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.
I believe all my Myths that I live by are just that: Myths.
God may exist "only" as a metaphor for my own higher self (super ego)
The Bibles may be just Myths and proverbs.
And that doesn't matter in the least.
My religion (Gnosticism) works for me. If I die hoping for an afterlife and it turns out to be false...how the hell (no pun intended) can I be disappointed if my consciousness is over anyway?
If living the teachings of Mythology and having a holistic system of rituals and conduct that goes with living the teachings of those Myths (i.e., a religion) works, why stop it simply because the Myths are not literally true?
In the words of the Great Joseph Campbell:
“Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.”
...and he also said something about that douche of a deity in the OT that I love. He said "Computers are like Old Testament Gods: lots or rules and no mercy."
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.
It appears that you accept at least one of the four assumptions of the ancient interpreters: that the Bible is Divine. The Word of God. Unfortunately, the Bible never claims this for itself - ever. 2 Tim. does not mean what you may think it does, in case you feel inclined to invoke that. It is also an assumption. AS for your understanding of "inspiration" it seems to be of the type in which God told the writers what to write. Again - this only happened in certain instances, for example: the Prophets. "An Oracle of Yahweh", for example, begins off these sections of purported dictation. To extrapolate from this that ALL of the Hebrew Bible is Divine and Inspired is well.... an Assumption.
As for the antiquity of the accounts, anyone who can read Biblical Hebrew can tell you that the language evolved (just like any language) and trying to say that the majority of the Torah (Pentateuch) was written by Moses is like saying that Geoffrey Chaucer wrote How To Kill A Mockingbird. The linguistic language is entirely innapropriate for the purported time of Moses. Those scholars who came to the conclusion that much of the Bible began to be compiled around the 6th Century onwards did so from well-reasoned and evidenced conclusions, using linguistic data and the evidence that the language's evolution supplies. Though we have a mention - just a mention! - that a people/group/country (still unknown from the context) existed known as Israel, this in no way can lead one to the assumption that a written history accompnied them - especially if you're insisting on oral tradition and folkloristic stories being passed down. As Spinoza demonstrated (preceded by Ibn Ezra) about 500 years ago - Moses did NOT write the entire Pentateuch - if any of it. This has been a settled issue for hundreds of years. Due to the many anachronisms, it is quite simply impossible that a man named Moses authored the Torah. Again - this relies on Jewish Tradition alone. Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible does it claim that Moses authored the entire Pentateuch, or even a large portion of it. Nowhere. And assuming that he MUST have written it since he talked to God is just using circular reasoning gathered from the Torah itself. Surely you see this?
I notice you require evidence to back your beliefs up, but unfortunately the evidence that is out there (whether you have studied it or not) is firmly against some of your assumptions at least in this area that I am addressing. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
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.
Perhaps it might be better to say that one can deduce from the books the ancient authors understanding of the world as they saw it - not actual science. The authors of Genesis definitely had an Ancient Near Eastern view of the world and the universe, and this is painfully clear from Genesis 1 (which almost directly models other ANE conceptions of reality) - they did not have some advanced, God-given understanding that would last throughout the ages. As I pointed out in an earlier post - there is a reason that the allegorizors and the figural interpreters arose: it is because the evidence of the world around them, and reason, pushed them to fall back upon such interpretations. Nobody was saying that a "day" in Genesis meant an "age" until modern Geology, by the way.
Your post has been very interesting, but I think you are laboring under some assumptions that might better be examined again. Surely, in your quest for independent thinking, you did not come to these conclusions ( the ones I discussed above) on your own. No. They have been part of Judeo-Christian tradition informing our Western view of the Bible for millenia.
Nobody was saying that a "day" in Genesis meant an "age" until modern Geology, by the way.
Long before I knew Geology existed, I was. Still am. My dad and granddad, too, said it was "an age" and long before they knew anything about Geology - if they ever did.
Reading only the text of the KJV, I read that when I was 7. The KJV uses the word "day" but the text doesn't support "day" as a 24 hour span of time. A 24 hour day, IMO, is man's interpretation, not text.
Gen 1:14-19 tells of the creation of the sun and moon. That was the 4th day. You can't have a 24 hour day without a sun.
Unless you are going to tell me, like a popular Rabbi of old, that whoever wrote it down got it all out of order. Then we are right back to man turning it all around to support what he chooses to believe.
Besides, there is that little matter of "And the evening and the morning were the (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc) day". Since when did an "evening and a morning" constitute a 24 hour day? Technically, that is only half a day.
And we are back to that "sun rises and sets" thing.
I can't explain the whole light and dark thing before "the 4th day". Before I am too quick to say that the Bible must be wrong, I will say that my understanding is not complete.
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.
You do realize that merely mentioning characters of the past does not necessarily make them real, right?
Jesus believed them to be real---and because of Adam the human race is inherently sinful, needing a Messiah to die on the cross. Not to mention we believe that Jesus is God. If he is confused about the nature of Adam and Eve, then we serve a pretty impotent God.
Quote:
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?
Read Psalm 22. It's a very interesting description of crucifixion...written about 800 years before crucifixion was created. There are many other direct prophecies relating to the Messiah's birthplace, his death, etc...etc.
Then, we have the "types" of the Messiah. Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac is a picture of the Father giving the Son as a sacrifice for our sin. Noah's Ark is an example of God saving his people through one man (Noah), being saved through water. Then, Joseph saving the nation of Israel as a type of Messiah. There are all sorts of others.
(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.
I agree. I just like to state "where I'm coming from". On this forum, there are all kinds of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
(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.
I should have been more specific. Where I draw the line is in the debate about whether God is real or not. "Is too! Is not!" does not help me in any way. But, discussion is great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
(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.
I totally agree with you here - save one small point. You came across this point before and I had wanted to address it, but we had so much to talk about that I let it get by me.
You refer to "human spiritual values" as being different than human values of right and wrong, good and bad, etc.
Where we differ here (I think) is that I believe humans have a value system because of the god-part. I don't think humans would have moral values if we didn't. Please forgive me if I misunderstood you, but it seems that you said that humans already have a moral compass and that is why God was superfluous.
IMO, the mortal flesh and the immortal spirit live within us all. We draw our values - moral, civic, social, even our laws - from the god-part.
Here's how I see it. Bear with me, please.
The mortal being is the "animal" part. The spiritual being is the moral compass part. It is the combination of the two that make us human.
The tiger in the jungle is only the "animal" part. He has physical needs and he goes about filling those needs. He wants what he wants when he wants it. If <whatever> comes into his territory, he kills it (if he can or if he wants to). Going into that kill, he feels no compassion for the other creature, he has no concern for what his act might mean in that other creature's life, etc. He walks away from that kill with no remorse, no guilt, no sense of right or wrong, and no accounting for his actions. He has no social graces, no civic-minded responsibility, and no structure of laws to define his behavior. He is a base being only concerned with "I" and the here and now.
We humans are that very same animal (well, half of our beings, anyway). We see examples of that on the Internet news daily, sadly.
The difference in us and that tiger is that "moral compass".
I believe that we have that moral compass because of the spiritual half of us. I don't think humans would have ever devised a moral compass without it being part of us to start with - just as tigers have not developed a moral compass. The god-part is what keeps the tiger-part in check. We need both parts in order to be "human" and we need to strike a balance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
(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?
Yeah, that's pretty much it. I see God coming before the human. The Bible is a book that introduces God and the god-part within us humans. It helps us to understand and to "plug into" the source of the god-part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
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.
First of all, I have not read any of these books, so I can't say for sure what they say in order to make and informed answer.
If all these books promote a higher state of being (above just being a tiger in the jungle) and encourage a moral compass, then yes, I think they are all spiritual guides. I don't think the Bible is the only book that works that way. I think all people everywhere are humans and have these same two parts and cultivating our moral compasses is important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
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?
You pesky little agnostics are always out setting bear traps! <here, you are supposed to laugh out loud>
Yes, I saw your traps coming. To borrow from Yogi Bear (the cartoon), "I'm smarter than the average bear!" I think you set your trap, but don't think you opened it up wide enough to catch me.
First, I must disagree that accepting other Holy books invalidates them all. You see, I believe there is only one God. That everyone who is reaching for a higher state of moral being is reaching out to the same God. The God of Abraham was the God of the Hebrews, but not all the Hebrews. It was just one line of people from Abraham's posterity. That left a whole lot of people that God (supposedly) created. The line of Judah was God's chosen family, but that doesn't mean he abandoned everyone else.
Some Christians argue that only the Jews and the Christians have a "real God" (I think that is shortsighted and arrogant). This is my stance. All humans are basically alike (we have the same kinds of organs, cells, etc). If God created all people, why would he not provide for them? If God "reached out to the gentiles" in the Jew's own country, why wouldn't he have reached out to everyone?" Why wouldn't God have sent messengers to different countries and why wouldn't he have sent people who were like the people they were messenger-ing to? Why wouldn't they have a Holy book that was "like them" the way the Torah is "like" the Jews. It wasn't like God could get an interview on CNN to spread the word.
I think we are basically back to "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" I think God came first and all moral compasses originate with him and that he embraces all people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
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.
No problem here. I just think one of us has put the cart before the horse. <very, very big grin>. (shut my mouth!)
Long before I knew Geology existed, I was. Still am. My dad and granddad, too, said it was "an age" and long before they knew anything about Geology - if they ever did.
Reading only the text of the KJV, I read that when I was 7. The KJV uses the word "day" but the text doesn't support "day" as a 24 hour span of time. A 24 hour day, IMO, is man's interpretation, not text.
Gen 1:14-19 tells of the creation of the sun and moon. That was the 4th day. You can't have a 24 hour day without a sun.
Unless you are going to tell me, like a popular Rabbi of old, that whoever wrote it down got it all out of order. Then we are right back to man turning it all around to support what he chooses to believe.
Besides, there is that little matter of "And the evening and the morning were the (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc) day". Since when did an "evening and a morning" constitute a 24 hour day? Technically, that is only half a day.
And we are back to that "sun rises and sets" thing.
I can't explain the whole light and dark thing before "the 4th day". Before I am too quick to say that the Bible must be wrong, I will say that my understanding is not complete.
Ella
Thanks for the kind reply - I hope I didn't come off as overly combative earlier. There are a few things in here which you might enjoy, and the question of "the light of the 1st day" might be given further illumination. The old rabbi might have been closer than he realized - but that will come later. I appreciate that you say you do not understand the light issue - Martin Luther will have something to say for you, and then later perhaps an answer will be given from some ancient interpreters.
With all due respect, it appears that the habit of re-reading the word "day" has been a slight tradition in your family that you seem to have inherited. I won't presume to guess at your age, but your grandfather certainly would have been exposed to the then-growing notions that a "day" can be compared to one of "God's days", so I find it highly unlikely that without the influence of either modern science or those ideas he would have come across that reading by himself. No - an honest and open reading of the story yields exactly what the Hebrew originally means: a literal 24 hour day. To say otherwise is an example of using one book of the Bible to misread another.
God said: Let there be Light! And there was light.
God saw the Light: that it was good.
God separated the light from the darkness.
God called the light: Day! and the darkness he called: Night!
There was setting, there was dawning: one day. (Gen. 1:3-5, Fox)
The "Day": Now, in brief without getting overly technical, the word for day is "yom" in Hebrew (the "o" is long) and its meaning has several - but not really in the sense of "era" or "long amount of time". It's meaning is derived from its normal meaning (one day) and further helped from the context. In most instances it clearly refers to a normal day. And to even hammer this point home, the Priestly author of Genesis 1-2:3a informs us that each day was marking by what normally accompanies a day: a setting and a rising, an evening and a morning - which would have been the beginning of a day (Heb. morning/ our evening) and the "break" of day (Heb. morning/ our afternoon) in the eyes of the Ancient Near Eastern Israelite writer. Notice why we even use the expression "Break of Day". Is it because the sun is "breaking" free from wherever? No - it is because it is the division, the "break", of the day right in the middle. Even our English language reflects this ancient view of what a "day" was. It was not "half a day" - it was the standard way of referring to a literal day, and even more was a very specific way of saying "hey, it was a real live day, folks". I'm sure you've heard that a Jewish "day" begins at nightfall. If not, ask any of your Jewish friends when they begin to observe their holidays - in the morning or at the beginning of night? This is a reflection of that. Another point is that the Jewish calender was a lunar calendar - not solar. The author of the Book of Jubilees pushed for a solar calendar, and this is probably what "pushed" the later rabbis into not including his book in the canon of Scripture.
The Priestly author of our Creation Story was keenly aware of time - for that was what marked many of the festivals and sacrifices that he had to attend to. The Sun and the Moon are created primarily to mark the passage of time, with light-giving coming in second.
God said:
Let there be lights in the dome of the heavens, to separate the day from the night,
that they may be for signs - for set-times, for days and years,
and let them be for lights in the dome of the heavens, to provide light upon the earth!
It was so.
God made the two great lights,
the greater light for ruling the day and the smaller light for ruling the night,
and the stars.
God placed them in the dome of the heavens
to provide light upon the earth, to rule the day and the night, to separate the light from the darkness. (Gen. 1:14-16)
More separating, more creating. The Sun and the Moon are not even given their Hebrew names - probably because these were also the names of the Sun and Moon gods and the Priestly Author was trying to avoid giving them any importance beyond their stated rule as mere markers of time and light-givers. No longer gods worthy of worship, just mere natural things. Quite the advance over previous cosmologies! But the issue of time is still there. He even ends Creation with its culmination - the celebration of the Sabbath.
God gave the seventh day his blessing, and he hallowed it,
for on it he ceased from all his work, that by creating, God had made.
These are the begettings of the heavens and the earth: their being created. (Gen. 1:2-3a)
Very Priestly concerns throughout the story, even with the act of separating the "good" from the "bad" - a reflection of the Priestly laws which enjoyed separating "ritually pure" from "ritually impure" and other categories.
"The "Day" and Reason: But knowing what we know now - a literal "day" doesn't make sense, one might say. And it didn't make sense to many ancient interpreters either - see my earlier post. I mentioned Martin Luther in a previous post - let me quote him in full concerning what he thought of the Church Fathers who allegorized the word "day". This comes courtesy of Hendel's book I mentioned previously (brand new and only $25 at any Barnes and Noble store - highly reccomended!). The Church Fathers had viewed the seven "days" as the seven stages of spiritual illumination, which Luther states is:
The result is no real contribution. What need is there of setting up a twofold knowledge? Nor does it serve any useful purpose to make Moses at the outset so mystical and allegorical. His purpose is to teach us, not about allegorical creatures and an allegorical world but about real creatures and a visible world apprehended by the senses. Therefore, as the proverb has it, he "calls a spade a spade," that is, he employs the term "day" and "evening" without allegory, just as we customarily do... If, then, we do not understand the nature of the days or have no insight into why God wanted to make use of these intervals of time, let us confess our lack of understanding rather than distort the words, contrary to their context, into a foreign meaning.
(Lectures on Genesis 1.5)
I don't always agree with Luther, but he appears to be perfectly correct in what he says here and it has much to reccomend itself. In other passages he admits that nobody in their right mind would believe such a story (the woman being created from the man's rib) unless it was so clearly stated in plain language AND backed up by the authority of Scripture. Luther read the plain sense and accepted it - even if it conflicted with what reason told him. This was a bold break from previous interpreters, and from some modern interpreters who "distort the words, contrary to their context, into a foreign reading" - as does anyone, in my honest opinion, who tries to force Genesis 1 into the context of a modern view of reality. It is what it is - and an honest approach would be to read it for what it says - not for what we would like it to say.
The Pattern of Creation in Genesis 1: I told you I would tell you something about the light existing on the 1st day, even though the sun wasn't created until the 4th day. And here it is - the very stylistic pattern that is embedded in Genesis 1. The author has 3 days of Creation which directly set the stage for the next 3 days and they actually correspond. In other words, the products of days 4-6 are directly related to 1-3 and are not possible without them. Observe this diagram and then compare the days horizontally:
-----------------------------Chaos, Water, Darkness, Earth not revealed,------------------------
...........................................the Wind/Breath of God............................................... .
Day 1: Creation of Light .............. Day 4: Creation of sun, moon, and stars
Day 2: Creation of heaven, .......... Day 5: Creation of water and sky creatures
separation of waters.
Day 3: Creation of dry land .......... Day 6: Creation of land creatures and humans
and vegetation
------------------------------Day 7: Completion. God rests.------------------------------------------
Notice the correspondences between the 3 sets of days. Day 1 has light, which is only fullfilled in day 3 by the creation of those things that use and rule using light. Day 2 has the creation of the sky and its separation, and then day 5 has the creatures that live in it created. Same thing for Day 3 in which the land becomes visible along with vegetation, in which the 6th day has the creatures who benefit from it. Day 7 is by itself - it is special and holy, the Sabbath. The Priestly Author had this structure in mind when he wrote the Account - it is no accident.
So if we ask "how can there be light when there is no sun yet" - which is a typical question of many Atheists who are trying to disprove the Biblical Account (and some Faithful who have been curious) - bear in mind that the Priestly Author knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote this down. He obviously knew that the sun gave light, but he was more interested in showing that Creation was an orderly, systematic and perfect series of events culminating in what Leibniz might have termed "the best of all possible worlds". Even the Temple is built in relationship to this pattern (or is it vise versa?) - but that's another subject. Creation had a plan and everything was in its place and God found that the majority of it was "Good". I hope you found that interesting.
But what about the light existing before the Sun?
It's not just us moderns who wondered at this dilemna. Even the ancients knew there was an issue with this passage and this resulted in several different interpretations. Perhaps the "light" was a different kind of light? Here are a few, as listed in Kugel's book The Bible as it Was (pp. 47-48):
Then you commanded that a ray of light be brought forth from your treasuries, so that your works might appear. (4 Ezra 6:40)
...the first [day], the one in which the light was born by which all things are seen together. (Aristobulus, Fragment 3)
God commanded that there should be light. And when this had come about, He considered all other matter. (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1:27)
Later, Philo - that Greek Philosopher who tried to wed Judaism and Greek Philosophy - envisioned the universe of two realites: the seen and the unseen. The Cave. He wrote that
Now that invisible light, perceptible only by mind, was created as an image of God's Word [Logos], who made its creation known. It was a light higher than the stars, the source of the starlight that can be seen. (Philo, On the Creation 31)
These various interpretations took different approaches, but all agreed that the light was special and if it was indeed the light that we know and see, then it was only later used by the Sun. Many of these interpretations would have been well-known by the time of the New Testament writers, and some had been in circulation among Jewish circles for a long time. The ancients were not satisfied with the plain-sense meaning of the text and engaged in a "re-reading" of it. It illuminates one of the "four assumptions" I mentioned previously: the Bible was Cryptic.
But any reading that - in the words of Luther - "distort(s) the words, contrary to their context, into a foreign meaning" is engaging in the assumption that the Bible is Cryptic and the plain sense can be ignored for a hidden meaning. When one engages in such readings it can go on forever. This may be fine and dandy for those who have nothing better to do, but it smothers the original author's intentions - no matter how unrealistic those intentions may have been. It is what it is.
If they are folklore rather than history, where does that leave Christian belief?.Discuss.
This sounds like the theme to someone's term paper or thesis.
The mimicking of the Examination paper idiom was deliberate.
And....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Parr
Hi Heavenese,...
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. ....
Ella
Just lifted this part because, while I am following the posting with interest, I am keeping out of it while others are doing better posts that I would.
I particularly noted this bit because it goes to the heart of the matter. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you not only didn't take the OT to be entirely reliable as a historical account but not the NT either. Suppose you didn't believe that Jesus walked on water, was born in Bethlehem, had the baptist proclaim him as the prophesied messiah, had all those chronic wrangles with the Pharisees, didn't heal anyone, didn't stage a sermon on the mount, nor a transfiguration, didn't save Simon from drowning, still the storm, find a shekel in a fish walk away from an assassination attempt by his neighbours leaving them standing like a scene from 'Heroes' and did not in fact put in an appearance after being nailed up by Pilate.
Suppose you bought my 'Pet Theory' (TM) that the gospels are the (discrepant) creations of Greek or Greek -speaking Pauline Christians. And ,in view of the last remark I quotes, maybe you do. What then?
Will it work as allegory in the same way as the OT? As a lifetime atheist I do not factor in the god -bit, but I can understand the way it is central to Christian Faith in a Bible (if not the OCR) that,in an allegorical way, tells us about God. If you believe in God, then you can find meaningful bits in the Bible O and N. T that enhance and inform your understanding, relationship and trust in God. And it doesn't matter a hoot about whether it is accurate history, garbled folk -memories or total Myth. Neither does it matter that the Gospels are discrepant, the prophecies are retrospective and the first 7 books do not stack up as believable history.
Ok so far?
P.s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Parr
Thanks.
I owe you a couple of posts. I'm getting there.
Ella
You are covering the ground already. Don't feel that you have to respond to a post simply because I posted it. Only if you feel there is a point not covered. I do not want to become a Dreaded Chore.
And a p.p.s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Parr
No, I don't think you are off topic. Since several of us answered "allegory", I think this is a valid road to travel.
Agreed. On topic and relevant.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-29-2013 at 08:47 AM..
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.
No, I don't think you are off topic. Since several of us answered "allegory", I think this is a valid road to travel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
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.
Well, my beliefs are pretty simple. I believe that the Bible is a spiritual guide to be used to bring me to a higher level of understanding about the part of my being that is of God. I am a Christian because Jesus is my pathway to God. I've always accepted the Bible as a complete, total, stand alone text that would give me all the information that I needed for my journey. Because I believe that the Bible is a story with a message (an allegory) and that the message was the spiritual instruction, I never disected the Bible the way we do in this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
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?
It is not that I don't take the Bible literally, exactly. There are things that seem "over-the-top" to me, but because I was taught to look for the message within the stories, I never fretted over it. Things like Jonah and whale seem to be a story that is only there for the message. I believe that God is capable of doing anything. If He wanted to literally put Jonah in the belly of a whale for 3 days and then have the whale spit him out alive and well, God could do that. But, for me, it just seems more out of the realm of reality than within. But, since I am looking for the message, I didn't worry over it. For me to get the message, it doesn't really matter. If it was literal, fine. If not that is fine, too. I just chalked it up to parable and allegory. Since the Bible tells us that Jesus spoke in parables, it doesn't seem all that strange to me that the OT would use parables, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
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.
Yes, allegory is just a story with a message.
There is a thread in this forum called (something like) "Are the first (5 or 7 or some many) books of the Bible folklore?" This is where Arequipa and I came from. There, he and I were talking about whether or not the flood (Noah's) was global or localized. You might want to check out that thread as there is a lot of information about history related to Middle East of that era as well as other things that might give you something you can use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
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.
Yes, I see where you are coming from here. My knowledge of history of this era is almost nil. So, I never investigated enough to get the timeline in my mind. So far, I haven't gotten it straight as to when things in the Bible happened and what history was happening in the general area around the events in the Bible. So, it is almost impossible for me to discuss history because I just don't have the background.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
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.
I just always assumed that the history was accurate. Some folks on here have some extensive backgrounds in history. There have been a number of discussions in the Folklore thread I mentioned before about how the histories don't match.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
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.
I wish you good luck. It is a big job, but you seem to be very dedicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
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.
I'll be glad to answer any questions about my beliefs. I'm certainly no expert or scholar on the Bible. I just focus on what I can learn from the Bible and from my relationship with God. I'm not sure that what I believe would be applicable to anyone else but me. I think we each have to find our own way to God and I'm not sure any two journeys are the same.
Thanks for the kind reply - I hope I didn't come off as overly combative earlier. There are a few things in here which you might enjoy, and the question of "the light of the 1st day" might be given further illumination. The old rabbi might have been closer than he realized - but that will come later. I appreciate that you say you do not understand the light issue - Martin Luther will have something to say for you, and then later perhaps an answer will be given from some ancient interpreters.
With all due respect, it appears that the habit of re-reading the word "day" has been a slight tradition in your family that you seem to have inherited. I won't presume to guess at your age, but your grandfather certainly would have been exposed to the then-growing notions that a "day" can be compared to one of "God's days", so I find it highly unlikely that without the influence of either modern science or those ideas he would have come across that reading by himself. No - an honest and open reading of the story yields exactly what the Hebrew originally means: a literal 24 hour day. To say otherwise is an example of using one book of the Bible to misread another.
God said: Let there be Light! And there was light.
God saw the Light: that it was good.
God separated the light from the darkness.
God called the light: Day! and the darkness he called: Night!
There was setting, there was dawning: one day. (Gen. 1:3-5, Fox)
The "Day": Now, in brief without getting overly technical, the word for day is "yom" in Hebrew (the "o" is long) and its meaning has several - but not really in the sense of "era" or "long amount of time". It's meaning is derived from its normal meaning (one day) and further helped from the context. In most instances it clearly refers to a normal day. And to even hammer this point home, the Priestly author of Genesis 1-2:3a informs us that each day was marking by what normally accompanies a day: a setting and a rising, an evening and a morning - which would have been the beginning of a day (Heb. morning/ our evening) and the "break" of day (Heb. morning/ our afternoon) in the eyes of the Ancient Near Eastern Israelite writer. Notice why we even use the expression "Break of Day". Is it because the sun is "breaking" free from wherever? No - it is because it is the division, the "break", of the day right in the middle. Even our English language reflects this ancient view of what a "day" was. It was not "half a day" - it was the standard way of referring to a literal day, and even more was a very specific way of saying "hey, it was a real live day, folks". I'm sure you've heard that a Jewish "day" begins at nightfall. If not, ask any of your Jewish friends when they begin to observe their holidays - in the morning or at the beginning of night? This is a reflection of that. Another point is that the Jewish calender was a lunar calendar - not solar. The author of the Book of Jubilees pushed for a solar calendar, and this is probably what "pushed" the later rabbis into not including his book in the canon of Scripture.
The Priestly author of our Creation Story was keenly aware of time - for that was what marked many of the festivals and sacrifices that he had to attend to. The Sun and the Moon are created primarily to mark the passage of time, with light-giving coming in second.
God said:
Let there be lights in the dome of the heavens, to separate the day from the night,
that they may be for signs - for set-times, for days and years,
and let them be for lights in the dome of the heavens, to provide light upon the earth!
It was so.
God made the two great lights,
the greater light for ruling the day and the smaller light for ruling the night,
and the stars.
God placed them in the dome of the heavens
to provide light upon the earth, to rule the day and the night, to separate the light from the darkness. (Gen. 1:14-16)
More separating, more creating. The Sun and the Moon are not even given their Hebrew names - probably because these were also the names of the Sun and Moon gods and the Priestly Author was trying to avoid giving them any importance beyond their stated rule as mere markers of time and light-givers. No longer gods worthy of worship, just mere natural things. Quite the advance over previous cosmologies! But the issue of time is still there. He even ends Creation with its culmination - the celebration of the Sabbath.
God gave the seventh day his blessing, and he hallowed it,
for on it he ceased from all his work, that by creating, God had made.
These are the begettings of the heavens and the earth: their being created. (Gen. 1:2-3a)
Very Priestly concerns throughout the story, even with the act of separating the "good" from the "bad" - a reflection of the Priestly laws which enjoyed separating "ritually pure" from "ritually impure" and other categories.
"The "Day" and Reason: But knowing what we know now - a literal "day" doesn't make sense, one might say. And it didn't make sense to many ancient interpreters either - see my earlier post. I mentioned Martin Luther in a previous post - let me quote him in full concerning what he thought of the Church Fathers who allegorized the word "day". This comes courtesy of Hendel's book I mentioned previously (brand new and only $25 at any Barnes and Noble store - highly reccomended!). The Church Fathers had viewed the seven "days" as the seven stages of spiritual illumination, which Luther states is:
The result is no real contribution. What need is there of setting up a twofold knowledge? Nor does it serve any useful purpose to make Moses at the outset so mystical and allegorical. His purpose is to teach us, not about allegorical creatures and an allegorical world but about real creatures and a visible world apprehended by the senses. Therefore, as the proverb has it, he "calls a spade a spade," that is, he employs the term "day" and "evening" without allegory, just as we customarily do... If, then, we do not understand the nature of the days or have no insight into why God wanted to make use of these intervals of time, let us confess our lack of understanding rather than distort the words, contrary to their context, into a foreign meaning.
(Lectures on Genesis 1.5)
I don't always agree with Luther, but he appears to be perfectly correct in what he says here and it has much to reccomend itself. In other passages he admits that nobody in their right mind would believe such a story (the woman being created from the man's rib) unless it was so clearly stated in plain language AND backed up by the authority of Scripture. Luther read the plain sense and accepted it - even if it conflicted with what reason told him. This was a bold break from previous interpreters, and from some modern interpreters who "distort the words, contrary to their context, into a foreign reading" - as does anyone, in my honest opinion, who tries to force Genesis 1 into the context of a modern view of reality. It is what it is - and an honest approach would be to read it for what it says - not for what we would like it to say.
The Pattern of Creation in Genesis 1: I told you I would tell you something about the light existing on the 1st day, even though the sun wasn't created until the 4th day. And here it is - the very stylistic pattern that is embedded in Genesis 1. The author has 3 days of Creation which directly set the stage for the next 3 days and they actually correspond. In other words, the products of days 4-6 are directly related to 1-3 and are not possible without them. Observe this diagram and then compare the days horizontally:
-----------------------------Chaos, Water, Darkness, Earth not revealed,------------------------
...........................................the Wind/Breath of God............................................... .
Day 1: Creation of Light .............. Day 4: Creation of sun, moon, and stars
Day 2: Creation of heaven, .......... Day 5: Creation of water and sky creatures
separation of waters.
Day 3: Creation of dry land .......... Day 6: Creation of land creatures and humans
and vegetation
------------------------------Day 7: Completion. God rests.------------------------------------------
Notice the correspondences between the 3 sets of days. Day 1 has light, which is only fullfilled in day 3 by the creation of those things that use and rule using light. Day 2 has the creation of the sky and its separation, and then day 5 has the creatures that live in it created. Same thing for Day 3 in which the land becomes visible along with vegetation, in which the 6th day has the creatures who benefit from it. Day 7 is by itself - it is special and holy, the Sabbath. The Priestly Author had this structure in mind when he wrote the Account - it is no accident.
So if we ask "how can there be light when there is no sun yet" - which is a typical question of many Atheists who are trying to disprove the Biblical Account (and some Faithful who have been curious) - bear in mind that the Priestly Author knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote this down. He obviously knew that the sun gave light, but he was more interested in showing that Creation was an orderly, systematic and perfect series of events culminating in what Leibniz might have termed "the best of all possible worlds". Even the Temple is built in relationship to this pattern (or is it vise versa?) - but that's another subject. Creation had a plan and everything was in its place and God found that the majority of it was "Good". I hope you found that interesting.
But what about the light existing before the Sun?
It's not just us moderns who wondered at this dilemna. Even the ancients knew there was an issue with this passage and this resulted in several different interpretations. Perhaps the "light" was a different kind of light? Here are a few, as listed in Kugel's book The Bible as it Was (pp. 47-48):
Then you commanded that a ray of light be brought forth from your treasuries, so that your works might appear. (4 Ezra 6:40)
...the first [day], the one in which the light was born by which all things are seen together. (Aristobulus, Fragment 3)
God commanded that there should be light. And when this had come about, He considered all other matter. (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1:27)
Later, Philo - that Greek Philosopher who tried to wed Judaism and Greek Philosophy - envisioned the universe of two realites: the seen and the unseen. The Cave. He wrote that
Now that invisible light, perceptible only by mind, was created as an image of God's Word [Logos], who made its creation known. It was a light higher than the stars, the source of the starlight that can be seen. (Philo, On the Creation 31)
These various interpretations took different approaches, but all agreed that the light was special and if it was indeed the light that we know and see, then it was only later used by the Sun. Many of these interpretations would have been well-known by the time of the New Testament writers, and some had been in circulation among Jewish circles for a long time. The ancients were not satisfied with the plain-sense meaning of the text and engaged in a "re-reading" of it. It illuminates one of the "four assumptions" I mentioned previously: the Bible was Cryptic.
But any reading that - in the words of Luther - "distort(s) the words, contrary to their context, into a foreign meaning" is engaging in the assumption that the Bible is Cryptic and the plain sense can be ignored for a hidden meaning. When one engages in such readings it can go on forever. This may be fine and dandy for those who have nothing better to do, but it smothers the original author's intentions - no matter how unrealistic those intentions may have been. It is what it is.
Thank you so much for taking the time to give me this information. I understand the points you are making. This is very interesting.
Since I cannot read the original scrolls in the original language, I am at a disadvantage. Without a doubt, the people you reference had much more information and knowledge than I. However, the point at which I balk like the stubborn mule that I am is where the human element appears. I am extremely familiar with the dogma and doctrine of organized Christian religion (OCR). I have seen how one man can take a book and make a totally different story out of it. Of course, of the 4,000 Christian denominations, I'm only familiar with a dozen or so. However, "man" has created 4,000 versions of the book just under the Christian umbrella.
So, with all due respect to all authors who have an opinion, it is still just an opinion. Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest. Fully indoctrinated in the Catholic doctrine and dogma, I don't know that his opinion was any more accurate than any of the others. The Priestly author also came after the fact from a point of Jewish indoctrination. Long ago, I had to decide which "man" I would follow and/or which dogma or doctrine I would follow. I chose "none of the above". I decided I could read the book for myself.
At some point, we each have to decide what information we will base our own opinions on. I decided to limit the body of information to the KJV of the Bible. It is a book, like any other book. What it says is what it says. But if I am to accept the book as the authority on God (whether this is correct or incorrect), then I must let the Bible stand on its own. Likewise, I must read it for myself and draw my own conclusions.
As to your point that my opinion runs in the family, that is true. However, I was not told this opinion. When I questioned my dad, I was told to read the creation. Verse by verse I read it and I was asked what it said. When I saw the discrepancies and inquired, I was asked to think it over and reason it out. I didn't know until well after the fact that my father and grandfather held the same opinion. With each of us, it was a matter of having a guide that had us read and evaluate what we read in order to draw a conclusion. I was seven.
As I began to learn about science in later years, the age of the earth, dinosaures, the "evolution" of man, etc. did not collide with my interpretation of creation. It fit together easily. Carl Sagan laid out the time line of the earth and it coincided with the "days" being eras instead of 24 hour days. Interestingly, Carl Sagan (Scientist and Atheist) outlined creation in the same eras as the Bible. I read Gen 1 as he lectured. It came as a total surprise to me, yet there it was. I was awed. That pretty much sealed the deal for me.
I really do appreciate the information you gave me. I am always interested in exploring the possibilities.
Ella
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.
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.
(shut my mouth!)
