Are Old Testament Stories Allegory or Literal History?

#101
#101
I don't think it is a Christian bashing thread, after all Muslims believe in the OT. I just view the OT as more of a collection of parables than anything to be taken literally. There's nothing wrong with that, but most rationally thinking adults would be skeptical of the stories presented as fact. The OT, if parables, present lessons that are applicable today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#102
#102
Man, it's gotta be tough for defenders of the literal interpretation of the old testament. Firstly, there isn't much out there to substantiate its historicity outside of its own text, which often leads to "well, how do you know it DIDN'T happen, huh?!!?" Checkmate? Secondly, not only would you have to explain all the absurd parts while attempting to maintain the appearance of a reasonable person, at the same time you're straight up admitting to worshiping a deity that you believe killed thousands of children because their society's leader was a dbag(who was actually about to let the jews go but said deity changed his mind for him so he could commit said genocide).

I think you get to be debate team captain if you can hold your own arguing that side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#103
#103
MercyPercy said:
Man, it's gotta be tough for defenders of the literal interpretation of the old testament. Firstly, there isn't much out there to substantiate its historicity outside of its own text, which often leads to "well, how do you know it DIDN'T happen, huh?!!?" Checkmate? Secondly, not only would you have to explain all the absurd parts while attempting to maintain the appearance of a reasonable person, at the same time you're straight up admitting to worshiping a deity that you believe killed thousands of children because their society's leader was a dbag(who was actually about to let the jews go but said deity changed his mind for him so he could commit said genocide).

I think you get to be debate team captain if you can hold your own arguing that side.
Click to expand...

Arguing that many of the stories in the OT are based around some sort of factual, historical event does not necessitate believing that they were actually ordered or orchestrated by God.

Also, there is discontinuty between the accounts in Scripture, which leads to the idea that there was some event, but now cloaked in a religious re-telling.

For instance, there is a major discrepancy between the number of Israelites in the Exodus and the census in Numbers. Exodus speaks of the Israelites as a "small nation" and one smaller than all the Canaanite nations. Yet, the census presents the number of Israelite men as 650,000, an incredibly large number. This is either a textual error (as the Hebrew word for thousand can also mean "troop," or fighting group of indefinite number), a gross exaggeration, or a flat-out falsehood.

Historically speaking, the Exodus would have been done by a much, much smaller number of people---perhaps anywhere from 20,000-70,000 peope. This would give greater credence to the fact that there is such a lack of archaeological evidence. Likewise, the typical dating of the Exodus may be wrong, as there is archaeological evidence for a community of Canaanite peoples in Egypt in the 1400s BCE. The destruction of the walls of Jericho also fits with that time.

The movie "Exodus: Patterns of Evidence" gives an interesting perspective on this issue and argues for an early date for the Exodus.

Now, even if a historical event such as the Exodus occured (insofar as is historically "proveable"), it does not mean that the doctrines of Judeo-Christianity are true. Even if a contingent of Semetic people escaped slavery in Egypt, it would not show that plagues occured; or, even if they did, that such was caused by the God of Abraham. That's what I mean by not historically "proveable."

The historical accounts of the Bible can be based in some factual event, yet the doctrines of the Bible can also still be false.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#104
#104
Of course legends passed down for thousands of years could, and likely would, have some real(no magic) historical basis(though likely a basis enormously removed from the tales of today). I'm not arguing against that at all. I was speaking of the literal interpretation of the old testament.
 
#106
#106
ClearwaterVol said:
Explain the factual basis for Jonah.
Click to expand...

I don't think Joe believes there might be a factual basis along the lines of someone actually being consumed by a fish and surviving, he'd probably say someone was lost at sea on a fishing trip and "miraculously" survived and everyone thought he was blessed and saved by god. And either the man made the story up himself, or, more likely, over time the story became more about god saving a devout follower from certain death; rather than the actual truth, thus it is further embellished with more grand danger that we rightfully know to be absurd but back then didn't sound so silly.

Of course, that speculation might be incorrect, and the tale was legitimately just made up by a writer to teach a godly lesson.

Tell me if I'm wrong, Joe. Either way, this really pushes the limits of what we should consider a potential factual basis, ad certainly is not congruent with the "literal" interpretation of the bible.
 
#107
#107
MercyPercy said:
Of course legends passed down for thousands of years could, and likely would, have some real(no magic) historical basis(though likely a basis enormously removed from the tales of today). I'm not arguing against that at all. I was speaking of the literal interpretation of the old testament.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you are also assuming that there is no supernatural occurrences in these legends. I am skeptical of the miraculous events of the Bible, but I do not rule them out categorically, else my skepticism would be no different than the blind faith of fundamentalism. Do I think real miracles unlikely? Yes. Do I simply pre-suppose they are impossible? No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#109
#109
JoeKyleVol said:
Yes, but you are also assuming that there is no supernatural occurrences in these legends.

I am skeptical of the miraculous events of the Bible, but I do not rule them out categorically, else my skepticism would be no different than the blind faith of fundamentalism. Do I think real miracles unlikely? Yes. Do I simply pre-suppose they are impossible? No.
Click to expand...

I am open to evidence of such events. So far, none has been presented. This doesn't mean I'm ruling it out, it just means I'm making a logical assumption based on our current understanding of science and history. It is an assumption, you are correct, but no more of an assumption than you or me or anyone else here not believing in the supernatural escapades of Greek mythology.
 
#111
#111
MercyPercy said:
I don't think Joe believes there might be a factual basis along the lines of someone actually being consumed by a fish and surviving, he'd probably say someone was lost at sea on a fishing trip and "miraculously" survived and everyone thought he was blessed and saved by god. And either the man made the story up himself, or, more likely, over time the story became more about god saving a devout follower from certain death; rather than the actual truth, thus it is further embellished with more grand danger that we rightfully know to be absurd but back then didn't sound so silly.

Of course, that speculation might be incorrect, and the tale was legitimately just made up by a writer to teach a godly lesson.

Tell me if I'm wrong, Joe. Either way, this really pushes the limits of what we should consider a potential factual basis, ad certainly is not congruent with the "literal" interpretation of the bible.
Click to expand...

With Jonah I'm not actually concerned about the idea of a big fish swallowing a person. It's not the main point of the story. If a God exists, then He could certainly direct a large fish to swallow a person. The possibility of miracles is not the problem, but whether such miracles actually occured is the issue.

Could they have? Sure. Did they? Ehh...I hope they did, but I really doubt it.

I think it is interesting how Jonah is basically presented as a rebellious douche, which is a strange characterization of a Hebrew prophet, who are almost always presented in a virtuous mold.

Also, the people of Nineveh, an enemy of Israel, are shown to be the "good guys" of the story (aside from God). Even after the fish incident, Jonah is rather faithless and tells God he'd rather die than see Nineveh spared. Yet, in the story, God speaks caringly of Nineveh. We might expect some "love your enemies" kinda stuff today, but such is certainly strange for the Ancient Near East. The theme of God's love even for the wicked is the theme of the story, not a big fish.

The absolute weirdness of the story leads me to think there is some kernel of truth to it. Big fish? Possibly. Likely? No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#112
#112
MercyPercy said:
I don't think Joe believes there might be a factual basis along the lines of someone actually being consumed by a fish and surviving, he'd probably say someone was lost at sea on a fishing trip and "miraculously" survived and everyone thought he was blessed and saved by god. And either the man made the story up himself, or, more likely, over time the story became more about god saving a devout follower from certain death; rather than the actual truth, thus it is further embellished with more grand danger that we rightfully know to be absurd but back then didn't sound so silly.

Of course, that speculation might be incorrect, and the tale was legitimately just made up by a writer to teach a godly lesson.

Tell me if I'm wrong, Joe. Either way, this really pushes the limits of what we should consider a potential factual basis, ad certainly is not congruent with the "literal" interpretation of the bible.
Click to expand...

I thought Jonah was a prophet who told this story.
 
#113
#113
MercyPercy said:
Are they Jedi?
Click to expand...

the are both good and bad Jedi.

The bad ones still trained to be Jedi and I guess therefore had "infiltrated" the Jedi (unless they became bad afterwords). But either way, the senator had helped infiltrate


(that's my contribution to the thread)
 
#115
#115
DocVOLiday said:
the are both good and bad Jedi.

The bad ones still trained to be Jedi and I guess therefore had "infiltrated" the Jedi (unless they became bad afterwords). But either way, the senator had helped infiltrate


(that's my contribution to the thread)
Click to expand...

I guess the Masons are even more impenetrable than magic space men who can mess with your mind and shoot lightning out of their fingers. Impressive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#116
#116
JoeKyleVol said:
With Jonah I'm not actually concerned about the idea of a big fish swallowing a person. It's not the main point of the story. If a God exists, then He could certainly direct a large fish to swallow a person. The possibility of miracles is not the problem, but whether such miracles actually occured is the issue.

Could they have? Sure. Did they? Ehh...I hope they did, but I really doubt it.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what your point is, Joe. We could say "Could x have happened? Maybe. Is it likely? No." about any myth of any culture if you accept the possibility of the supernatural. So, like you said, "is it possible?" isn't even a question if you are going to disregard our naturalistic model of the universe. I'm asking, where is the evidence this is anything more than an allegory?

The response, "Is it likely? No, but it is possible," is acceptable in many questions of science. It is not a particularly relevant answer in determining the historicity of a highly improbable event where we have no way of determining its probability(testing the supernatural). "Is it likely Julius Caesar built a spaceship and traveled to Mars with Cleopatra? No. Is it possible? Sure, if I assume ANYTHING is possible."

So perhaps with that in mind, you can understand my confusion in what your argument is attempting to accomplish here.

I think it is interesting how Jonah is basically presented as a rebellious douche, which is a strange characterization of a Hebrew prophet, who are almost always presented in a virtuous mold.

Also, the people of Nineveh, an enemy of Israel, are shown to be the "good guys" of the story (aside from God). Even after the fish incident, Jonah is rather faithless and tells God he'd rather die than see Nineveh spared. Yet, in the story, God speaks caringly of Nineveh. We might expect some "love your enemies" kinda stuff today, but such is certainly strange for the Ancient Near East. The theme of God's love even for the wicked is the theme of the story, not a big fish.
Click to expand...

Interesting summary, but not sure what it has to do with determining the factual basis of the story.


The absolute weirdness of the story leads me to think there is some kernel of truth to it. Big fish? Possibly. Likely? No.
Click to expand...

Since when has "the story is so crazy it has to be true," ever been a logical inference?

Caesar and Cleopatra bumping uglies on Mars? Possibly. Likely? No.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#119
#119
Why are the stories in the OT any less plausible than a virgin birth or any of the NT miracles?

How can you believe in one and not the other if you are a good Christian?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#120
#120
MercyPercy said:
I'm not really sure what your point is, Joe. We could say "Could x have happened? Maybe. Is it likely? No." about any myth of any culture if you accept the possibility of the supernatural. So, like you said, "is it possible?" isn't even a question if you are going to disregard our naturalistic model of the universe. I'm asking, where is the evidence this is anything more than an allegory?

The response, "Is it likely? No, but it is possible," is acceptable in many questions of science. It is not a particularly relevant answer in determining the historicity of a highly improbable event where we have no way of determining its probability(testing the supernatural). "Is it likely Julius Caesar built a spaceship and traveled to Mars with Cleopatra? No. Is it possible? Sure, if I assume ANYTHING is possible."

So perhaps with that in mind, you can understand my confusion in what your argument is attempting to accomplish here.
Click to expand...

So, wait a minute... Since you believe it impossible to test whether supernatural events are possible, it's an irrational argument. But relying on your "naturalistic model of the universe" is rational, though you would also have to admit that that naturalistic model is impossible to prove?

lol

It would seem to me that, by your own standard, proving or disproving the historicity of the events as told would be pretty much impossible, which I'm sure everyone in this thread would agree with.

But you take it a bit further by first (inadvertently) laying out the argument that either belief/position is equally rational, but couching your position as more rational based, in the end, on a simple argument from personal incredulity.

You never fail to deliver, sir.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#121
#121
Orange_Crush said:
So, wait a minute... Since you believe it impossible to test whether supernatural events are possible, it's an irrational argument. But relying on your "naturalistic model of the universe" is rational, though you would also have to admit that that naturalistic model is impossible to prove?

lol

It would seem to me that, by your own standard, proving or disproving the historicity of the events as told would be pretty much impossible, which I'm sure everyone in this thread would agree with.

But you take it a bit further by first (inadvertently) laying out the argument that either belief/position is equally rational, but couching your position as more rational based, in the end, on a simple argument from personal incredulity.

You never fail to deliver, sir.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that Jonah was swallowed by a big fish or whale and lived there for 3 days?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#125
#125
ClearwaterVol said:
I really didn't like it when i wrote it. It's very loose language that can have wildly different interpretations. But I'm on a mobile and was lazy.
Click to expand...

No worries. I'm pretty sure I understood your intentions. (ETA: The distinction was more for my benefit than anyone else's.) Cheers! :)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top