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

[Audie]

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?"



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.



You said:



So, you have answered your own question.




Hyperbole is exaggeration. That is what it means:

View attachment 83903

Determining intent is an iffy thing.

Claims to know the intent of persons
long extinct, of a vastly different culture
and after oral tradition to an ancient written
language followed by-
I'd call all such claims to be bogus.

 

[DNB]

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"."

That's a prime example of what i am referring to, but no one, but me, brought up the option of typos, as opposed to deceitful rendering of the amounts. So, my answer to the OP is that no, there are not intended exaggerations in the Bible to offer more drama or sensationalism, but there cases of idioms, or literary devices that are patently clear to the reader that the point of the account is not in the precision of the details but of the overall magnitude of the event.

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

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.

Point being, The Book of Kings seem to have numbers that are not plausible, but I believe this to be a scribal error and neither exaggeration or hyperbole.

You said:
So, you have answered your own question.

When Jesus made promises, in my opinion, the were to be taken literally. The problem in comprehension that you and I are having is that you are not taking into account the assumed parameters of Jesus' statement.

Hyperbole is exaggeration. That is what it means:
View attachment 83903

But hyperbole is literary convention intended to be over-dramatic, and as it states 'not meant to be taken literally' - 'we ran for miles', 'it cost an arm and a leg', 'he swims like a fish'

 

[dybmh]

But hyperbole is literary convention intended to be over-dramatic - 'we ran for miles', 'it cost an arm and a leg', 'he swims like a fish'

So what? The question is one word long: "exaggeration?"

 

[DNB]

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

And your point is?

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

I asked you a simple question - your playing victim right now is simply a ploy to avoid answering the question:
Is 'gouge out your eye if it offends you' meant to be taken literally (rhetorical, I hope)?
Obviously not, or we'll all end up being a lot of paraplegics. Therefore, neither was 'eat my flesh and drink my blood' alluding to cannibalism.

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

Context is the foremost major hermeneutical principal in Biblical studies - to say that it's a scheme to distract or to avoid a difficult confrontation, is to be oblivious to the topic at hand.

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?

Yes, I'm both a young earth creationist, and one who believes that Noah's flood literally occurred (we have been through this before, Ms. Biologist.

 

[The Hammer]

Yes, I'm both a young earth creationist, and one who believes that Noah's flood literally occurred (we have been through this before, Ms. Biologist.

I'm so sorry to hear that.

 

[DNB]

So what? The question is one word long: "exaggeration?"

Not according to the example that he gave - he is questioning the reliability of the Book - you are talking about something totally different

 

[DNB]

I'm so sorry to hear that.

That I've had discussions about this topic with @Audie before?
She's actually rather nice, why would that notion upset you?

 

[The Hammer]

That I've had discussions about this topic with @Audie before?
She's actually rather nice, why would that notion upset you?

Ah, your reading comprehension fits exactly what I'd expect of a YEC.

Perfect response, bravo. I love your costume btw.

 

[Audie]

And your point is?

I asked you a simple question - your playing victim right now is simply a ploy to avoid answering the question:
Is 'gouge out your eye if it offends you' meant to be taken literally (rhetorical, I hope)?
Obviously not, or we'll all end up being a lot of paraplegics. Therefore, neither was 'eat my flesh and drink my blood' alluding to cannibalism.

Context is the foremost major hermeneutical principal in Biblical studies - to say that it's a scheme to distract or to avoid a difficult confrontation, is to be oblivious to the topic at hand.

Yes, I'm both a young earth creationist, and one who believes that Noah's flood literally occurred (we have been through this before, Ms. Biologist.

I thought you were subtle enough
to catch the idea that with a
Chinese ( tiger ) mom who taught lit
I might know a bit about literary devices.

As for "victim" you flatter yourself.
You lack the capacity for that.

As for that which has the capacity to bedazzle,
distract and deceive, a second very to- the- point
question:

Of what use are your " hermeneutical principles", if
they lead you to such an idiotic conclusion as
Yec and flood?

 

[DNB]

Ah, your reading comprehension fits exactly what I'd expect of a YEC.

Perfect response, bravo. I love your costume btw.

I try to keep my responses at the same level as the one that I'm speaking with.
Thank you for noticing.

 

[Audie]

Ah, your reading comprehension fits exactly what I'd expect of a YEC.

Perfect response, bravo. I love your costume btw.

It may be worse than you thought.

Someone read into my posts that I'm
rather a nice person???

 

[The Hammer]

I try to keep my responses at the same level as the one that I'm speaking with.
Thank you for noticing.

If you think that was my level. Your comprehension is worse than I thought. Apologies I'll leave you to your wall shadows.

 

[DNB]

I thought you were subtle enough
to catch the idea that with a
Chinese ( tiger ) mom who taught lit
I might know a bit about literary devices.

I wasn't referring to the awareness of such conventions, but how and why they are employed - the meaning behind what is encompassed within such a device.

As for "victim" you flatter yourself.
You lack the capacity for that.

Then your point was nothing more than a distraction.

Of what use are your " hermeneutical principles", if
they lead you to such an idiotic conclusion as
Yec and flood?

Well, again, if such profundity eludes you, maybe you can ask your mother for some guidance on the matter - how one recognizes what literary type a particular piece of literature is written in?

 

[Audie]

I wasn't referring to the awareness of such conventions, but how and why they are employed - the meaning behind what is encompassed within such a device.

Then your point was nothing more than a distraction.

Well, again, if such profundity eludes you, maybe you can ask your mother for some guidance on the matter - how one recognizes what literary type a particular piece of literature is written in?

Of what use are your studies and practices if
they lead you to such idiocy as believing in
Yec and flood?

 

[DNB]

Of what use are your studies and practices if
they lead you to such idiocy as believing in
Yec and flood?

We're going in circles - like I said, there are countless erudite men who believe in such principles; we are not talking about a fringe group here like flat-earthers or King-James-Onlyists. Theists are the landslide majority of the world's populace since time began.

To dismiss their convictions as juvenile fantasies, or irrational and baseless whims, is to be oblivious to the testimony at hand - a plethora of mainstream scholars accept the Bible as literal, historically accurate, and in a substantial manner, archeologically verifiable.

You do not recognize or appreciate the evidence.

 

[dybmh]

Not according to the example that he gave - he is questioning the reliability of the Book - you are talking about something totally different

If the words in the gospel are not literally true, then Jesus is not literally the son of god, nor the son of man, nor literally doing the work of the father. He's not literally the messiah, he didn't literally rise from the grave... the whole story could be "hyperbole".

 

[excreationist]

1 Kings 11:3 "He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray."

That's a prime example of what i am referring to, but no one, but me, brought up the option of typos, as opposed to deceitful rendering of the amounts. So, my answer to the OP is that no, there are not intended exaggerations in the Bible to offer more drama or sensationalism, but there cases of idioms, or literary devices that are patently clear to the reader that the point of the account is not in the precision of the details but of the overall magnitude of the event.

So what do you think the actual numbers might be? 70 wives of royal birth and 30 concubines? 7 and 3?

Yes, I'm both a young earth creationist, and one who believes that Noah's flood literally occurred (we have been through this before, Ms. Biologist.

If the 700 and 300 aren't factual and accurate what about the genealogies in Genesis that YECs use to date the earth? Maybe they are totally inaccurate in a similar way that you say about the 700 and 300...
(See the contradictions in red and yellow here)

Genealogies of Genesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Soapy]

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?

No one can pray for ‘anything they want’ and even vaguely expect to get it.

Jesus means ‘IN SINCERITY, IN JUSTIFICATION, IN PURELY HOLY NEED, IN TRUTH, IN GODLINESS… etc’

These things have no element of selfishness, no aspect of personal gain, no desire for persecuting another person or organisation, nothing unGodly..

What is left, what is then prayed for, are things that are unselfish and totally reverent prayers… these, Jesus says, will be given to you.

It’s obvious that most people will be praying for the previous category, which are totally wrong and will not be given in any godly way.

‘I pray for them, Mighty Father, that you keep them until the day of deliverance. And that in keeping in you many more will be brought to deliverance.’ (Sample prayer mixed with Jesus’ prayer. Such requests in prayers will be given’

 

[Audie]

We're going in circles - like I said, there are countless erudite men who believe in such principles; we are not talking about a fringe group here like flat-earthers or King-James-Onlyists. Theists are the landslide majority of the world's populace since time began.

To dismiss their convictions as juvenile fantasies, or irrational and baseless whims, is to be oblivious to the testimony at hand - a plethora of mainstream scholars accept the Bible as literal, historically accurate, and in a substantial manner, archeologically verifiable.

You do not recognize or appreciate the evidence.

I ask what use it is to do this study
when you get idiotic results and you
dodge like a squirrel with a hawk in pursuit.

Me, not knowing the evidence re " flood"?

Talk about projection! All relevant evidence is
against flood. And 6 day poof.

IF you are not grossly ignorant of this, then it's
something worse, total intellectual dishonesty.

Of what use are practices that lead you
there?

 

[DNB]

If the words in the gospel are not literally true, then Jesus is not literally the son of god, nor the son of man, nor literally doing the work of the father. He's not literally the messiah, he didn't literally rise from the grave... the whole story could be "hyperbole".

You're very difficult - Jesus is allowed to use figures-of-speech, allegory, hyperbole, parables or metaphors in his explanation of the Kingdom of God - it doesn't make the entirety of the Gospel a fable - for cryin' out loud!