E Vs C. Really now???

[shunyadragon]

That's too broad a stroke for my blood. No doubt much of it was taken as literal history but not necessarily all of it. Maimonides, for example, felt that the first dozen or so "chapters" in Genesis should not be taken as literal history as parts may well be allegorical.

Maimonides is quite late in the historical perspective from when Genesis and Exodus. Well ah . . . up to 40% of the Christians disagree with you concerning this later-day jerry-rigged interpretation. Evidence indicates that all ancient cultures pretty much believed what they wrote as history and religious beliefs. The authors of the NT wrote in literal terms that they believed in Adam and Eve myth and Noah and the Flood. For example, the Egyptians believed what they wrote of their history and Gods as recorded in their temples.

My comments dealt with the creation accounts as likely being allegorical by original intent, and probably much the same holds true of the Flood narratives. Since there were references in other books that deal with them as being actual history, that could have developed later in Torah.

This is unfounded speculation that the original authors believed they were allegorical and not literal. It was not until the 18th and 19th centuries that there was any significant disagreement that the accounts were not in some way literal. Even pretty much all the Church Fathers including Saint Augustine considered Genesis and Exodus in some way literal, but allowed for a greater age than the literal interpretation.

Anthropological Studies of Primitive Cultures that exist today demonstrate that they believe in their oral and written Creation myths. Evidence indicates that the Gilgamesh literature began as oral history handed down before it was in written form. The Hebrew Creation myths and flood mythology evolved from these earlier written and oral traditions. Actually, the Flood myth likely evolved from an older oral story of a documented and dated catastrophic flood of the Tigris Euphrates valley by geologic evidence. At the time it was obvious to those affected the flood was a world flood from their perspective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

According to what I understand about evolution, everything dies. Right?

Everything dies, regardless of evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe you like your ancestors being fish better?

When it comes to what the facts are, what is better "liked" or not is completely irrelevant.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How? The universe is god. What else comes close to this awesomeness? Nothing!

Lionel Messi, obviously.

Duh.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No evidence? Hahaha look around!

//looks around

Nope, I don't see any evidence of any god or gods.
Anything in particular you had in mind?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see a bit more. Actually I see a lot more.

It seems that what you are seeing is reality with a layer of imagination super-imposed on it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And more back?

One cellular eukaryotes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah and then they morphed into male and female and got married.

Your ignorant-based reductio ad absurdum is not a valid argument

 

[Jimmy]

//looks around

Nope, I don't see any evidence of any god or gods.
Anything in particular you had in mind?

Nope

 

[Jimmy]

It seems that what you are seeing is reality with a layer of imagination super-imposed on it.

"
But it was just my imagination
Runnin' away with me
It was just my imagination
Runnin' away with me"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope

Owkay then.

So you were just making random meaningless comments then?
blowing hot air?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"
But it was just my imagination
Runnin' away with me
It was just my imagination
Runnin' away with me"

It's good that you realize it, I guess.

 

[metis]

This is unfounded speculation that the original authors believed they were allegorical and not literal.

Pretty much all interpretations are based at least somewhat on "speculation". I never claimed my "speculation" was somehow the only possible one, so I really don't know why you reacted this way.

Often it seems that all you want to do is to argue, and it begs the question why?

 

[shunyadragon]

Pretty much all interpretations are based at least somewhat on "speculation". I never claimed my "speculation" was somehow the only possible one, so I really don't know why you reacted this way.

Often it seems that all you want to do is to argue, and it begs the question why?

Argue? I debate. Your assertion that the primary interpretation of the authors of Genesis and Exodus as allegorical is speculation without supporting references. I have presented adequate references in the history of the scripture that overwhelming principle understanding is literal from the beginning evolving from oral traditions and stories as with the evidence all primitive creation myths and legends even present primitive cultures.

You're being too sensitive and not responding with a coherent argument with references. What academic reference can you provide that documents that the original interpretation of the authors of Genesis and Exodus intended an allegorical primary interpretation? No problem that over the millennia writings were also given allegorical interpretations as with later writings of Maimonides.

 

[metis]

Argue? I debate. Your assertion that the primary interpretation of the authors of Genesis and Exodus as allegorical is speculation without supporting references. I have presented adequate references in the history of the scripture that overwhelming principle understanding is literal from the beginning evolving from oral traditions and stories as with the evidence all primitive creation myths and legends even present primitive cultures.

You're being too sensitive and not responding with a coherent argument with references. What academic reference can you provide that documents that the original interpretation of the authors of Genesis and Exodus intended an allegorical primary interpretation? No problem that over the millennia writings were also given allegorical interpretations as with later writings of Maimonides.

What your "references" conclude is just their "speculation" as well. Maimonides also "speculated" as there's no way possible he could have objective evidence to substantiate his points.

I have a very loosey-goosey approach to my study of scripture, at least somewhat approximating Joseph Cambell's approach.

 

[shunyadragon]

First, I am a fan of Joseph Campbell, because he also believes in a more universal approach to the spiritual nature and heritage of humanity reflected in all the written and oral records of ancient humanity, which reflects my philosophy of Universalism. I believe like Joseph Campbell that the myths an legends of all cultures is their story in the context of all humanity.

There are some of the specific reasons I consider Genesis an Exodus as being literal history by the authors a the people of the Middle East. This does not negate the potential of symbolic and allegorical meaning when they were written and today.

1) The story and lineage of descendants Adam an Eve is considered the lineage of humanity and the Abrahamic prophets up through th New Testament claims of Jesus being linear descendent of Adam.

2) Genesis and Exodus has names, places, an stories of historical events some have been documented by archaeology.

3) The Noah Flood can be traced to an actual catastrophic flood of the Tigris Euphrates Valley.

The problem results that believers today claim a literal and selfish interpretation of their own religion, sect or division of religion is their own and no other. There for tribalism rules and ivies often in violence,

 

[metis]

1) The story and lineage of descendants Adam an Eve is considered the lineage of humanity and the Abrahamic prophets up through th New Testament claims of Jesus being linear descendent of Adam.

But that only goes to show that others at least came to believe as such.

2) Genesis and Exodus has names, places, an stories of historical events some have been documented by archaeology.

Some have, but that really doesn't change anything. I have never assumed that what we read was entirely or even mostly fantasy.

3) The Noah Flood can be traced to an actual catastrophic flood of the Tigris Euphrates Valley.

The Torah Flood narrative goes well beyond just that fact.

At Torah study about 15 or so years ago, we studied that narrative for about 5 sessions (1 & 1/2 hour each) using research from a biblical archaeologist. And the general synopsis from him is that it makes really little sense to take it at the literal level but appears likely to be a refuting of the earlier and more widespread Babylonian narratives.

Again, the ancient art of storytelling used by pretty much all societies to a greater or lesser extent. By chance, do you subscribe to BAR?

 

[shunyadragon]

But that only goes to show that others at least came to believe as such.

Some have, but that really doesn't change anything. I have never assumed that what we read was entirely or even mostly fantasy.

The Torah Flood narrative goes well beyond just that fact.

At Torah study about 15 or so years ago, we studied that narrative for about 5 sessions (1 & 1/2 hour each) using research from a biblical archaeologist. And the general synopsis from him is that it makes really little sense to take it at the literal level but appears likely to be a refuting of the earlier and more widespread Babylonian narratives.

Today, of course, the Bible as a whole is beyond fact, but at the time it was written it was believed as an actual history. The New Testament describes Adam and Eve and Noah's Flood as fact. Today it is academically rejected as factual history, but except for those today that unfortunately believe in one way or another that the Bible is literal factual history.

Again, the ancient art of storytelling used by pretty much all societies to a greater or lesser extent. By chance, do you subscribe to BAR?

Yes, and in the past they published some of my letters. BAR is an excellent reference to the current archaeology related to the Bible.

 

[metis]

Today, of course, the Bible as a whole is beyond fact, but at the time it was written it was believed as an actual history.

We simply cannot be sure of the authors' intent, thus only that which came to be believed by many or most. Plus, we don't know if what the authors wrote came from an oral tradition and who and where that came from.

IOW, certainty is the enemy of serious theology.

 

[shunyadragon]

We simply cannot be sure of the authors' intent, thus only that which came to be believed by many or most. Plus, we don't know if what the authors wrote came from an oral tradition and who and where that came from.

There is no absolutes concerning knowledge of what was believed by the authors of all the Bible. There is very good evidence of the evolution of the text of both the Pentateuch and the NT. Well, I believe we can beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence the authors believed what they wrote. I gave some very important key reasons and so far you have ignored them.

Actually I believe Joseph Campbell supports this that in all ancient cultures they developed their oral stories and beliefs and wrote their stories

Actually we do know Gilgamesh the earliest written record of the flood and related stories was most likely oral traditions. Also the content of the Gospels most likely originated from the evolution of a simpler Gospel with additions of handed down oral traditions.