Are Old Testament Stories Allegory or Literal History?

#128
#128
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...

LOL. And neither do you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#129
#129
knucklehead_vol said:
The comments are awesome.
Click to expand...

They were definitely funny. But among them was a really hilarious and pertinent point.

Liberals would have to give the NRA in the area of 5 billion dollars to try to control it. I wonder if the liberals would like to give the NRA at least five billion dollars to spend freely over at least five years.

Add to that that if it became known, more conservatives would join to stop the infiltration, which would add even more to its finances and political clout.
 
#132
#132
ClearwaterVol said:
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?
Click to expand...

I wanted to ask our Christians in here a question, as a follow-up on WV's remark.

If you do not believe that Jonah was in the belly of a whale for three days, do you believe that Jesus was in the grave for three days?

Matt 12:38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.”

39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Click to expand...

Apparently Jesus was saying that He would be in the grave in the same way that Jonah was in the whale. If Jonah's story was untrue, was Jesus' death and resurrection?

To the non-Christian among us:

If Christians believe that Jesus could die and rise again, why would you expect us not to believe that the same God could keep a man alive in a whale for three days?

Just a couple of questions... No big deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#133
#133
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?
Click to expand...

You're off to a bad start. Predictably, you're just crying that I want actual proof to believe something that is outrageous. Great claims should have great evidence. There is no more physical evidence or logical basis(based on how we understand whales and how we have no Hydra fossils) for Jonah surviving in a whale than there is Hercules killing the Hydra. How do we determine if either of these stories have any factual basis in the absence of evidence?

Now, please, continue your tantrum about my standards being unfair. If you can't actually argue your position, just keep trying to change mine for me. I'm sure it will work for you eventually.

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.
Click to expand...

My own standard? How about the standard of every scientist and historian, of every academic professional who is interested in historicity? Truly, I'm flattered you're giving me all the credit for deciding as a people that we actually need evidence in order to prove claims, but I can't in good faith say I'm responsible for such a radical concept.

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...

Personal incredulity? Is that what we call absence of evidence and the resistance to making logical leaps?

Caesar and Cleo sittin' in a tree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#134
#134
Orange_Crush said:
I wanted to ask our Christians in here a question, as a follow-up on WV's remark.

If you do not believe that Jonah was in the belly of a whale for three days, do you believe that Jesus was in the grave for three days?



Apparently Jesus was saying that He would be in the grave in the same way that Jonah was in the whale. If Jonah's story was untrue, was Jesus' death and resurrection?

To the non-Christian among us:

If Christians believe that Jesus could die and rise again, why would you expect us not to believe that the same God could keep a man alive in a whale for three days?

Just a couple of questions... No big deal.
Click to expand...

They're both equally unreasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#135
#135
"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#136
#136
giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#138
#138
LittleCat said:
That's the point of faith from a Christians viewpoint right? Believing in what can't be seen or that seems inherently unreasonable by human standards?
Click to expand...

Indeed. If you believe ANYTHING is possible, then there is no question of the possibility of a man living inside a whale for three days or rising from the dead. There is no question of the possibility of Caesar and Cleopatra taking a space vacation. That's faith.

There is still the question of if these events actually occurred, even if you believe they are possible. That's where we look for evidence. Faith alone is not sufficient in determining the historicity of these events.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#139
#139
MercyPercy said:
Indeed. If you believe ANYTHING is possible, then there is no question of the possibility of a man living inside a whale for three days or rising from the dead. There is no question of the possibility of Caesar and Cleopatra taking a space vacation. That's faith.

There is still the question of if these events actually occurred, even if you believe they are possible. That's where we look for evidence. Faith alone is not sufficient in determining the historicity of these events.
Click to expand...

I just think it's a difficult argument to even have. I don't think either side can give evidence to what did and didn't happen accurately. The best you can say is make logical assumptions based on present ideas, which don't necessarily translate thousands of years ago to what could or couldn't happen (or even prove either way with evidence/lack of evidence). Now with things like miraculous events, that's a total different thing when it's completely faith based and out of human concepts.
 
#140
#140
LittleCat said:
I just think it's a difficult argument to even have. I don't think either side can give evidence to what did and didn't happen accurately. The best you can say is make logical assumptions based on present ideas, which don't necessarily translate thousands of years ago to what could or couldn't happen (or even prove either way with evidence/lack of evidence). Now with things like miraculous events, that's a total different thing when it's completely faith based and out of human concepts.
Click to expand...

The OP asks if you think the old testament is literal or an allegory. If you believe it is literal on faith alone and openly admit it, that's fine. If you claim there is more substantial basis than just faith, that's where the debate starts. I don't think it's a more difficult argument to have than any other question regarding supposed historical events. What makes discussing the veracity of these historical claims different than discussing those made by any ancient text? It's normal academic pursuit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#141
#141
MercyPercy said:
You're off to a bad start. Predictably, you're just crying that I want actual proof to believe something that is outrageous. Great claims should have great evidence. There is no more physical evidence or logical basis(based on how we understand whales and how we have no Hydra fossils) for Jonah surviving in a whale than there is Hercules killing the Hydra. How do we determine if either of these stories have any factual basis in the absence of evidence?

Now, please, continue your tantrum about my standards being unfair. If you can't actually argue your position, just keep trying to change mine for me. I'm sure it will work for you eventually.



My own standard? How about the standard of every scientist and historian, of every academic professional who is interested in historicity? Truly, I'm flattered you're giving me all the credit for deciding as a people that we actually need evidence in order to prove claims, but I can't in good faith say I'm responsible for such a radical concept.



Personal incredulity? Is that what we call absence of evidence and the resistance to making logical leaps?

Caesar and Cleo sittin' in a tree.
Click to expand...

Deal with my points. Do you disagree with my logic or not?

You said that proving/disproving miraculous events is impossible. You said that you operate from the assumption of naturalism, which is un-provable by your own standard. So, your beliefs are equally as reasonable/unreasonable as those that you are criticizing.

I'm not crying, nor throwing a tantrum. I'm making a logical dissection of your argument, which you seem to be uncomfortable with. So, wiping away the diversions and double-speak, you're reply boils down to the bolded:

An argument from incredulity, and an appeal to authority.

Now, I'm not trying to prove that they happened. I'm proving that your assumption that they didn't is every bit as reasonable/unreasonable as my belief that they did, by your own standard.

PS: The authorities that you appealed to can't say whether the events occurred, only whether hey believe they did or not.
 
#142
#142
MercyPercy said:
Indeed. If you believe ANYTHING is possible, then there is no question of the possibility of a man living inside a whale for three days or rising from the dead. There is no question of the possibility of Caesar and Cleopatra taking a space vacation. That's faith.

There is still the question of if these events actually occurred, even if you believe they are possible. That's where we look for evidence. Faith alone is not sufficient in determining the historicity of these events.
Click to expand...

This thread is not about proving one way or the other. It's about what people believe. You seem to be proposing that your belief to the negative is more reasonable. I'd like to hear you make the logical case that your belief to the negative is more logically reasonable.

Thanks.
 
#143
#143
Orange_Crush said:
This thread is not about proving one way or the other. It's about what people believe. You seem to be proposing that your belief to the negative is more reasonable. I'd like to hear you make the logical case that your belief to the negative is more logically reasonable.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

He tried to walk on water and it didn't work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#146
#146
MercyPercy said:
The OP asks if you think the old testament is literal or an allegory. If you believe it is literal on faith alone and openly admit it, that's fine. If you claim there is more substantial basis than just faith, that's where the debate starts. I don't think it's a more difficult argument to have than any other question regarding supposed historical events. What makes discussing the veracity of these historical claims different than discussing those made by any ancient text? It's normal academic pursuit.
Click to expand...

We tend to be focusing on the more "outrageous" claims made, which are believed by christians through faith. Not evidence. I don't think any could give legitimate evidence that a man was swallowed by a whale for 3 days. But that's the point I suppose. That christians are supposed to believe in ideas/events that God helped happen that seem unreal in all reasonable thinking. I don't know. It's just don't see an argument, it usually turns into a bashing christians party.
 
#148
#148
Orange_Crush said:
Deal with my points. Do you disagree with my logic or not?

You said that proving/disproving miraculous events is impossible. You said that you operate from the assumption of naturalism, which is un-provable by your own standard. So, your beliefs are equally as reasonable/unreasonable as those that you are criticizing.

I'm not crying, nor throwing a tantrum. I'm making a logical dissection of your argument, which you seem to be uncomfortable with. So, wiping away the diversions and double-speak, you're reply boils down to the bolded:

An argument from incredulity, and an appeal to authority.

Now, I'm not trying to prove that they happened. I'm proving that your assumption that they didn't is every bit as reasonable/unreasonable as my belief that they did, by your own standard.

PS: The authorities that you appealed to can't say whether the events occurred, only whether hey believe they did or not.
Click to expand...


I think the disconnect in your logic is to say that both sides are equally plausible. I can prove that a human cannot live in the belly of a whale with relative ease. I cannot prove a miracle did not happen, with respect to Jonah, but even you would agree that the existence of a miracle is far less likely scenario than what is an ordinarily expected result that has the ability to be proven repeatedly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#149
#149
LittleCat said:
We tend to be focusing on the more "outrageous" claims made, which are believed by christians through faith. Not evidence. I don't think any could give legitimate evidence that a man was swallowed by a whale for 3 days. But that's the point I suppose. That christians are supposed to believe in ideas/events that God helped happen that seem unreal in all reasonable thinking. I don't know. It's just don't see an argument, it usually turns into a bashing christians party.
Click to expand...

Good post. What I was trying to point out to MP was that this discussion will always boil down to whether a person believes in God or not. By definition, if God exists, then miracles can happen. If not, and all that exists is material and natural laws, then they can't.

As MP himself pointed out, there is no present way to prove that God exists, and absolutely no way to prove that He doesn't, so logically speaking, neither belief is more/less logically reasonable to hold.
 
#150
#150
ClearwaterVol said:
I think the disconnect in your logic is to say that both sides are equally plausible. I can prove that a human cannot live in the belly of a whale with relative ease. I cannot prove a miracle did not happen, with respect to Jonah, but even you would agree that the existence of a miracle is far less likely scenario than what is an ordinarily expected result that has the ability to be proven repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Probability does not dictate possibility. I would say that if God exists, and He wants to interact with His creation, miracles should be expected, but not repeatable.

Actuality is not dependent on repeatability.

This will always come down to whether God exists. So, you'll need to make a logical argument why it is more rational to believe that God does not exist than to believe that He does.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top