say so and leave it at that.
Those who cannot buy Genesis and the Flood, at least, does that have an implication for Christianity?
Jesus apparently accepted the OT as true and Paul certainly did. But if he knew that the Flood account wasn’t true, what would be the point of saying so? To a certain extent the slavery and massacre excuse that God had to work with humans as they were, rather than as they ought to be, is valid. And it is a valid point that God might have made ‘robots’ rather than flawed human beans to develop in their own way, but I can see why He might not want to.
That said, the authority of the Bible might suffer a bit. Let alone ‘God’s word’. Given inspiration rather than dictation, the God –input would look shaky and in fact nothing in the OT could be taken as valid just because it was in there.
That might suit Christianity very well. After all, Jesus rolled up and, while taking Judaism as the correct vehicle for God –worship, pretty much said that they had missed the point and overlooked the spirit for the letter.
Thanks AREQUIPA for starting this thread. I am going to re-post my post from the other thread, because I couldn't have said it better myself <VERY BIG GRIN>.
This part relates back to one of our former conversations about the flood. I said that it didn't matter to me whether the flood was "real" or folklore or real folklore because, either way, it was the message/moral behind the story.
Please know that I am using only the text of the King James version (KJV) of the Holy Bible and I am offering only *my opinion* of the purpose of the book. I'm not trying to sell anyone on my ideas or say that I have some divine insight that makes my opinion the truth above all truths. This is just "where I'm coming from" regarding the book.
Man comes in two parts. Half is flesh and half is spirit/soul/conscience, etc. The Bible is a book written for the flesh to read and the spirit/etc. to relate to. The book introduces the concept of a "higher being" that is of the spirit. This "higher spirit" is a redeemer. The book is a allegory, which by definition is : symbolic work: a work in which the characters and events are to be understood as representing other things and symbolically expressing a deeper, often spiritual, moral, or political meaning
symbolic expression of meaning in story: the symbolic expression of a deeper meaning through a story or scene acted out by human, animal, or mythical characters (Bing dictionary).
Allegory can be "true", "untrue", "real", "fabricated", "actual", "accurate", or not, etc. What makes it allegory is the message within the message, or message behind the story - the moral of the story.
The Bible is a "patch-work quilt" -if you will - of allegorical stories. The allegorical message is one of redemption. This redemption is for the spirit. The premise is that there is a Redeemer (God) and that the spirit (which lives within the human body) has the ability/option of living on after this physical life. The short term message would be that within this physical life, there can also be physical redemption.
Over and over in the Bible stories is the theme of redemption. Noah and his family and the flood; Daniel in the lion's den; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace; Jonah and the big fish, etc. are stories about redemption. Did any of this stuff actually, really, truly happen. Unlikely. But, it just doesn't matter as long as one gets the message of redemption from the story, and the price of such. Then there are all of the stories of the Jews moving in and out of prosperity, in and out of war, in and out of victory, in and out of bondage. Again, the message is redemption. Over and over, in all manner of human conditions, troubles, and challenges, the story and the message were of redemption - of the mortal body, usually, but for the sake of the immortal soul.
All of it is to give the spirit inside the flesh the opportunity to secure redemption in order to move on from this life to the next place/level/state-of-being/world/galaxy/whatever-it-is (and no, I don't think that is "Heaven" with pearly gates, streets of gold, and big white mansions for all).
That's it in a nutshell. There are other things, too, but this is a basic overview of how I see the book.
I have no need to defend/argue/fight/battle. I believe it is a personal choice and a personal journey. Spirituality "is" or it "isn't". I can't walk in anyone else's shoes and no one can walk in mine.
It should matter. I find the biggest reason why a Christian would see the OT as allegorical, is because of the lack of scientific evidence. They don't say it's allegorical because of what is written in the NT, that the NT points toward it being allegorical. It's almost 100% because of the lack of physical evidence. It kind of becomes a cover up, how can we reason this thing out now that our observations are giving us an almost completely different answer from what Genesis says about human history.
These things come from a lack of understanding, about the world God originally created. Yet my biggest thing is if God is real, and He spoke with the people who wrote the Bible, why can't He tell us an accurate version of history? It seems to me a lot of Christians have more faith in the ability of the people who wrote the Bible, than in the God who spoke to the people who wrote the Bible.
Another thing I find amazing in Christians who don't believe the OT is literal in it's history, is that they believe Jesus literally did miracles. There is just about the same amount of evidence for the earth being thousands of years old, as there is that Jesus did miracles. Yet Christians rule out one because of the lack of evidence, while accepting the other that has the same lack of evidence. That doesn't make sense at all. Which is easier to believe, that God created the earth without natural disasters, or Jesus walking on water? If you can believe one, why doubt the other that sets up the things you do believe? In other words, their beliefs are contradictory.
Now on a side note, I know why there is a lack of physical evidence of the world God originally created. That is to be expected! We are living in a corrupt world, everything is corrupt. Should I expect to find evidence of perfection, from corruption? Also, the picture most see concerning Genesis is inaccurate to what the Bible says. There is evolution in Genesis, yet not from a common ancestor. In fact, it's only in this scientific day and age, can we get the true picture of Genesis, and that picture will be tested out. To see if it have any predictions that can be tested. Evidence is coming concerning the OT, just be patient.
Just a quick 'thanks' Ella for moving over here and to all posters for refloating the thread. I sometimes think I must have the record for threads that sink like a zinc brick. Since I have (after scientifically bashing it on my desk- top) got my add -on keyboard working I have had to respond to a lot of threads and your thoughtful and very powerful post deserves some thought. A bit later - I do actually have a Life outside the god -debate.
There are all kinds of reasosn why some Christians dismiss allegory, and believe literally. Ultimately, however, I think it is because of the encouragement of some church institutions/denominations which veer more to the controlling side of operation.
Even ignoring what science can or cannot prove, there are churches out there that teach that the things written in the Gospels, or the OT actually happened. That they are literally true. Once you go down the road of something in the Bible being required to be true, then everything must be true and must remain true regardless of the evidence faced, or your belief based on literal interpretation crumbles.
The problem with all this is that the belief takes no account for why and how the stories in the bible came to be, or how they even came to be written as they are. The bible uses known and common literature techniques of antiquity to tell a story. Such techniques are different than those used by modern authors to write about factural historical data. Yet, some Christians read the bible as if they were reading a modern history book which is trying to accurate depict events.
Ironically maybe, some of those I have known who most fervently believe and argue in the literal truth of biblical stories will also teach that anyone who tries to read and interpret the bible, should do so with research and knowledge of the historical context and timeframe. Yet, they then pull out passages, chapters, etc, and use them to support a modern day interpretation, belief, or position, while ignoring the actual context, writing style, cultural setting, meaning of original languages, etc.
So the answer to the question in the title of this thread is yes and no. If your a Christian who has based your belief on the absolute need for the bible to be literally true, then the suggestion that the OT is folklore or allegorical in nature is a direct assault on your whole belief structure and the answer is yes, it matters. If your faith is not based on this absolute truth, then no, it doesn't matter so much.
Thanks AREQUIPA for starting this thread. I am going to re-post my post from the other thread, because I couldn't have said it better myself <VERY BIG GRIN>.
Like this?
Quote:
This part relates back to one of our former conversations about the flood. I said that it didn't matter to me whether the flood was "real" or folklore or real folklore because, either way, it was the message/moral behind the story.
Please know that I am using only the text of the King James version (KJV) of the Holy Bible and I am offering only *my opinion* of the purpose of the book. I'm not trying to sell anyone on my ideas or say that I have some divine insight that makes my opinion the truth above all truths. This is just "where I'm coming from" regarding the book.
Man comes in two parts. Half is flesh and half is spirit/soul/conscience, etc. The Bible is a book written for the flesh to read and the spirit/etc. to relate to. The book introduces the concept of a "higher being" that is of the spirit. This "higher spirit" is a redeemer. The book is a allegory, which by definition is :symbolic work: a work in which the characters and events are to be understood as representing other things and symbolically expressing a deeper, often spiritual, moral, or political meaning symbolic expression of meaning in story: the symbolic expression of a deeper meaning through a story or scene acted out by human, animal, or mythical characters (Bing dictionary).
Allegory can be "true", "untrue", "real", "fabricated", "actual", "accurate", or not, etc. What makes it allegory is the message within the message, or message behind the story - the moral of the story.
The Bible is a "patch-work quilt" -if you will - of allegorical stories. The allegorical message is one of redemption. This redemption is for the spirit. The premise is that there is a Redeemer (God) and that the spirit (which lives within the human body) has the ability/option of living on after this physical life. The short term message would be that within this physical life, there can also be physical redemption.
Over and over in the Bible stories is the theme of redemption. Noah and his family and the flood; Daniel in the lion's den; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace; Jonah and the big fish, etc. are stories about redemption. Did any of this stuff actually, really, truly happen. Unlikely. But, it just doesn't matter as long as one gets the message of redemption from the story, and the price of such. Then there are all of the stories of the Jews moving in and out of prosperity, in and out of war, in and out of victory, in and out of bondage. Again, the message is redemption. Over and over, in all manner of human conditions, troubles, and challenges, the story and the message were of redemption - of the mortal body, usually, but for the sake of the immortal soul.
All of it is to give the spirit inside the flesh the opportunity to secure redemption in order to move on from this life to the next place/level/state-of-being/world/galaxy/whatever-it-is (and no, I don't think that is "Heaven" with pearly gates, streets of gold, and big white mansions for all).
That's it in a nutshell. There are other things, too, but this is a basic overview of how I see the book.
I have no need to defend/argue/fight/battle. I believe it is a personal choice and a personal journey. Spirituality "is" or it "isn't". I can't walk in anyone else's shoes and no one can walk in mine.
Ella
(1) re KJV. I generally do not mind which translation is used, so long as the general sense of the passage is agreed. In case of disagreement it may be necessary to look at the original Greek or Hebrew.
(2) There is indeed no need for you to fight or battle. Your take on the Bible or what you take from it is your own affair. Our muslim Mod.,Woodrow (Abdullah) Li, remarked that what convinced him to be a Muslim was not what he would expect to convince anyone else (and indeed it didn't convince me) and I am cool with that belief of his and he is cool with my disbelief. My respect for him is high and my debating with him is exceeding low.
(3) Your 'take' is not an uncommon one - the stories need not be taken as literally true and, even where they are history, the point is to provide instructive examples for the spirit. Now I might say that one could get similar instruction of the spirit from other Holy books or books of philosophy or indeed Lord of the Rings, and one would then ask whether that means that we had to use human 'spiritual' values in order to weed out the spiritual instruction or example. The result being that the Bible was - like any other book - a sounding - board for humans values and of no more value than any other book.
(4) but I presume that you see the Bible as more - that it is a work inspired (if not dictated, because in metaphor, historical inaccuracy and internal contradictions is irrelevant) by God. Who is real, and who presumably intends the Bible to be read and used as an example or guide for the spiritual development of humans towards the next stage of development. Which is an afterlife of some kind?
I would of course then ask whether God equally intends the Quran, Bhagavad Gita, Tripitaka and Book of Mormon to be used by their respective readers as a spiritual guide, or whether it is only the Bible that works in that way; and in fact getting spiritual guidance from those other Holy Books is not what God wants and in fact, is not going to develop our human spirit in the right way.
I will not conceal the bear trap. Ella, but explain that accepting that other Holy Books are equally valid means that none of them are, apart from being a sounding board for our human spiritual aspirations, or, on the other hand, denying that other Holy Books or even books of philosophy or LOR or Harry Potter are the God - intended vehicle for our spiritual development rather posits the question of what is so special about the Bible that it is the only god -intended spiritual guide?
Where I am going with this is that human spiritual development is found in human spiritual (which is to say,moral) values, and it is the the human code of values that we use to interpret books, Holy or otherwise. Now this is perhaps risking our (so far) amicable relationship as it is poking a stick into your personal take on the Bible and, if you want to say that you only wanted to explain, not debate, I will accept that and say that I was just saying that your approach to the Bible would not work for me and I would continue to assert that the human moral (and spiritual) codes are the only ones that are of value in trying to work out the right and good and in finding out how we should develop - spiritually or in any other way. E.g, Humanism.
These are some of the most accurate words I have see you post on here, Vizio. The question now becomes WHAT 'truths' and how does those 'truths' legitimize the NT?
For starters, Jesus affirmed a real Adam and Eve. They are also listed in his geneology in Luke.
The apostle Paul compares Jesus to the "First Adam" -- meaning that sin entered the world through Adam. Jesus is a "Second Adam" -- meaning a new type of person, that are righteous because of him.
Besides that, throughout the OT, we see types and shadows pointing toward Jesus....not to mention some very clear Messianic prophecies.
Thanks Mircea, Hevenesse and checkered for your excellent posts. There is indeed a Christian movement, shall we say, that espouses Bible -literalism. They are well supported, resourceful, well - funded and vociferous. They can be very persuasive and it requires some checking (and a source to check with - thanks Talk Origins! ) to see that what they don't have is a scientifically sound,valid or often even honest assessment of the data.
But that does no good unless someone makes that known and makes it stick, because, once persuaded into the 'Buy -in zone' it takes a struggle on the part of both parties (if indeed the persuaded one is even willing) to overcome the Faith.
It is well taken that, while Christianity might allow that the OT is not literally true (and let's face it - some parts must be) and opt for a symbolic or metaphorically instructive meaning (and last time I looked the Churches did take much of the OT as historically correct) it HAS to take the New Testament as literally true and factual in respect of Jesus Christ and what he did, said and was as historically correct, give or take an understandable eyewitness discrepancy or two.
If Jesus did not do or say what the Gospels claim then he was not who Christianity claims he was and the whole foundation of the church turns from rock to sand - and quicksand, at that.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,173,724 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
For starters, Jesus affirmed a real Adam and Eve. They are also listed in his geneology in Luke.
The apostle Paul compares Jesus to the "First Adam" -- meaning that sin entered the world through Adam. Jesus is a "Second Adam" -- meaning a new type of person, that are righteous because of him.
Besides that, throughout the OT, we see types and shadows pointing toward Jesus....not to mention some very clear Messianic prophecies.
Jesus did use a lot of metaphorical language, and may have been using common Jesus beliefs.etc to illustrate a point. Of course we have to take most of what he said at face value, but again, if we take things absolutely literally then there are other, bigger holes, like the prophecies of his second coming. So a totally literal reading isn't really tenable. And yes, Christianity could still remain intact with an allegorical reading of the OT and NT.
For starters, Jesus affirmed a real Adam and Eve. They are also listed in his geneology in Luke.
You do realize that merely mentioning characters of the past does not necessarily make them real, right?
Quote:
Besides that, throughout the OT, we see types and shadows pointing toward Jesus....not to mention some very clear Messianic prophecies.
Forgive me for finding this very suspect, Vizio. I know it is VERY popular Christian apologetic argument and I once gloried in it, but now I find this very doubtful. What are your examples of this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) to see that what they don't have is a scientifically sound,valid or often even honest assessment of the data.
