OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real
Offline In discussions with Caposkia on his thread regarding his recommended book (New Atheist Crusaders) we have mutually agreed to open a discussion on the OT discussing reality versus myth for stories in the OT. My position is that the OT is largely myths and legends with little basis in reality. There may be stories that may be considered literature as Rook has suggested though it still incorporates myths and legends as well in my opinion. The intent is to examine major stories and discuss the mythical components versus the interpretations by Christians and Jews that these events were real. Caposkia has indicated in many of his posts that he agrees that some of the stories are reality based and in those areas I'm interested in understanding his reasoning or any other believer for acceptance versus others where he does not consider them to be. It may be there are a few where we may find agreement as to a story being a myth or it being real though my inclination is little more is reality based other than kingdoms existed in Palestine that were called Israel and Judah and they interacted with other nations in some fashion.
Since the basis of Christian beliefs started with creation and the fall of man we'll begin there and attempt to progress through Genesis in some sort of logical order sort of like Sunday School for those of you that went. I’m not particularly concerned about each little bit of belief in these stories but I’m more interested in the mythology aspects. We could for pages argue over original sin or free will but that isn’t even necessary in my opinion as the text discredits itself with blatant assertions and impossibilities. Instead consider for example Eve is created in one version from Adam’s rib which can be directly compared to the Sumerian goddess of the rib called Nin-ti which Ninhursag gave birth to heal the god Enki. Other comparisons can be made to the Sumerian paradise called Dilmun to the Garden of Eden as well. These stories predate the OT by thousands of years and tell the tale of the ancient Annuna gods that supposedly created the world. Visit www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/# for more information and some of the translated stories, click on corpus content by number or category.
In order for salvation through Christ from our supposed sins against the God the events of Genesis must have occurred in some fashion. If the Genesis stories are largely mythical or they are simply a parable then this basis is poorly founded and weakens the entire structure of Christian belief. Caposkia claims I error at square one because I don't acknowledge a spiritual world. I suggest that he and other followers error by accepting that which there is no detectable basis. This is done by interpreting parables and myths by the ancients to be more than inadequate understanding by unknowing people that looked for an answer to why things were in the world they observed.
In Genesis 1 is the supposed creation of the world by God. In this account illogical explanations start immediately with the description of the Earth being without form and darkness was upon it. Light is then created and explained as day and night. Next God molded his creation into better detail by creating Heaven above meaning the sky and waters on the earth. He then caused dry land to appear calling it the Earth and the waters the Seas. On this same day he created vegetation with the requirement that it bring forth after its kind by duplication through seeds. The following day he created the heavenly bodies to divide day from night and to be signs for seasons and for years. He made the great light to rule the day and the lesser light the night as well as all the stars. On the 5th day he created all the life in the seas and air with the requirement they reproduce after their own kind. The 6th day he created all the land animals including man both male and female. The gods in this case made man after their image as male and female in their own likeness. He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth.
Problems start with this account immediately. The Earth according to science is leftover material from the forming of our star, the Sun. This material would have been a glowing mass of molten material. The land in any event would emerge first before water could exist as a liquid upon it due to the extreme heat. Light would already exist in the form of the Sun which according to current science is not as old as other stars in our galaxy not to mention in the Universe. The account mentions that day and night were made but this is not so except for a local event on the planet. An object not on the Earth would have no such condition or a different form of night and day. The account further errors in claiming the Sun, Moon, and stars were all formed following the creation of the Earth. In theories of planet formulation the star is formed first and planets afterwords. In the case of the moon multiple theories occur though not one where it zapped into the Universe suddenly. The statement that the heavenly bodies were created for signs and seasons is more evidence of a legend. The other planets and stars are purposeful in ways that aid in life existing or continuing to do so on Earth. Jupiter for example is a great big vacuum cleaner sucking into its gravitational field all sorts of debris that could eradicate life on Earth. Is this then a design by the god or just part of the situation that helped to allow life to progress as it did on the Earth? The observation of specific planets or stars in specific areas of the sky is just that, an observation no more and not placed there by a god to indicate the change of seasons.
One can also see some similarity between Genesis 1 and the Egyptian creation myth Ra and the serpent, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/StudTxts/raSerpnt.html . In this myth Ra is the first on the scene and he creates all the creatures himself doing so before he made the wind or the rain. Ra does not create man but the gods he created gave birth to the people of Egypt who multiplied and flourished.
Some Jewish sects as well as Catholic belief allow for evolution to have been the method for creation of life on Earth. This however is in contradiction to Genesis in that all vegetation and animals were to reproduce only after their own kind. If this is so, then evolution is not compatible with the creation story. Simply put the life could not alter and produce different versions not after its kind. Since obvious examples exist for variation in species such as evolution even as simple as fish in caves without eyes or color versus those that are in streams outside there is obvious adaption thus discrediting this part of Genesis as myth.
The creation of man in Genesis 1 also suggests multiple gods as man was created in their likeness male and female thus following Canaanite gods such as Yahweh and his Asherah or Ba'al and Athirat that may be a reflection of an older tradition from either Egypt or Sumer. Genesis 2 on the other hand has a slightly different version from a variant I'll discuss in a later post.
I consider Genesis 1 to be a myth, legend or a parable based on all the problems discussed with basis in ancient stories from Sumer and Egypt. I leave it to Caposkia and other believers to indicate where they accept parts of Genesis 1 as reality and to indicate their reasoning if they do so.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline I'd agree that a small number of escapee slaves could have left Egypt. With such a small number the rest of the storytelling is not needed.
Several dozen to 100 people easily could have got past the border posts and made it to Palestine. Doing so in way less than 40 years.
No parting the Reed Sea or flooding out the chariots of Egypt required. Besides which, they could have walked or waded through the Reed Sea.
Moving on.
It's one thing to look at the evidences, it's another thing to inject your own possibilities. Sure, anything could happen, but we have not found an alternative story or timeline that would take the place of the Biblical story/timeline. We have agreed that it is possible that it could have happened this way.
Therefore, whether it was really had to take 40 years or not, there's nothing in history to suggest it didn't. Whetehr the parting of the Reed Sea happened or not or was even necessary, there's nothing in history to say it didn't, and there is geological evidence that it could have happened as described.
In conclusion, I can inject my own interpretation and say for sure that it did happen because the Bible says so... You can also inject your own interpretation and say that other means of escape and timing were possible.. and we're back to where we started once again.
Evidences in this case point to the Biblical claim being true be it that there is a space for it in the timeline of history and it was a possible occurance in a smaller volume. There are no evidences of an alternative occurance by any means no matter how unnecessary the alleged occurance was, so any injection of such is purely speculation and is not necessary.
- Login to post comments
Gl with that
At the time this was supposed to have occurred Egypt rules the eastern Med up to the Euphrates river. It was the New Kingdom period. It was the time Egypt ruled from "the river in Egypt to the Euphrates" which was the model for the storyteller who claimed the same land was promised to Abraham and later ruled by Solomon.
The entire story is an entertaining retelling of real history in the same way storytellers have always rehashed history for their fiction. The fact that it is historical fiction also dates it.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Alright. I am convinced that the dating was in error and that the research this person has done and published as of the past couple years is sound and legitimate. I watched the hour long presentation on the link I gave you and with the pottery information included and the detail at which he goes into on the subject, it seems quite clear.
I'll check out those links, but he argued the date discrepency can go either way and archealogists prefer other means of dating to confirm occurances. His video goes further into that. The pottery dates to the Biblical claim.
That's because we're looking for the wrong information. I've used the example that someone is trying to make me prove to them that Kangaroos exist using an apple. You yourself said "we haven't found any being that created anything...you claim the god(s) did it and have nothing physical to show that was so." You're asking for physical proof of a metaphysical occurance.
Our walk through of history is working on the physical means of proof that at least the stories of the Bible have a place in history, but this in no way even begins to scratch the surface of how God fits into the picture. Through history and historical geology, we can see evidences of occurances that are claimed to have been caused by God such as the crossing of the Jordan and the Reed Sea through natural events. Whether that was an actual act of God or whether people just happened to be at the right place at the right time every time, well it's a subjective interpretation through history alone.
To actually research the God, we would have to look at more recent activity and events and analize them.
Though I am enjoying our historical walk through and learning a lot in the process. I remember way back when we started we both agreed that we're not going to convince each other of our understanding of the truth and that we were going into the historical walkthrough really just for the fun of having the discussion. With that understanding, I'm not sitting here trying to show you evidence of God, I'm trying to show you evidences in history of the stories of the Bible. If you see God working in any of that, it's an understanding you would have come to and nothing I tried to convince you of.
We've both agreed that through history there's some stuff we can understand and know and there's some stuff we just can't know from researching history alone. The unknowns in any way do not discredit God, nor do they prove him. They're just gaps in the historical records that we may or may not eventually find through more digging and research. Simple as that.
Ignorance of reasoning does not prove or disprove a god's involvement. People still use the excuse of ignorance today for those who believe in God, but unfortuately for those who claim that, there are some very intelligent and involved minds who believe in God. That case against God has sunk in the depths long ago.
It is going off track... your conclusion is also subjective...e.g. nothing I can show or prove. proof is subjective and showing anything and what you conclude from that is also subjective. Evidences are undeniable. we need to stick to our focus. We already know we're not working on convincing each other through this particular study. right?