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.
Something to be looked at is how the Hebrew Bible had been read and interpreted up until that point. It's not as if the 1st-Century Christians had been all reading the Bible (and by "The Bible" I mean the various books that made up the Hebrew Scriptures - whether they are the later canons of Judaism, Catholic Christianty, Eastern Orthodox Christianity or Protestant Christianity) in the same manner and fashion. The problem of reading Genesis literally had already been encountered and transformed by Hellenistic Philosophical ideas. Platonism is just one example of an approach to the Bible - envisioning a higher reality that forms the basis for the lower reality: the world as we see it. The Cave allegory, if you're familiar with it (and I'm sure you are).
I recently finished Ronald Hendel's recent and excellent book "The Book of Genesis: A Biography" (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013) and this post immediately called up the contents of the book, which consist of an examination of how Genesis has been read and interpreted up until the modern day. What I find very interesting is how we have come almost full circle in our interpretations. We have come from a literal plain-sense reading and managed to make our way through a host of allegorical, figural, apocalpytic, etc. interpretations to end up back at the plain-sense meaning, especially begining with the Reformation and Luther's call for Sola Scriptura. In the Introduction, Hendel writes
"It is important to make a careful distinction within the life of Genesis. This concerns the difference between the book's original meanings - those that are properties of the "plain" or grammatical sense of the ancient Hebrew words, sentences, and narratives - and its later interpretations. The latter often rely on assumptions and categories that are foreign to the world of ancient Israel. For example, interpretations that rely on Platonic philosophy or apocalyptic expectations are anachronistic when applied to Genesis, because these categories of thought were created after the book was written....
A text's afterlife inevitably affectsone's reading of it, even if one is trying to attend to its plain or native senses. How is it to read the Garden of Eden story without importing later interpretations, such as Original Sin, Eve as erotic temptress, or the snake as Satan? These are products of Genesis's afterlife, which are hard to see around....
One theme within the interpretation of Genesis has been the falsity of many of its interpretations...Why then should we be concerned with the biography of Genesis? If much of its afterlife in Western civilization has been false, or based on faulty premises, why not simply give it an honorable burial?"
(ibid, pp. 4, 5, 6)
In other words - the interpretive history of Genesis shows that its reading was altered away from its original sense dramatically, and is only now being once again read for what it is. This produces many amusing interpretations when one attempts to take the recent developments in Science and Reason and apply them to Genesis: the seven days of Creation are sometimes interpreted away from what the author clearly meant by them and turned into "eras" or "ages", and the "Gap Theory" is even a popular reading. Many modern believers are extremely uncomfortable with what Science and Reason has revealed about the possible validity of the plain-sense meaning of Genesis.
Which - to be fair - was realized even earlier in the history of its interpretation. The author of the Book of Jubilees did his best to try to clarify many of the problems in Genesis. Philo applied Greek Philosophy to the book in order to show that Judaism was just as intellectual and meaningful as Greek Philosophy. An interesting interpretive circle can ensue from such things. Speaking of the Flood era, consider the story of Enoch and his "dissapearrance":
And all the days of Hanokh [Enoch] were sixty-five years and three hundred years.
Now Hanokh walked in accord with God,
then he was no more,
for God had taken him. (Genesis 5:23-24, Fox), or more traditionally:
Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, etc... (JPS)
The traditional Masoretic text has the famous "Enoch walked with God" - which many people might take as a mere stroll with God. But if one reads the first translation of Genesis into Greek - the Septuagint - ones gets a different sense, for the LXX was also in the business of interpreting the Hebrew text (which may or may have not been similar to the Masoretic Text from above):
And all the days of Henoch [Enoch] amounted to three hundred sixty-five years.
And Henoch was well pleasing to God, and he was not found, because God transferred him. (Genesis 5:23-24, NETS)
In the Septuagint, he did not merely "walk with God", he "was well pleasing to God" and rather than the simple formula that "God had taken him" the Septuagint actually uses Greek Philosophical concepts to translate the act into a "transferrence" into a higher plain. Hellenism and Alexandrian ideas were already transforming the Biblical text. The New Testament author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was obviously aware of the Septuagintal tradition concerning Enoch when he wrote:
By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death;
and he was not found, because God had translated him;
for he hath had witness borne to him that before his translation he had been well-pleasing to God. (Hebrews 11:5, ASV)
The author uses Greek ideas not really found in the original Hebrew text, but arising from other traditions and translations. Even the translation by Fox I gave above most likely builds upon this tradition, rather than a mere translation of the words (as he reveals in a footnote where he notes that it means "walked in God's ways, led a righteous life"). Interpretation.
The New Testament writers were not strictly literalists in their approach to the Bible. This form of reading had long fallen out of fashion by that time. Sure, many things they took literally, but they also saw a second reality behind it all and when problems arose in the text they were willing and able to either allegorize them away or see them from a Platonist viewpoint. Modern Christian Fundamentalists have dispensed with the thousands of years of interpretations in favor of a strictly literal approach. This brings us full circle, but introduces a note of discord, for they believe that it has always been this way - that "true believers" have always read Genesis literally. The fact of the matter is that Fundamentalists have only been around for a little over a hundred years or so, as evidenced by the people who started the movement and established the "Fundamentals" that would govern the assumptions they used to read the text.
But truly, how does one cling to a literal interpretation when it has been demonstrated so compellingly that it just won't work? It seems that the vast majority of believers have fallen back upon non-literal interpretations throughout history. Sola Scriptura introduced more problems than it realized, and Luther would probably be quite shocked at how it is used today. He admitted there were mistakes in the text, but also pointed out that one must fall back upon the Authority of Scripture - a traditional assumption that also governed interpretation. He calls the creation of woman from man's rib ridiculous, but states that it must be believed because - you know, the Authority of Scripture, even if it goes against common sense.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,093,509 times
Reputation: 11862
Yes, I think it's hard to reconcile a 'literal' interpretation of Genesis with what we know from science.etc these days. It seems only those who are already confirmed in their beliefs take a lot of the science Answers in Genesis etc puts out seriously.
Something to be looked at is how the Hebrew Bible had been read and interpreted up until that point. It's not as if the 1st-Century Christians had been all reading the Bible (and by "The Bible" I mean the various books that made up the Hebrew Scriptures - whether they are the later canons of Judaism, Catholic Christianty, Eastern Orthodox Christianity or Protestant Christianity) in the same manner and fashion. The problem of reading Genesis literally had already been encountered and transformed by Hellenistic Philosophical ideas. Platonism is just one example of an approach to the Bible - envisioning a higher reality that forms the basis for the lower reality: the world as we see it. The Cave allegory, if you're familiar with it (and I'm sure you are).
I recently finished Ronald Hendel's recent and excellent book "The Book of Genesis: A Biography" (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013) and this post immediately called up the contents of the book, which consist of an examination of how Genesis has been read and interpreted up until the modern day. What I find very interesting is how we have come almost full circle in our interpretations. We have come from a literal plain-sense reading and managed to make our way through a host of allegorical, figural, apocalpytic, etc. interpretations to end up back at the plain-sense meaning, especially begining with the Reformation and Luther's call for Sola Scriptura. In the Introduction, Hendel writes
"It is important to make a careful distinction within the life of Genesis. This concerns the difference between the book's original meanings - those that are properties of the "plain" or grammatical sense of the ancient Hebrew words, sentences, and narratives - and its later interpretations. The latter often rely on assumptions and categories that are foreign to the world of ancient Israel. For example, interpretations that rely on Platonic philosophy or apocalyptic expectations are anachronistic when applied to Genesis, because these categories of thought were created after the book was written....
A text's afterlife inevitably affectsone's reading of it, even if one is trying to attend to its plain or native senses. How is it to read the Garden of Eden story without importing later interpretations, such as Original Sin, Eve as erotic temptress, or the snake as Satan? These are products of Genesis's afterlife, which are hard to see around....
One theme within the interpretation of Genesis has been the falsity of many of its interpretations...Why then should we be concerned with the biography of Genesis? If much of its afterlife in Western civilization has been false, or based on faulty premises, why not simply give it an honorable burial?"
(ibid, pp. 4, 5, 6)
In other words - the interpretive history of Genesis shows that its reading was altered away from its original sense dramatically, and is only now being once again read for what it is. This produces many amusing interpretations when one attempts to take the recent developments in Science and Reason and apply them to Genesis: the seven days of Creation are sometimes interpreted away from what the author clearly meant by them and turned into "eras" or "ages", and the "Gap Theory" is even a popular reading. Many modern believers are extremely uncomfortable with what Science and Reason has revealed about the possible validity of the plain-sense meaning of Genesis.
Which - to be fair - was realized even earlier in the history of its interpretation. The author of the Book of Jubilees did his best to try to clarify many of the problems in Genesis. Philo applied Greek Philosophy to the book in order to show that Judaism was just as intellectual and meaningful as Greek Philosophy. An interesting interpretive circle can ensue from such things. Speaking of the Flood era, consider the story of Enoch and his "dissapearrance":
And all the days of Hanokh [Enoch] were sixty-five years and three hundred years.
Now Hanokh walked in accord with God,
then he was no more,
for God had taken him. (Genesis 5:23-24, Fox), or more traditionally:
Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, etc... (JPS)
The traditional Masoretic text has the famous "Enoch walked with God" - which many people might take as a mere stroll with God. But if one reads the first translation of Genesis into Greek - the Septuagint - ones gets a different sense, for the LXX was also in the business of interpreting the Hebrew text (which may or may have not been similar to the Masoretic Text from above):
And all the days of Henoch [Enoch] amounted to three hundred sixty-five years.
And Henoch was well pleasing to God, and he was not found, because God transferred him. (Genesis 5:23-24, NETS)
In the Septuagint, he did not merely "walk with God", he "was well pleasing to God" and rather than the simple formula that "God had taken him" the Septuagint actually uses Greek Philosophical concepts to translate the act into a "transferrence" into a higher plain. Hellenism and Alexandrian ideas were already transforming the Biblical text. The New Testament author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was obviously aware of the Septuagintal tradition concerning Enoch when he wrote:
By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death;
and he was not found, because God had translated him;
for he hath had witness borne to him that before his translation he had been well-pleasing to God. (Hebrews 11:5, ASV)
The author uses Greek ideas not really found in the original Hebrew text, but arising from other traditions and translations. Even the translation by Fox I gave above most likely builds upon this tradition, rather than a mere translation of the words (as he reveals in a footnote where he notes that it means "walked in God's ways, led a righteous life"). Interpretation.
The New Testament writers were not strictly literalists in their approach to the Bible. This form of reading had long fallen out of fashion by that time. Sure, many things they took literally, but they also saw a second reality behind it all and when problems arose in the text they were willing and able to either allegorize them away or see them from a Platonist viewpoint. Modern Christian Fundamentalists have dispensed with the thousands of years of interpretations in favor of a strictly literal approach. This brings us full circle, but introduces a note of discord, for they believe that it has always been this way - that "true believers" have always read Genesis literally. The fact of the matter is that Fundamentalists have only been around for a little over a hundred years or so, as evidenced by the people who started the movement and established the "Fundamentals" that would govern the assumptions they used to read the text.
But truly, how does one cling to a literal interpretation when it has been demonstrated so compellingly that it just won't work? It seems that the vast majority of believers have fallen back upon non-literal interpretations throughout history. Sola Scriptura introduced more problems than it realized, and Luther would probably be quite shocked at how it is used today. He admitted there were mistakes in the text, but also pointed out that one must fall back upon the Authority of Scripture - a traditional assumption that also governed interpretation. He calls the creation of woman from man's rib ridiculous, but states that it must be believed because - you know, the Authority of Scripture, even if it goes against common sense.
Whops??!?!? Was asking about you the other day. I fell off the scene to take a break for a minute and came back did not see you, Asheville Native, Eileen Wright and a few others. Good to see you still around.
There are enough problems with the NEW Testament to make Christianity moot several times over. The fact that most of the OT is folklore is just kicking a dead horse.
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?
It's always been fascinating to me that Christians claim there are all these OT prophecies that point to Jesus as being the messiah yet Jewish scholars can't seem to see this "obviousness."
It's always been fascinating to me that Christians claim there are all these OT prophecies that point to Jesus as being the messiah yet Jewish scholars can't seem to see this "obviousness."
Because the Jews' version hasn't been edited by Christians.
Whops??!?!? Was asking about you the other day. I fell off the scene to take a break for a minute and came back did not see you, Asheville Native, Eileen Wright and a few others. Good to see you still around.
Great, informative post, by the way.
Thanks! I've been on a life-absence ha ha. Life's issues were rather pressing recently and did not afford me the time or will to participate in the forums. It's good to know that I've been missed by some, and it's proably equally assured that my absence has been enjoyed by others ha ha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein
It's always been fascinating to me that Christians claim there are all these OT prophecies that point to Jesus as being the messiah yet Jewish scholars can't seem to see this "obviousness."
My favorite is the supposed "Very First Prophecy of the Messiah in the Bible": Genesis 3:15
I put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed:
they will bruise you on the head, you will bruise them in the heel. (Fox)
It really takes an eisegesist of the most grammatically-challenged persuasion to turn that into a prophecy concerning Jesus' final triumph over the bad ol' Devil! They love to miss the plural forms and focus on the non-existant singular in an attempt to relate the two instances of "them" to those future combatants. This is yet another example of a folk etiology ("Mommy, why do snakes always bite us? They're so mean!") into a deeper theological meaning that was never intended by the original author. In fact - the entire etiological nature of the Eden Narrative has been lost to most later readers.
Through the history of interpretation there has been four assumptions governing the nature of the Bible, as illustrated by James Kugel in his work Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as it Was at the Start of the Common Era (1997, 1998 for the more scholarly and complete version) - a fantastic work that very finely shows how the Bible was interpreted over the years into all sorts of amazing things. The four assumptions are that the Bible is:
1- Cryptic
2- Relevant
3- Perfect
4- Divine
One can see how the above example falls under "Cryptic" and how four assumptions have guided much of interpretation since. I guess I don't need to say that starting an enterprise from unproven assumptions is an effort doomed to result in errors, which Ronald Hendel explores in the book I mentioned in my other post.
Hi Heavenese,
I think that you have brought up some very legitimate points and asked some very pertinent questions. Since I am on the allegory side, would you be willing to discuss these issues with me?
Upfront, I like to say to those with whom I converse and especially when I post in a new thread that while I am a "believer" under the Christian umbrella, I have no organized Christian religion (OCR) affiliation. Whatever conclusions I have drawn, come from the text of the King James version (KJV) of the Holy Bible and were formulated without any dogma or doctrine from any one of the some 4,000 different denominations (and subsequently, their 4,000 versions of the "truth") under the Christian umbrella. I regard everything that I say as my own *opinion* and not as "truth" for anyone other than myself, and certainly not as some kind of divine knowledge revealed only to me. I'm not out to convert anyone or beat anyone over the head with the Bible until they change. Each person has a much right to his/her opinion as I do. Until the very moment that we are pronounced dead, none of us will know the "absolute truth".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
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.
I'd like to offer for your consideration that I believe it is allegorical because of the message within the story. Since allegory, by definition, is only a story - with no pretense or offering or even suggestion of truth - containing a message. Any story - true or not, real or not - can be an allegory. So, for those who promote allegory, we are saying, upfront, that we are not promoting all the stories of the book (Bible) as a completely, totally, historically, scientifically true and factual collection of stories.
We did not reach this conclusion because history and science proved the Bible wrong and we had to change course. I was seven when I began to question the "reality" of it all. I certainly wasn't questioning because I had a background in history or science.
With all due respect to all "never have believed-ers", the one part that cannot be factored in by the non-believer is the God part. It is the God part that makes the Bible allegory - not science or history. If one chooses to believe in God (which none of us can prove or disprove; so to each his own), the Bible is an information manual about God (not about science or history). If ones does not, then the book is totally worthless and should be tossed in the trash and not fretted over.
As far as the NT, I think it is allegorical, too, and maybe even more so than the OT.
I think that the reasons that the OT is the topic of conversation so much more often than the NT is because the OT has a lot more concrete stuff to haggle over - like creation, the flood, the bondage of the Hebrews in Egypt. Just about everything in the OT seems to be based on history - a history that doesn't seem to match up with other accounts of history of the era. The NT is much less historical in regard to comparing it with outside (of the Bible) sources.
If you will bear with me a bit more: As AREQUIPA noted is the opening post, this thread came from another thread, which asked whether or not the first 7 books of the Bible were folklore. Now, this thread asks, if it is folklore, does it matter? Since folklore is oral history passed from generation to generation, the possibilities for inaccuracies increase. This may well explain why the historical accounts of the Middle East don't match. Throughout the Middle East, all these peoples (like the rest of the world) had folklore as a background, because they all trace their roots back to a time before recorded history. So, the fact that all the accounts don't add up does not really surprise me. Who is to say that the Egyptians or the Romans or the Greeks had an oral history any more accurate than the Jews or vice versa. Folklore comes with caveats. Heck, history written down at the time it happened comes with caveats. That's why those of us who answered, "It doesn't matter" is because of the allegory.
Now, though I don't think this thread includes it, the question becomes, "what, if anything, is real or unreal or true or untrue?" For those of us who believe it is an allegory, it just doesn't really matter. And, we Allegory-ists have come full circle. It's the literal-ists that can never reach a point of satisfaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
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.
I think you are totally correct in your statement here. I don't think there is any way to *reason*
about science and creation. IMO, there is no reasoning to be had. However, I don't think the fault lies with science or with the Bible. I think the fault lies with the way "man" interpreted the creation story in the early days of organized religion before there was any understanding of science. Again, this story had to be folklore. I don't think there was a scribe following God around as He was creating the earth. Therefore, this story had to be passed down through many generations and then written down. Often in folklore, concepts that are hard to understand or don't make sense are given the same circumstances as the "real" world around them.
For example, we are taught by absolutely everybody that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. The people we trust the most tell us that this is so. We see it with our own two eyes everyday of the world. Yet, this is not "true" and it is not "accurate". Science tells us that the sun never moves. Earth is moving and it turns in and out of the light. Rising and setting (and moving across the sky throughout the day) is an optical illusion. It "just ain't hap'nin". Yet in the mornings when I see the first rays of light, my brain still processes it as "the sun is rising".
The actual account in Genesis chapter 1 doesn't say what organized religion teaches, IMO.
Of course, my opinion is in opposition to *everyone*, so I just let it go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
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.
I totally see where you are coming from here. Since God and a lot of history are thousands and even millions of years older than writing itself, the people God was talking to didn't write the Bible. Even the things that were written "at the time" they happened weren't turned into the Bible until many years after the fact. So, whoever assembled the Bible didn't have any first hand knowledge of anything.
I think you are right. Many Christians put more faith in those who teach the Bible. Organized Christian religion (OCR) teaches that people are too stupid to understand on their own. That they *must* believe what "church" teaches them because "church" is right and the people are too simple to figure it all out. OCR starts teaching this to tiny children and continues to teach it for their whole lives. Then OCR has all this doctrine and dogma that they toss into the mix. Then, if someone asks a question, OCR says, "you are not supposed to understand; you are just supposed to have faith and believe what the "church leaders" tell you; If you question, then you are not faithful." The church leaders go to school in their respective denominations to "learn" what to say and what to believe. It is a lot like fast food restaurant franchises. Absolutely everything comes from the corporate office and every location is just like all the others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
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.
Again, I agee with you. And again, I think this is the conditioning of OCR.
I don't know if Jesus walked on water. I can't see any reason why this account would be literal. It is an allegory, a parable. It is the message within the story and the moral of the story and what it represents that has meaning. I don't think that many people ever really think about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
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.
That's what exploration is all about. I think we should always question and explore.
Ella
Hi Heavenese,
I think that you have brought up some very legitimate points and asked some very pertinent questions. Since I am on the allegory side, would you be willing to discuss these issues with me?
Most definitely. After reading my post and the OP, it appears I was off topic. So after no one responded to what I typed up, I was going to let my post drop. Yet now I'm thrilled my post got a response. Of course again the things I'm speaking on doesn't necessarily fall under the topic of this thread. So I won't make this a long discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Parr
Upfront, I like to say to those with whom I converse and especially when I post in a new thread that while I am a "believer" under the Christian umbrella, I have no organized Christian religion (OCR) affiliation. Whatever conclusions I have drawn, come from the text of the King James version (KJV) of the Holy Bible and were formulated without any dogma or doctrine from any one of the some 4,000 different denominations (and subsequently, their 4,000 versions of the "truth") under the Christian umbrella. I regard everything that I say as my own *opinion* and not as "truth" for anyone other than myself, and certainly not as some kind of divine knowledge revealed only to me. I'm not out to convert anyone or beat anyone over the head with the Bible until they change. Each person has a much right to his/her opinion as I do. Until the very moment that we are pronounced dead, none of us will know the "absolute truth".
I to don't have a denomination. Yet I may differ from you a bit. I mentioned in other threads how Christianity have experienced close to 2,000 years of man's tradition, and we know our traditions make God's words to no effect. Not that God's words are less powerful than ours, it's just that ours is just ours. There is no power behind it. I'm interested in wanting to know more about your beliefs, so I can get a better feel for discussion. I agree we won't know everything until this age is over, yet I believe we can certainly know a lot more in this age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Parr
I'd like to offer for your consideration that I believe it is allegorical because of the message within the story. Since allegory, by definition, is only a story - with no pretense or offering or even suggestion of truth - containing a message. Any story - true or not, real or not - can be an allegory. So, for those who promote allegory, we are saying, upfront, that we are not promoting all the stories of the book (Bible) as a completely, totally, historically, scientifically true and factual collection of stories.
We did not reach this conclusion because history and science proved the Bible wrong and we had to change course. I was seven when I began to question the "reality" of it all. I certainly wasn't questioning because I had a background in history or science.
Yeah I think I went a little overboard in stating Christians don't take Genesis literally only because of science. We have a history of people not taking Genesis literally, before science became a well defined practice. Let me ask you this question, if not because of our findings in science, and as you said an allegory could be a real story or not, why don't you take Genesis literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Parr
With all due respect to all "never have believed-ers", the one part that cannot be factored in by the non-believer is the God part. It is the God part that makes the Bible allegory - not science or history. If one chooses to believe in God (which none of us can prove or disprove; so to each his own), the Bible is an information manual about God (not about science or history). If ones does not, then the book is totally worthless and should be tossed in the trash and not fretted over.
As far as the NT, I think it is allegorical, too, and maybe even more so than the OT.
I think that the reasons that the OT is the topic of conversation so much more often than the NT is because the OT has a lot more concrete stuff to haggle over - like creation, the flood, the bondage of the Hebrews in Egypt. Just about everything in the OT seems to be based on history - a history that doesn't seem to match up with other accounts of history of the era. The NT is much less historical in regard to comparing it with outside (of the Bible) sources.
I agree with you, and I'm understanding your point of view better. If allegory simply means a story that has a message, most definitely that is the Bible. I guess I also hope to show with that, it is a real allegory. Doing it with evidence, and testing. That is my dream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Parr
If you will bear with me a bit more: As AREQUIPA noted is the opening post, this thread came from another thread, which asked whether or not the first 7 books of the Bible were folklore. Now, this thread asks, if it is folklore, does it matter? Since folklore is oral history passed from generation to generation, the possibilities for inaccuracies increase. This may well explain why the historical accounts of the Middle East don't match. Throughout the Middle East, all these peoples (like the rest of the world) had folklore as a background, because they all trace their roots back to a time before recorded history. So, the fact that all the accounts don't add up does not really surprise me. Who is to say that the Egyptians or the Romans or the Greeks had an oral history any more accurate than the Jews or vice versa. Folklore comes with caveats. Heck, history written down at the time it happened comes with caveats. That's why those of us who answered, "It doesn't matter" is because of the allegory.
Now, though I don't think this thread includes it, the question becomes, "what, if anything, is real or unreal or true or untrue?" For those of us who believe it is an allegory, it just doesn't really matter. And, we Allegory-ists have come full circle. It's the literal-ists that can never reach a point of satisfaction.
I also agree with you when it comes to things like folklore and oral tradition. Yet I don't see the Bible in that way. Most importantly, if God is real, the Bible itself has something I like to call "The God Factor". That ultimately, even if the Bible was composed for instance during the Babylonian captivity, God inspired the men to write His word. He didn't just give them a feeling and they began writing stories, but that God shared with them the true account of history and all the things that happened. Now if you ask me, these Scriptures were written down and preserved well before the Babylonian captivity. Israel had a temple before the captivity, and thus should have had the Scriptures along with it. We have evidence of Israel's existence at least as far back as 1200 BC/BCE, and it wouldn't be a stretch that the Scriptures also existed then. Again according to what is written, the Exodus happened around 1450 BC/BCE or so, and it is claimed Moses oversaw/and or wrote the first five books of the Bible. So if the Scriptures existed in at least 1200 BC/BCE, and Moses would have puportedly been alive 200 years before that, it's not a stretch to say what we have today is mostly the preserved words of Moses. (Who of course spoke with God, as one speaks to his friend)
So to me, it's that "God Factor" that seperates the Bible from all the folklore and oral traditions of the day. In fact, concerning other traditions, I also believe there is some truth to them, more truth than what the world today would realize as truth. I see those traditions as trying to remember what happened in the past, with the real past being what is written in Scripture. So when the Greeks write about titans on the earth, I don't believe those writings word for word, but I do believe a titan race was on the earth at one point in history. The Bible calls them the Nephilim. So that is how I reason those things. Of course I don't ask anyone to just believe what I say or think, I need evidence to back it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Parr
I think you are totally correct in your statement here. I don't think there is any way to *reason*
about science and creation. IMO, there is no reasoning to be had. However, I don't think the fault lies with science or with the Bible. I think the fault lies with the way "man" interpreted the creation story in the early days of organized religion before there was any understanding of science. Again, this story had to be folklore. I don't think there was a scribe following God around as He was creating the earth. Therefore, this story had to be passed down through many generations and then written down. Often in folklore, concepts that are hard to understand or don't make sense are given the same circumstances as the "real" world around them.
For example, we are taught by absolutely everybody that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. The people we trust the most tell us that this is so. We see it with our own two eyes everyday of the world. Yet, this is not "true" and it is not "accurate". Science tells us that the sun never moves. Earth is moving and it turns in and out of the light. Rising and setting (and moving across the sky throughout the day) is an optical illusion. It "just ain't hap'nin". Yet in the mornings when I see the first rays of light, my brain still processes it as "the sun is rising".
I follow you here. In fact, I also agree the Bible isn't a book or books of science. Yet I argue that it is a book of history. If it is one of history, we should be able to draw science out of it. We are the same when it comes to denominations and tradition. Except I'm on the literal side of the spectrum. I wonder if that makes sense to atheists and christians around me, because usually the OCR are the literalists/fundamentalists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Parr
I totally see where you are coming from here. Since God and a lot of history are thousands and even millions of years older than writing itself, the people God was talking to didn't write the Bible. Even the things that were written "at the time" they happened weren't turned into the Bible until many years after the fact. So, whoever assembled the Bible didn't have any first hand knowledge of anything.
I think you are right. Many Christians put more faith in those who teach the Bible. Organized Christian religion (OCR) teaches that people are too stupid to understand on their own. That they *must* believe what "church" teaches them because "church" is right and the people are too simple to figure it all out. OCR starts teaching this to tiny children and continues to teach it for their whole lives. Then OCR has all this doctrine and dogma that they toss into the mix. Then, if someone asks a question, OCR says, "you are not supposed to understand; you are just supposed to have faith and believe what the "church leaders" tell you; If you question, then you are not faithful." The church leaders go to school in their respective denominations to "learn" what to say and what to believe. It is a lot like fast food restaurant franchises. Absolutely everything comes from the corporate office and every location is just like all the others.
Again I think there's good reason to believe what we have today, is mostly the writings of Moses, and that the Scriptures have history before the babylonian captivity. Also again, the "God Factor" evens everything out. That God could tell me today something Moses did, and even something Jesus did, because God was present. So even if the Scriptures were written by people who didn't know Moses, or didn't know Jesus or the apostles, it would still be true because of God. Now I could really say that about any religious text out there, but I believe I can give direct proof of what I'm saying. For instance proving there was an Exodus. So I don't want anyone to just take my words as truth by themselves. After all, that is what a lot of denominational churches do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Parr
Again, I agee with you. And again, I think this is the conditioning of OCR.
I don't know if Jesus walked on water. I can't see any reason why this account would be literal. It is an allegory, a parable. It is the message within the story and the moral of the story and what it represents that has meaning. I don't think that many people ever really think about it.
That's what exploration is all about. I think we should always question and explore.
Ella
Again I'm curious to your beliefs. Not to condemn you, but I want to know. As for my beliefs, I guess you can call me a Christian-Atheist. Meaning, if certain things aren't literal, I would throw the Bible away. I've come to find there is truth in the Bible, in that God is real and Jesus is God in the flesh. So I'm looking for the evidence to show more clearly the things written about in the Bible. Well, enough of my babbling.
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.
After reading my post and the OP, it appears I was off topic. So after no one responded to what I typed up, I was going to let my post drop. Yet now I'm thrilled my post got a response. Of course again the things I'm speaking on doesn't necessarily fall under the topic of this thread. So I won't make this a long discussion.
