Is it possible that the Bible involves exaggeration? (and King Solomon)

[dybmh]

If Jesus' words are taken in context with all that he said over time, than there is more precision or qualifiers in the promises or assertions that he made, therefore removing the unequivocal parameter than you are alleging to be the intent behind Jesus' words.

I'm not alleging anything other than the simple fact that the words cannot be taken literally AND you agree. If they are not to be taken literally then they are exaggerations.

The "context with all that he said" confirms it was an exaggeration when the words are "spoken" in the gospel account.

If your objection is: "He didn't mean for them to be taken literally", they are still exaggerations.

 

[Audie]

I believe in a kind of God but also believe that the Bible could include exaggeration....
e.g.
About King Solomon:
1 Kings 11:3

I mean I don't understand how there could be that many women of "royal birth".

1 Kings 3:4 - I think this could be historical:

But not sure about this: (144,000 sacrifices)
1 Kings 8:63 / 2 Chronicles 7:5

I think the following could be historical but the number is interesting:
1 Kings 10:14 / 2 Chronicles 9:13

Tough to get more exaggerated than "flood".

 

[Audie]

I note that you appear to be an excreationist. I am not sure if that means you are now a TEist or have given up Christianity entirely? Either way, i dissagree with both in any case...to me neither is worse, they are both lost to any hope of salvation because neither view affirms the gospel (ie that Christ physically died on the cross as pysical atonement for the wages of sin is death (romans 6:23).

It is theologically impossible to support the claim that Adam and Eves sin resulted only in spiritual death and therefore the creation and flood accounts are allegories. If that were true, Christ did not need to physically die for sin and he certainly would not need to physically redeem those who believe in him at the Second Coming...where we are told "those who are dead in christ will meet up together in the air with those who are alive". If He (christ) is raising the "spiritually dead", then who are those who are alive and meeting in the air...sinless? Really, that isnt biblical because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"!

ok, now that my position and bias is known...

I will answer your question in part by quoting the following:

African emperor Mansa Musa is thought to be the richest person who ever lived and his wealth was simply “indescribable” and “incomprehensible”.​

​

How could a leader from the African continent at any time in history have been the richest man to have ever lived...that seems absurd doesnt it?

Part two of my answer:

You appear to be searching for proof of God...

During COVID, i spent a great deal of time searching for historical references that give us external sources supporting the authenticity of the narrative of the Bible. I have found quite a number of them, however, one in particular is of interest...

in 1979 an archeological discovery by a 13 year old child in an old tomb yielded one of the most incredible evidences in support for the bible ever found...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketef_Hinnom_scrolls This small snippet from the book of numbers dates back to around 650B.C (the first temple period). There are others if you want to go searching for them.

The point is, whilst atheists mostly seem to scoff at the bible as being a mythical fairytale, the wealth of external support for its history are quite overwhelmingly in support of it being anything but mythical. These are real people and real events...in fact one of the most well known atheist scholars in the world who denies Jesus was God, focuses his academic career lecturing on the historicity of Christ (ie that Christ really existed along with his disciples). I find it rather incredible that an atheist spends his time proving the existence of Jesus even though he does not believe him to be God. (google Bart Erhman and i would suggest watching youtube debates between him, Dr James White and a few other Christian scholars)

Who says " mythical fairytale"?
That's kind of dismissive, disrespectful,
and really, a case of poisoning the well.

Being an atheist does not make me stupid or wrong or
thoughtless.

I've read the bible, I know what it says. And, like
you I know it's a mix of authors, times and places.

There's history, geneology, poetry, cautionary
tales, advice, etc.

From a literary pov the supernatural parts would be
called " magic realism."

SOME of what is in the Bible is accounts concerning
reap people, places, and events. Nobody disputes that.
So don't do this " mythical fairytale" stuff.

We all agree much can be confirmed by cross reference
and archaeology. Overehelmomg support, sure. No
prob.


HOWEVER - since you quite rightly introduce outside sources in support of selected portions of the Bible,
it's only right and fitting to do the same with others.

The literal 6 day creation a few k yrs ago is overwhelmingly
contradicted by far more sources than any that confirm
any bible events.

The flood, same. The supposed event is simply
incompatible with any applicable data, from physics,
archaeology, chemistry, biology, geology...

Far in excess of the data sufficient to disprove
any theory, legal, scientific, or other.

You do know that?

 

[sun rise]

If the Bible was passed down accurately I wonder why many numbers contradict each other here: (see the numbers in yellow and red)

Genealogies of Genesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As a non-Christian, I find some very positive passages in the Bible, some translation issues (see "Crossing the reed sea" research), some legends based on distorted historical events and some outright fabrications.

The positive passages? The Sermon on the Mount and similar teachings and the statement of the two greatest commandments. And also the statement "be ye perfect..." which is the goal of every real spiritual path.

For instance, ‘40’ represents ‘a long time’ in time, days, or years.

There is a yogi austerity Chilla-nashini that involves a literal 40 day practice. What is in the Bible sounds like Jesus did that practice as did others documented in that web page.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Tough to get more exaggerated than "flood".

That and the absolutely ridiculous ages people were purported to be in biblical lore.

 

[DNB]

I'm not alleging anything other than the simple fact that the words cannot be taken literally AND you agree. If they are not to be taken literally then they are exaggerations.

The "context with all that he said" confirms it was an exaggeration when the words are "spoken" in the gospel account.

If your objection is: "He didn't mean for them to be taken literally", they are still exaggerations.

I mean that he meant what he said literally, but that what he actually said requires interpretation - context taken within all that he said, confines the parameters of what can be achieved or prayed for to certain conditions.

 

[dybmh]

I mean that he meant what he said literally, but that what he actually said requires interpretation - context taken within all that he said, confines the parameters of what can be achieved or prayed for to certain conditions.

If the words are quoted they cannot be literally true.

 

[DNB]

If the words are quoted they cannot be literally true.

So, because you believe that one cannot pray for and receive, absolutely anything that they want, Jesus' promise that '...how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?' is an exaggeration?

 

[dybmh]

So, because you believe that one cannot pray for and receive, absolutely anything that they want, Jesus' promise that '...how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?' is an exaggeration?

100% It is exaggeration. Just as much as drinking Jesus' blood and eating Jesus' flesh. What you are describing is magic. The individual in the role of God and and God is serving them. This makes God into a light switch that can be turned on and off.

If you want to prove me wrong, pray as much and as hard as you can, and then provide me with my SS#. Or my mother's maiden name. Or, my son's middle name.

Any of those will do.

 

[DNB]

100% It is exaggeration. Just as much as drinking Jesus' blood and eating Jesus' flesh. What you are describing is magic. The individual in the role of God and and God is serving them. This makes God into a light switch that can be turned on and off.

If you want to prove me wrong, pray as much and as hard as you can, and then provide me with my SS#. Or my mother's maiden name. Or, my son's middle name.

Any of those will do.

Again, out of context - 'eat my flesh, and drink my blood' is patently intended as a metaphor. Outside of those who subscribe to transubstantiation, every knows that it's intended as a memorial during the breaking of bread amongst brothers.

Your comprehension of Christian doctrine is rather deficient? I don't mean to be insulting but why are these elementary principles eluding you? That is, you appear to be interpreting the TaNaKh in the same manner: - applying extremely hyper-literal hermeneutics.

 

[dybmh]

Again, out of context - 'eat my flesh, and drink my blood' is patently intended as a metaphor. Outside of those who subscribe to transubstantiation, every knows that it's intended as a memorial during the breaking of bread amongst brothers.

I didn't say it was literal, I said it WASN'T literal. Just the same as the promise for anything, and moving mountains, and cursing fig trees. All of that is not literal, therefore they are exaggerations.

Your comprehension of Christian doctrine is rather deficient?

We're not talking about doctrine, we're talking about the words that are in the gospels.

I don't mean to be insulting but why are these elementary principles eluding you?

They're not. You're trying to use "doctrine" to over-rule the words in scripture. That doesn't work.

That is, you appear to be interpreting the TaNaKh in the same manner: - applying extremely hyper-literal hermeneutics.

No, that is your opinion. The law is hyper-literal. That is precisely its context. Christians don't like this, naturally. But it's not your law anyway, so, none of that matters.

This is a very simple binary assessment. Is it literal or not. If you are saying it's literal, which is what you claimed a few posts back, then, my SS#, my mother's maiden name, and my son's middle name all should be easily accessible. They're just a prayer away. If not then, it can't be literal. And honestly, this is well known that magic is "my will be done" and prayer is "thy will be done". If those proises made by Jesus are literal that is "my will be done". That is magic. And is Jesus was a righteous Jew he would never be encouraging magic and he would absolutely know the difference.

The Lord's prayer! "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven!" That's proper.

"12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

That ^^ is not.

And honestly, when I read John, anything that begins with "Amen, Amen" I am very very skeptical of it. That's literally the begiinning of the verse, "Amen, Amen" Nope. That's a red flag right there.

 

[Audie]

Again, out of context - 'eat my flesh, and drink my blood' is patently intended as a metaphor. Outside of those who subscribe to transubstantiation, every knows that it's intended as a memorial during the breaking of bread amongst brothers.

Your comprehension of Christian doctrine is rather deficient? I don't mean to be insulting but why are these elementary principles eluding you? That is, you appear to be interpreting the TaNaKh in the same manner: - applying extremely hyper-literal hermeneutics.

American politicians' standard
line when called on something outlandish
they've said is "...out of context".

 

[Ebionite]

American politicians' standard
line when called on something outlandish
they've said is "...out of context".

In a debate setting you simply ask them to clarify the context. In my experience that's the point that they abandon the field.

 

[Soapy]

As a non-Christian, I find some very positive passages in the Bible, some translation issues (see "Crossing the reed sea" research), some legends based on distorted historical events and some outright fabrications.

The positive passages? The Sermon on the Mount and similar teachings and the statement of the two greatest commandments. And also the statement "be ye perfect..." which is the goal of every real spiritual path.

There is a yogi austerity Chilla-nashini that involves a literal 40 day practice. What is in the Bible sounds like Jesus did that practice as did others documented in that web page.

Jesus didn’t write the scriptures. Can you not understand even today we use terms like ‘A thousand years’ when we mean ‘a very long time’?

And what about, ‘I’ll be with you in a minute!’… or worse, ‘in a moment’, worse than that, ‘One moment, please!’.

How long is ‘a moment’?

“I’ll see you next month!”: In law, that has the meaning of ‘Any day in the following month’, so it could mean anything from one day to 31 days!!!

Please UNDERSTAND that the people in Jesus’ time and in the Old Testament did not have Smart Calendar Watches !! Time periods were approximate except for religious purposes, which none of the fixed numbers were reflective of i.e. Symbolic, e.g. 40, 70, 144, 1000… etc. Contrast to 1, 7, 12… note that THREE (3) is neither is neither symbolic nor a religious number!!

 

[Colt]

I believe in a kind of God but also believe that the Bible could include exaggeration....
e.g.
About King Solomon:
1 Kings 11:3

I mean I don't understand how there could be that many women of "royal birth".

1 Kings 3:4 - I think this could be historical:

But not sure about this: (144,000 sacrifices)
1 Kings 8:63 / 2 Chronicles 7:5

I think the following could be historical but the number is interesting:
1 Kings 10:14 / 2 Chronicles 9:13

Yes! The Old Testament has quite a lot of exaggeration IMOP! The purpose was to give the Israelites a sense of being special after having suffered so much. The OT books were finalized during the Babylonian captivity.

 

[DNB]

I didn't say it was literal, I said it WASN'T literal. Just the same as the promise for anything, and moving mountains, and cursing fig trees. All of that is not literal, therefore they are exaggerations.



We're not talking about doctrine, we're talking about the words that are in the gospels.



They're not. You're trying to use "doctrine" to over-rule the words in scripture. That doesn't work.



No, that is your opinion. The law is hyper-literal. That is precisely its context. Christians don't like this, naturally. But it's not your law anyway, so, none of that matters.

This is a very simple binary assessment. Is it literal or not. If you are saying it's literal, which is what you claimed a few posts back, then, my SS#, my mother's maiden name, and my son's middle name all should be easily accessible. They're just a prayer away. If not then, it can't be literal. And honestly, this is well known that magic is "my will be done" and prayer is "thy will be done". If those proises made by Jesus are literal that is "my will be done". That is magic. And is Jesus was a righteous Jew he would never be encouraging magic and he would absolutely know the difference.

The Lord's prayer! "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven!" That's proper.

"12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

That ^^ is not.

And honestly, when I read John, anything that begins with "Amen, Amen" I am very very skeptical of it. That's literally the begiinning of the verse, "Amen, Amen" Nope. That's a red flag right there.

ok, I guess there's a contextual issue, or maybe even semantics, as to why we are not seeing eye-to-eye - predominantly though, interpretation issues.

My understanding of the OP is that they were asking for deliberate exaggerations (misleading), as opposed to hyperbole, metaphors, analogies - literary conventions. And my first response was to mention the seemingly overstated numbers in the accounts of Kings/Chronicles - these are facts that are easily assessed to determine their veracity, whereas what you had brought up, again, is a matter of interpretation - was it intended to be literal?

 

[DNB]

American politicians' standard
line when called on something outlandish
they've said is "...out of context".

Is your aptitude strictly in secular studies - does philosophy, metaphysics, parabolic and abstract speech leave you oblivious?
What do you think 'born-again' means, or 'if your eye offends you, cut it out' - do you consider this literal speech? What about 'tear down the temple and I will rebuild it in three days', or 'I am the bread of life'?
Who would be so shallow to consider these sayings as meant to be understood in a literal fashion?

 

[dybmh]

My understanding of the OP is that they were asking for deliberate exaggerations (misleading), as opposed to hyperbole, metaphors, analogies - literary conventions.

Here is the example that was brought in the OP:

"I mean I don't understand how there could be that many women (700) of "royal birth"."

I don't think the question has anything to do with intention. The question is: "How can this be literally true?"

And my first response was to mention the seemingly overstated numbers in the accounts of Kings/Chronicles - these are facts that are easily assessed to determine their veracity

It is easily assessed the veracity of what is written: My SS#, My Mother's Maiden Name, My Son's Middle name. Ask for it in Jesus' name. If the Gospel of John is literally true, these should be easily attainable.

, whereas what you had brought up, again, is a matter of interpretation - was it intended to be literal?

You said:

I mean that he meant what he said literally,

So, you have answered your own question.

exaggerations (misleading), as opposed to hyperbole,

Hyperbole is exaggeration. That is what it means:

 

[Mock Turtle]

Is your aptitude strictly in secular studies - does philosophy, metaphysics, parabolic and abstract speech leave you oblivious?
What do you think 'born-again' means, or 'if your eye offends you, cut it out' - do you consider this literal speech? What about 'tear down the temple and I will rebuild it in three days', or 'I am the bread of life'?
Who would be so shallow to consider these sayings as meant to be understood in a literal fashion?

The YEC brigade perhaps.

 

[Audie]

Is your aptitude strictly in secular studies - does philosophy, metaphysics, parabolic and abstract speech leave you oblivious?
What do you think 'born-again' means, or 'if your eye offends you, cut it out' - do you consider this literal speech? What about 'tear down the temple and I will rebuild it in three days', or 'I am the bread of life'?
Who would be so shallow to consider these sayings as meant to be understood in a literal fashion?

Actually...my mom was a professor of English lit at a
college here in HK.

Of course your string of rhetorical questions are
just a try at a put down, addressing me personally
rather than content of post.

"Out of context" is a device used with about equally gay
abandon by weaseling politicians, and, those trying to
explain the bible.

As to "who is so shallow", the only semi real question,
Id say the Bible literalists / yecs seem generally immune to literary devices.
And depth.

A q for you. Do you think the "flood" really
happened?