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

[excreationist]

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

He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.

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:

The king went to Gibeon to offer sacrifices, for that was the most important high place, and Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar.

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

Solomon offered a sacrifice of fellowship offerings to the Lord: twenty-two thousand cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep and goats. So the king and all the Israelites dedicated the temple of the Lord.

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

The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was 666 talents, (20 tons)

 

[AdamjEdgar]

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)

 

[excreationist]

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?

Well when I was a creationist I had all-or-nothing thinking like this Answers in Genesis quote:

Why Does Creation Matter?

Is creation vital to the authority of Scripture and the gospel, or are we just wasting our time and being divisive—or worse, turning people away from Christ?

answersingenesis.org

"Ultimately, the controversy about the age of the earth is a controversy about the authority of Scripture. If millions of years really happened, then the Bible is false and cannot speak with authority on any issue, even the Gospel."

I went from being a YEC to an atheist like in this "tract":

Evolution and Creation Science, The Bible Taught It First

An article about evolution and its impact on the creation science debate, Evolution - The Bible Taught It First

www.oldearth.org

Part two of my answer:

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

I believe in a non-obvious God like in this quote from Futurama:

GOD: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch like a safecracker or a pickpocket.

BENDER: Or a guy who burns down the bar for the insurance money.

GOD: Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud.

I think it is possible that God could make his intervention just appear to be random chance from the point of view of skeptics like this:

 

[Subduction Zone]

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)

The problem with your sort of Bible literacy is that you are actually claiming that God is a liar. If one can be honest, and that is a big if, one can see that there is endless evidence that tells us that there was no flood. That life is the product of evolution. And the only explanation that can possibly exist for all of that evidence to exist is for God to have lied by planting endless false evidence. Planting false evidence is a form of lying and you are claiming that God did that.

Now you are also rather obviously scientifically illiterate. That is okay, that can be easily remedied with education. All that you need to do is to learn the basics of science and then be honest. One has to remember that men wrote the Bible. They may have done so by the inspiration of God but that in no way guarantees its perfection. In fact not even the Bible makes your mistake. It does not claim to be perfect. It does not even claim to be "the word of God". It only gives vague claims of some scripture (and it does not even define "scripture" as being the word of God. How would you know?

As to reality making Christ's message unnecessary how did you come up with that conclusion? I have seen creationists spout this lie time after time but they never have been able to justify it. If Jesus's message is valid why does it matter if there were only two people or if people arose naturally through evolution? If Jesus's message is valid then what difference does an impossible magic boat make that would have left so much evidence that people would have to believe in God?

 

[excreationist]

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

 

[dybmh]

Exaggeration? Defintely.

"You can move mountains if you believe"
"Ask for anything from the Father in my name, and you will receive it..."
"None get to the father except through me..."

Are a few that come to mind immediately. I'm sure there are more.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe in a kind of God but also believe that the Bible could include exaggeration....

Do you view your Bible (or some portion of it) as revealed by God?

 

[John D. Brey]

Exaggeration? Defintely.

"You can move mountains if you believe"
"Ask for anything from the Father in my name, and you will receive it..."
"None get to the father except through me..."

. . . At least you listed them in proper order since there's a mountain of unbelief in the way of the truth of the second two. When a person is able to move that mountain of unbelief through faith the other two will be seen to be true.




John

 

[excreationist]

Do you view your Bible (or some portion of it) as revealed by God?

Yes but I think it mostly isn't historical. I think it can involve tests of character e.g.
Deuteronomy 20:16-18

16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

A typical Christian would say that that was historical and God was still perfectly loving and just. I think that passage is immoral.
BTW in my NIV Bible it has this text note about the story of the stoning of the adulteress:

Bible Gateway passage: John 7:53-8:11 - New International Version

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.] Then they all went home, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in...

www.biblegateway.com

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

Normally it has Jesus' words in red but in this case it is in black italics.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@excreationist

Yes, there are times the bible uses hyperbole to make a point. I think Jesus was using hyperbole when he said things like if you look at a woman with lust you commit adultery.

 

[Soapy]

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

Number, integer values, are not necessarily absolute. Very large numbers are REPRESENTATIVE values.

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

Jesus wasn’t in the wilderness EXACTLY 40 days…

Noah wasn’t in the ark EXACTLY 40 days…

The children of Israel with Moses were not in the wilderness EXACTLY 40 years…

Are there to be EXACTLY 12,000 people saved from each tribe of people to make up the EXACTLY 144,000 of the Elect of God…?

 

[excreationist]

@Soapy
Just wondering does the 666 talents of gold that King Solomon was said to have received yearly also have some kind of esoteric significance?

 

[Soapy]

@excreationist

Yes, there are times the bible uses hyperbole to make a point. I think Jesus was using hyperbole when he said things like if you look at a woman with lust you commit adultery.

Jesus said it was so if you look at a woman ‘So as to desire to possess her’ - which means ‘to lay with her in sexual intercourse without the aim of marriage!’. Jesus didn’t just mean ‘greatly admiring her prominent assets’. The prior example can greatly lead to abuse, stalking, molestation, or rape.

 

[DNB]

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

I forget the many reasons why numbers can be distorted, mainly throughout the historical accounts in Kings & Chronicles.
Quite a few are just typos - Kings vs Chronicles exposes the differences when referring to the same accounts of history.
Trailing zeros are mistakenly added due to the editor's confusion of the translation itself.
Sorry, there's more reasons, but I haven't got the time to reference my sources right now...

 

[Soapy]

@Soapy
Just wondering does the 666 talents of gold that King Solomon was said to have received yearly also have some kind of esoteric significance?

I took a look some years ago but wasn’t skilled enough then to see what it meant. Some translations used a different amount like 616 and claimed the other was just malicious translation - or pure error.

It is possible, though, to see it as 666 and interpret us as meaning ‘A Corrupting amount’ - too much wealth can obviously attract dangerous people and draw one into corrupting situations and for one to seek even greater wealth (E.g. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, etc.

I’ll have to read it again now I have a better understanding - but right now I have rather pressing engagements - Good question though, thanks for asking.

 

[Mock Turtle]

. . . At least you listed them in proper order since there's a mountain of unbelief in the way of the truth of the second two. When a person is able to move that mountain of unbelief through faith the other two will be seen to be true.




John

Which faith would that be?

 

[John D. Brey]

Which faith would that be?

The word "faith" is interpreted multiple ways. It's used to speak of religion in general. It's used as a synonym for confidence. And as R.B. Thieme, Jr. taught (with Plato too) it (faith) is a non-biological organ, or means, of perception. In the latter sense, faith isn't in something. It's a way of seeing something invisible without it. In the latter sense, i.e., as a non-biological means of perception, we could still imagine the perception being more, or less, focused. In the quotations in question, we could say that if a person ever focuses their faith-perception to the point of seeing the face of God, they will have already attained entrance to the Kingdom of God, attained to love of the Father, and will be completely and utterly satiated concerning wants and needs.

Jesus is saying if you have wants that haven't been fulfilled, if you aren't in heaven now, then you're faith needs to be more focused. Naturally that applies to all of us. Or perhaps I should just speak for myself. Be that as it may, the statements in the cross hairs of the post I was responding to can be argued to be true and faithful.

John

 

[DNB]

Exaggeration? Defintely.

"You can move mountains if you believe"
"Ask for anything from the Father in my name, and you will receive it..."
"None get to the father except through me..."

Are a few that come to mind immediately. I'm sure there are more.

That's odd, dybmh, in my opinion you cited statements that, as a Christian, I believe to be unexaggerated.
Yes, Jesus often used parables, allegories, analogies and figures of speech where hyperbole may have been employed at times. But in the context where Jesus made the declarations that you are questioning, they are Christian tenets that are perceived to be factual and accurate.
1. Moses parted the sea and brought water from a rock, and Elijah stop the rains for 3.5 years, and Jesus calmed the storms - is moving a mountain any different?
2. Will the Father deny His children anything that they ask for, especially when requested on behalf of the Messiah - the intent being in line with God's will and nature is assumed.
3. If God has sent His Messiah, would it be for him to be either ignored, casually or indifferently acknowledged, or one of many trajectories to God - no, it will be incumbent upon all to recognize and honour God's Messiah

 

[dybmh]

Moses parted the sea and brought water from a rock, and Elijah stop the rains for 3.5 years, and Jesus calmed the storms - is moving a mountain any different?

Yes, because Jesus is saying anyone can move mountains.

2. Will the Father deny His children anything that they ask for, especially when requested on behalf of the Messiah - the intent being in line with God's will and nature is assumed

Your qualifier ("the intent being in line with God's will and nature is assumed") is not included in scripture. Lacking that, what is written is exaggerated.

If God has sent His Messiah, would it be for him to be either ignored, casually or indifferently acknowledged, or one of many trajectories to God - no, it will be incumbent upon all to recognize and honour God's Messiah

Isaiah 43:11​

​

אנכי אנכי יהוה ואין מבלעדי מושיע׃​

​

I, I myself, am יהוה; and beside me there is no savior.​

​

I don't think it gets any clearer than that.

 

[DNB]

Yes, because Jesus is saying anyone can move mountains.



Your qualifier ("the intent being in line with God's will and nature is assumed") is not included in scripture. Lacking that, what is written is exaggerated.

Isaiah 43:11​

​

אנכי אנכי יהוה ואין מבלעדי מושיע׃​

​

I, I myself, am יהוה; and beside me there is no savior.​

​

I don't think it gets any clearer than that.

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.