Are Old Testament Stories Allegory or Literal History?

[rjd970]

I heard an interesting point from a mathematician. Of course we are told that smart folks don't believe in God, because they know God doesn't exist. But the mathematician said this: As a mathematician, you accept that the world is infinite. You have infinite numbers, Pi is infinite, the expanse of the universe is unknown but possibly infinite, there are countless things we do not know about our own planet let alone things outside our solar system, etc. So to say unequivocally that God doesn't exist is illogical. There is no way to know he does not exist, because it is impossible to fathom all of the infinite. So to take a negative position as a certainty is folly. To believe in God accepts that same principle, but the difference is the application of faith. Faith being the belief in the things we cannot see.

Interesting point, but the issue is not the certainty that God doesn't exist. Just that the evidence for his existence is lousy.

 

[Vol8188]

Mostly legend, with some accounts based on real events and people.

This. Although Christians will tell you the ones they like are real stories, the ones they don't are just allegory (Job for example).

 

[Orange_Crush]

This. Although Christians will tell you the ones they like are real stories, the ones they don't are just allegory (Job for example).

If you're going to be a painter, you should probably invest in more than broad brushes.

 

[Vol8188]

If you're going to be a painter, you should probably invest in more than broad brushes.

What's your call on Exodus?

 

[Orange_Crush]

What's your call on Exodus?

I think I've been pretty clear on here what my opinions are. The bigger questions would be:

Why you're so comfortable making such blanket statements about such a large group, and...

What does it matter to you?

For the record, if you get sideways about the book of Job, you should try the gospels sometimes. Read John 11 so that it can fuel your umbrage. It says that Jesus loved Lazarus and Laz's sisters. They sent word that he was sick and Jesus purposefully waited two days for Lazarus to die before going there. It says that Jesus did this:

1. Because He loved Lazarus.
2. For God's glory.
3. For the benefit of other people.

Why would I be cool with that and then deny the book of Job as literal due to offended sensibilities?

 

[Roustabout]

Wow, where to start. First, making a bald assertion or claim is NOT an argument. If you state that faith and logic are in conflict, then you have made an claim that DEMANDS explanation and support. In Unclear's case he listed off some miracles. The problem is that the topic of miracles is NOT is not in conflict with logic or reasoning. In fact, it is a error in reasoning to conclude such.

The Conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. This is confusing the laws of logic with the laws of nature. The laws of logic are prescriptive. They define the basic and inviolable parameters and unavoidable patterns of human thinking. On the other hand, the laws of nature are descriptive. They are a record of how the natural world normally operates. Scientific laws don’t control or explain events. They are only a generalized record of those events. The laws of logic constitute a perfect standard. The laws of nature describe actual reality. A Christian should never say miracles are "possible" in this sense.. That would be contrary to the very definition of a miracle, since a miracle by definition defies natural explanation. Of course Christians believe God can suspend the laws of nature at will because He designed them. He would not (and actually cannot) violate the laws of logic, because they are a part of His nature .
C.S. Lewis said, "If a man had no conception of a regular order in nature, then of course he could not notice departures from that order. When the disciples saw Christ walking on the water, they were frightened: they would not have been frightened unless they had known the laws of nature, and known that this was an exception."

Logic is used to determine whether one's thoughts and ideas are consistent and whether the conclusions follow from the premises. There is absolutely NOTHING that prevents a person of faith from utilizing the laws of logic. If someone is making that claim then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that to be the case. So, plain and simple, I'm not going to address such things. It is not my duty, and it's futile to try and reason with people who attack your position as garbage when it's clear they lack understanding of said position, and then in the same breath claim to be defenders of logic. The hypocrisy is blatant.

Someone asked if I had a non-religious example that speaks against homosexual practice. (Since i made a claim, the burden is on me to demonstrate this to be the case.) I provided one that shows it is a defect of human behavior. It is supported with biology, sociology, psychology, etc.. That isn't a bigotted reaction to those who deal with same-sex attraction. No more than it is bigotted to deter an alcoholic from drinking, or prohibiting a blind person from driving. Getting all emotional doesn't make it so. So, there was no refutation other than emotionalism and name calling. Facts be damned, you're a bigot. That's an amateur debate tactic.

 

[Vol8188]

I think I've been pretty clear on here what my opinions are. The bigger questions would be:

Why you're so comfortable making such blanket statements about such a large group, and...

What does it matter to you?

For the record, if you get sideways about the book of Job, you should try the gospels sometimes. Read John 11 so that it can fuel your umbrage. It says that Jesus loved Lazarus and Laz's sisters. They sent word that he was sick and Jesus purposefully waited two days for Lazarus to die before going there. It says that Jesus did this:

1. Because He loved Lazarus.
2. For God's glory.
3. For the benefit of other people.

Why would I be cool with that and then deny the book of Job as literal due to offended sensibilities?

Anyway,

Exodus: allegory or historical account?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Wow, where to start. First, making a bald assertion or claim is NOT an argument. If you state that faith and logic are in conflict, then you have made an claim that DEMANDS explanation and support. In Unclear's case he listed off some miracles. The problem is that the topic of miracles is NOT is not in conflict with logic or reasoning. In fact, it is a error in reasoning to conclude such.

The Conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. This is confusing the laws of logic with the laws of nature. The laws of logic are prescriptive. They define the basic and inviolable parameters and unavoidable patterns of human thinking. On the other hand, the laws of nature are descriptive. They are a record of how the natural world normally operates. Scientific laws don’t control or explain events. They are only a generalized record of those events. The laws of logic constitute a perfect standard. The laws of nature describe actual reality. A Christian should never say miracles are "possible" in this sense.. That would be contrary to the very definition of a miracle, since a miracle by definition defies natural explanation. Of course Christians believe God can suspend the laws of nature at will because He designed them. He would not (and actually cannot) violate the laws of logic, because they are a part of His nature .
C.S. Lewis said, "If a man had no conception of a regular order in nature, then of course he could not notice departures from that order. When the disciples saw Christ walking on the water, they were frightened: they would not have been frightened unless they had known the laws of nature, and known that this was an exception."

Logic is used to determine whether one's thoughts and ideas are consistent and whether the conclusions follow from the premises. There is absolutely NOTHING that prevents a person of faith from utilizing the laws of logic. If someone is making that claim then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that to be the case. So, plain and simple, I'm not going to address such things. It is not my duty, and it's futile to try and reason with people who attack your position as garbage when it's clear they lack understanding of said position, and then in the same breath claim to be defenders of logic. The hypocrisy is blatant.

Someone asked if I had a non-religious example that speaks against homosexual practice. (Since i made a claim, the burden is on me to demonstrate this to be the case.) I provided one that shows it is a defect of human behavior. It is supported with biology, sociology, psychology, etc.. That isn't a bigotted reaction to those who deal with same-sex attraction. No more than it is bigotted to deter an alcoholic from drinking, or prohibiting a blind person from driving. Getting all emotional doesn't make it so. So, there was no refutation other than emotionalism and name calling. Facts be damned, you're a bigot. That's an amateur debate tactic.

Cut and paste drivel.

I disagree with your starting point. Most of your argument becomes a circular mess made worse by Platinga's essay that theists love to grab hold of.

Explain to me why an all powerful God could not defy the laws of logic, but could defy the laws of nature.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Anyway,

Exodus: allegory or historical account?

I've expressed for several years right here on this site that I believe it to be historical.

So, was this just a brushing aside of your stereotypical remarks about Christians?

 

[Vol8188]

I've expressed for several years right here on this site that I believe it to be historical.

So, was this just a brushing aside of your stereotypical remarks about Christians?

And what are your thoughts on the lack of historical evidence for Jewish slavery in Egypt?

 

[Orange_Crush]

And what are your thoughts on the lack of historical evidence for Jewish slavery in Egypt?

A few. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

But nonetheless, as has been mentioned in this thread by another poster, there was a pretty good documentary (it's on Netflix, I think, but can't remember its name) that lists several lines of archaeological evidence that support the Exodus very nicely. The major reason the evidence isn't more widely interpreted as Exodus evidence is that it places the Exodus in a different Egyptian time-period than most Archaeologists tend to think that it happened.

But aside from that, would you care to revisit your stereotypical comments about Christians, or keep deflecting my original point?

 

[Vol8188]

A few. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

But nonetheless, as has been mentioned in this thread by another poster, there was a pretty good documentary (it's on Netflix, I think, but can't remember its name) that lists several lines of archaeological evidence that support the Exodus very nicely. The major reason the evidence isn't more widely interpreted as Exodus evidence is that it places the Exodus in a different Egyptian time-period than most Archaeologists tend to think that it happened.

But aside from that, would you care to revisit your stereotypical comments about Christians, or keep deflecting my original point?

Not at all. Christians do seem to pick and choose what they like from the Old Testament.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Not at all. Christians do seem to pick and choose what they like from the Old Testament.

Go ahead and double down I guess.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

A few. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

But nonetheless, as has been mentioned in this thread by another poster, there was a pretty good documentary (it's on Netflix, I think, but can't remember its name) that lists several lines of archaeological evidence that support the Exodus very nicely. The major reason the evidence isn't more widely interpreted as Exodus evidence is that it places the Exodus in a different Egyptian time-period than most Archaeologists tend to think that it happened.

But aside from that, would you care to revisit your stereotypical comments about Christians, or keep deflecting my original point?

Um, I wouldn't say nicely. The documentary pretty much picks and chooses what parts fits its theories and ignores what doesn't fit. Not to mention simply changing the time frame doesn't really fix all the major problems.

 

[Vol8188]

Go ahead and double down I guess.

Isn't that why we have 9999999999 different denominations? Based on what specific part you chose and liked the most?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Um, I wouldn't say nicely. The documentary pretty much picks and chooses what parts fits its theories and ignores what doesn't fit. Not to mention simply changing the time frame doesn't really fix all the major problems.

So, are you trying to say that lack of evidence proves evidence of lack? Or did you find an Egyptian hieroglyph that says: "The Jews were never here."?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Isn't that why we have 9999999999 different denominations? Based on what specific part you chose and liked the most?

Either you are ignorantly hyper-simplifying theology, or are purposefully building a strawman to excuse your stereotypes.

And since there aren't any churches that split over the book of Job, which was your example, I think we both know which it is.

 

[Roustabout]

Cut and paste drivel.

I disagree with your starting point. Most of your argument becomes a circular mess made worse by Platinga's essay that theists love to grab hold of.

Explain to me why an all powerful God could not defy the laws of logic, but could defy the laws of nature.

One, i haven't referenced Plantinga's essay. Plus, you'll have to be more specific on what you are referencing regarding Plantinga. I have a few of my own issues with him.
2nd, you've accused me of circular reasong. Care to provide an example?

3rd, your answer to name calling is to again name call. Brilliant.

Christian theists have a reason to view the laws of logic in the highest regard. That is, thought is goverend by an objective, and transcendent standard. I asked you several posts back to provide an objective grounding for logic from a material perspective. Still waiting. From a Thomist POV, God is logic, not merely a being that is logical. God is being/God is logic. As such God is not composed of a logical part, but his being is logic. Therefore God cannot be something He is not. That itself is fundamental to the law of logic, specifically the law of non-contradiction. To be illogical is to defy His nature (His being).

The source i refereced explained this, and your retort is to blast me for providing an explanation? That makes no sense. If you are going to ignore the explanation, then why ask the question? It's absurd.

Miracles would not be a matter of defying nature (the natural world), but transcending nature. God is NOT nature. Nature is the material world. By defintion, classical theology, views God as transcendent, immutable, immaterial and eternal. The universe is temporal, materlal, and changing. So, if we are examining this LOGICALLY, God is sovereign and has dominion over the natural world.
So, according to classical theology, logic relates to God's being. Miracles relate to God's power over His creation and is external to His being. That is why God cannot/will not defy logic but can defy (transcend) nature.

The bottom line is this. You made a claim that logic and faith are in conflict. You've yet to offer an evidence to support this claim. I've provided evidence based on the rules of logic itself to show where you are actually being illogical.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

So, are you trying to say that lack of evidence proves evidence of lack? Or did you find an Egyptian hieroglyph that says: "The Jews were never here."?

And you have the nerve to accuse someone else of building a strawman.

But you're doing a great Hovind or Bruggencate impersonation. They'd both be proud.

 

[rjd970]

So, are you trying to say that lack of evidence proves evidence of lack? Or did you find an Egyptian hieroglyph that says: "The Jews were never here."?

In all fairness, there isn't a hieroglyph that's states the pyramids were never built by aliens, yet a case is made for that with picking certain evidence and selective reasoning.

It's not about saying it could have happened because nothing states it didn't. That's an ass backwards way to come to a conclusion. Roust actually had a good point in a previous post, the onus for evidence is on those making the claim, not on those not making the claim. As far as I know nobody is claiming it didn't happen, just that the archeological evidence isn't there.

 

[Orange_Crush]

And you have the nerve to accuse someone else of building a strawman.

But you're doing a great Hovind or Bruggencate impersonation. They'd both be proud.

Feel free to clarify. (That's why there were question marks in my reply.) That's what happens in two way dialogues.

Something I've noticed about you so far in our limited contact has been that you don't really follow up and deal with peoples' points; you instead call them 'Hovind' and skulk away.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Feel free to clarify. (That's why there were question marks in my reply.) That's what happens in two way dialogues.

Something I've noticed about you so far in our limited contact has been that you don't really follow up and deal with peoples' points; you instead call them 'Hovind' and skulk away.

And I've noticed you simply twist what the person said into a point you're trying to make then celebrate that you "got them", hence why I call you "Hovind".

My comment was directed to your assertion that the documentary "explained nicely". You're the one who started saying I said things I didn't say.

Don't act like an idiot, you know exactly what you're doing.

 

[Orange_Crush]

In all fairness, there isn't a hieroglyph that's states the pyramids were never built by aliens, yet a case is made for that with picking certain evidence and selective reasoning.

OK.

It's not about saying it could have happened because nothing states it didn't. That's an ass backwards way to come to a conclusion. Roust actually had a good point in a previous post, the onus for evidence is on those making the claim, not on those not making the claim. As far as I know nobody is claiming it didn't happen, just that the archeological evidence isn't there.

And I've never said that it happened. I said that I believe that it did, because I was asked if I believed that it did. I'm having trouble understanding what the issue is.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Um, I wouldn't say nicely. The documentary pretty much picks and chooses what parts fits its theories and ignores what doesn't fit. Not to mention simply changing the time frame doesn't really fix all the major problems.

So, are you trying to say that lack of evidence proves evidence of lack? Or did you find an Egyptian hieroglyph that says: "The Jews were never here."?

And you have the nerve to accuse someone else of building a strawman.

But you're doing a great Hovind or Bruggencate impersonation. They'd both be proud.

Feel free to clarify. (That's why there were question marks in my reply.) That's what happens in two way dialogues.

Something I've noticed about you so far in our limited contact has been that you don't really follow up and deal with peoples' points; you instead call them 'Hovind' and skulk away.

And I've noticed you simply twist what the person said into a point you're trying to make then celebrate that you "got them", hence why I call you "Hovind".

My comment was directed to your assertion that the documentary "explained nicely". You're the one who started saying I said things I didn't say.

Don't act like an idiot, you know exactly what you're doing.

There's the give and take. You alluded to problems with the theory of the Exodus and I gave you an opening to list the problems. You did not. Instead you took issue with a little sarcasm.

Next... I pointedly asked you to clarify since you didn't catch or like the sarcasm. You didn't take that opportunity either.

So, do you want to expound the supposed positive problems with the Exodus, or take issue with someone being sarcastic on an anonymous internet football messageboard?

What you will not find in the above multi-quote is any celebration. I have a lot to celebrate in life. Not this. :hi:

ETA your second response, which I somehow missed in the multiquote.

 

[rjd970]

OK.



And I've never said that it happened. I said that I believe that it did, because I was asked if I believed that it did. I'm having trouble understanding what the issue is.

No issue really. You stated you believe the OT to be historical then pointed to a documentary about the Exodus. When challenged on the veracity of the evidence in the documentary the answer seemed to have been "well there is no evidence it didn't happen". Well....ok? You're right. So what.

As a side, I couldn't care less about Egyptian archeological documentaries at the moment.