OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real
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.
Be careful with the"true follower" statement, it sounds like "no true Scotsmen".
I use that term now as the most neutral way of expressing what I follow. It has become abundantly clear to me after being on this site as long as I have that the perception of a 'Christian' and what a 'Christian' is Biblically differ widely. I'm trying to express that I am not a part of Chistiandom as it is understood on this site. I have tried a few other terms including "True Christian", "Christ follower", "non-denominational Christian", etc. true follower seems to get the least amount of flack.
Obviously people are going to make assumptions about me and what I believe no matter what I tell them and that's fine. You can assume "no true Scotsman" and I will tell you why that's not the case with me. I've done it before. I also have learned that redundancy is the favored approach to discussion on this site generally speaking. Most don't like progression... obviously with the exception of a few.
I'm aware that many consider the Bible to be divinely inspired though they have but conjecture as support and evidence.
I still wonder what they're looking for? As far as divine inspiration, the only evidence presented to me so far against it is possible inaccurate dates, (all so far claiming that from what I understand have not cross-referenced them with the Hebrew) or excuse any historical congruency or happening as either ironic or just what any good fiction writer would do to make people think it was real.
If you're going to dismiss dates without cross reference and legitimate study into the languages and dismiss all historical congruency, I really don't know what to present. I've even gone into the science of some of the happenings and how they've found geological events around the same time that could explain how it happened.
though because people have skimmed the words of the Bible and painted a fantasy picture in their head, no matter what evidence is presented to the lot, most will still resort back to their "happy fantasy" that they think is right.
For example, Genesis 1:12 says; "the Earth brought forth vegetation, plants...." and yet I still get people telling me that my belief says that things *popped* into existance. Illogical conclusion on their part, but because they dont' want to see it for what it is, they won't. There's nothing I can say to make them see it. This would be the biggest roadblock for me on this site. I could tell you everything in existance in reference to information on the Bible, but unless you're willing to take into consideration everything presented to you and renew your understanding with the incongruencies you're still going to believe what you want. (I use "You" in the general term and not in reference to anyone in particular) The most ironic part is those same people try to make the same claim about me regardless of how many times I tell them I'm willing to take any and all information they give me into consideration. I've even admitted when I've been wrong and have admitted to learning a lot from people on this site.
You cannot change a person, a person has to change themselves.
My question to you specifically in this case is if you're going to dismiss dates (ignoring the fact that not only are some English dates wrong in the Bible, but many are also generalized in the language, also that it was written by people who could possibly.. "mess up" and because there is such strict care in keeping the originality of the scripts have not been updated if you will in modern translation. As well as dismiss any historical congruencies because there's still "gaps" in outside historical records as far as Biblical claims is, what will you accept as evidence for divine inspiration or historocity?
As you can tell, unlike the assumption taken by most on this site, I'm actually willing to try to find something that you will accept. Most people when I ask them dont' have answer for me. I'm hoping you do. This could help us in the progression of our Genesis study as we start getting into the Moses story.
One can peruse the Bible and find inconsistency in every book not to mention outright gross errors and ignorant statements. So, one is to ignore the problems and only use the parts that fit within the framework of belief in Jesus the savior?
not in the least
Those problems depend on what you're referencing to.
Most "inconsistencies" that have been presented to me on this site have been overlooked information by the person claiming the inconsistency. There are other possibilities as to inconsistencies depending on what you're referencing to as I have presented like; discrepencies in dates between the languages or misunderstanding by the writer. People think that because the Bible is divinely inspired, it can't contain errors. That would be true if it was "divinely written" and not "divinely inspired".
Seems to be what is done by Christians when they ignore what Jews consider to be evidence found within scripture. Just saying, misconstruing things to benefit perceptions or desires in support of outlandish claims in the NT beyond that which was accepted by Judaism seems likely to be suspect to say the least.
I would agree with that statement. There's a reason why I so adimately try to express my following as NOT a part of Christiandom in general.
Not that Judaism isn't suspect as well. Obviously, I understand the scripture as something not divinely inspired but derived from legends and mythology instead. As we continue down the OT road there appear many more places where claims meet head on into historical documentation that contradict assertions made in the Bible. Of course, these problem areas can be not inspired as a way out right?
We shall takle these problem areas as they come. I am interested in what you'll bring up as far as inconsistencies go. I will do my best to explain them or I will refer to my sources.
What do you mean by "not inspired as a way out"? As I've explained the texts are divinely inspired, not divinely written, which excuses anything in the Bible from being flawless. Just so no one is seeing that as a copout, any major discrepencies I can guarantee you have been stringently studied and explained logically. Again, we'll take them as they come. Maybe I'll learn something... maybe you will.