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
- Login to post comments
What I have encountered is the stipulation Solomon was no more than a hilltop warlord (which is a deliberate misreading of the Finkelstein statement) leading to praise of the wise theologians ahead of their time who promoted the 20th c. form of Judaism, i.e. ignoring it was a genital mutilating ritual/taboo cult all through the Septuagint. Give them an inch and they revert to their ancient superstitions. They rationalize away the inch in order to preserve the conclusion.
Cargo cultists were brought to the US and shown the entire manufacturing and shipping process from start to finish. They were shown not an inch but the whole nine yards. They rationalized it away and preserved the cult.
As the primacy of the Septuagint gains some traction I am watching for rationalizations. In one case, a known person whom I would rather not name as I do not wish to characterize those who are not here, made the first suggestion granting Aristeas is a forgery "it means simply it was not translated all at one time." I had already addressed and was ready for it. I expect much better.
Anything to save the mythology. Ignoring the obvious that if 100 it could be any 100. As many 100s is a reasonable assumption it says nothing. When I would point out Joshua "attacked" with his 100 from east of the Jordan and that they passed through the promised land to get there. Obviously whoever wrote Joshua either did not know the Egypt story or did not know geography or did not know where this promised land was supposed to be. But get involved in debating which is correct leads only to rationalizing like the cargo cult.
When the cargo cult can rationalize away what they see with their own lying eyes one needs ask if there is a 2x4 so heavy god could not wield it to whack some sense into them.
No matter how many times I punched that 600 lb Philipino with no neck he didn't seem to notice. But the audience admired the tenacity.
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
What I am telling them is neither they nor any of the founders of their religion be it jewish or christian ever had any credible reason to assume the Old Testament is other than a translation of Greek fiction. No one at any time in all of history ever presented a claim not based upon the forgery. There has never been anything but this one forgery.
And by many examples, in fact every example in which it is or should be mentioned, that the Septuagint in any language was not taken as authoritative in any sense of the word. By these examples I head off the rationalization that everyone believed it without regard to the forged letter. If they took it seriously then we reasonably expect to see it treated and used seriously. We do not.
I show it is not a matter of degree by many examples of where it should have been used if for nothing but a supporting argument but it goes unmentioned.
I have been pushing this around the edges for over a decade. I think I have all the rationalizations cut off at the pass.
Even for Christians, when did they start taking the Septuagint seriously? The trick word in there is seriously as opposed to curious antecedent. While my interests have been prior tto the 5th c. I can't think of a single thing that takes it seriously prior to the invention of theology by Aquinas and friends. For example, baptism as a ritual with moving, aka living, water was Roman and likely centuries older. It existed in Christianity long before original sin was invented which is an example of taking an OT story seriously.
Ya know, I didn't get interested in this on a lark. I have had some of those experiences, plural intended. Priests hijack the experience. I "achieved" enlightenment and Circle of Iron is correct but there is no way to understand it without going there yourself. It is a total waste of time to go there. All you get is a few weeks of hysteridal laughter at the thought you wasted the time going there. But laughter is its own reward.
For all the universe for all time there is only one of you. Is that not enough?
As you note the enemy is in it for the money. That is something entirely different. In fact those who were in it for the following instead of for the money were killed off by those in it for the money. Followers are directly proportional to money. Laizze faire (which I never spell right) applies to both government and religion.
I could care less what idiots believe. I care what idiots do to others. I care more what organized idiots do to make others do as they do.
Poking holes results in serial rationalizations which are often mutually exclusive. If you enjoy this method find the one hole that is fundamental. Fiction is obviously fundamental.
Google it. There are hits that confirm forgery and those that ignore forgery. There are none which claim it is not a forgery. Being so safe I simply demand evidence of something to be translated into Greek. There is no such evidence. Nor is there any reason to think there might be evidence yet to be discovered.
Yet to be discovered means as with Gilgamesh. There is copious evidence it was known in ancient times. It was not discovered in modern times until 1870 or so. The ancient evidence means there was reason to suspect it existed. There is nothing remotely comparable for the Septuagint.
Going off in a huff is a common bluff. They never do. You have seen that here.
As to the huff, it gives me practice in responding to whatever the rationalization is.
And my target is the lurkers the non-participants who read only. In many quasi-studies and surveys the lurkers outnumber the participants at least 5 to 1 and as a rule of thumb 10 to 1. Not to imply people are hanging on the exchange rather that they read all the discussions and participate in only a few. I post a lot, an opinionated bastard, so my ratio of read to participate is about 3 to 1.
In any event the target audience is many times greater than the participants.
Not soon but so close I can taste it.
The key is the locals were taking up Greek style names. His son was named John Hyrcanus which is not Greek. It is the name of a Persian province on the SE Caspian sea. After conquering it Alexander set up a Greek to rule it. How does that name get into the ruling family of Judea?
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
it is fact based on what we know from writings and whatever research has been allowed in the location despite the size Jerusalem was at the time.
Due to the fact that religious friction has not allowed appropriate research in this particular location, we could go on and on and we're going to end up where we've been before with other stories... which is not enough information to settle on either side based on this particular piece of information alone.
As I've said in the past... show me a timeline that takes the place of this timeline and I'll research it. I will accept it if in fact it does take its place in history. so far this type of thing has not been brought to the table. We have come to agreement that there's little information supporting the scripture claim and no information that would take its place. I feel like it would be the same here.
See the dimensions of NBA basketball courts yourself.
k, see now we're getting somewhere.. you say small gym and I picture the local fitness center that would make a racquetball game feel cramped. NBA court is not a small gym, it's more average sized from my perspective.