Is the Bible Allegorical or Literal?

[joelr]

First I want to say thanks joelr, you have given probably the weirdest contradiction claims I have ever seen.



But, is it right to think that in ancient era people were like Madonna, known only by one name? Is it not possible for an ancient person to have more than one name?



It seems to me that you are connecting scriptures erroneously.

Was mount Hor in Moserah?



Also in this case it seems to me that you have misunderstood, or wrong information what is actually said in the Bible.



That shouldn't be so difficult, if one just reads what is said in the book, without own assumptions.

Gen. 2 tells actually how man and woman were formed, not created. It is possible that it is about different matter than Gen. 1, which speaks of creating things. Genesis 2 doesn't speak about creating, it speaks about forming and planting of the garden of Eden.

However, it is possible that Gen 2 is just more accurate description of how man and woman was created. It can be said they were created together, even if it was done as in Gen. 2.



I don't see any problem in those scriptures, when I read them directly from the Bible as it is written. And actually, it is amazing how anyone can see a contradiction in those. Maybe you should copy the Biblical text directly here and explain how you come up to the contradictory conclusion.



Nothing of that means there is a contradiction.



Translations that I use, don't say Jacob renamed the place, it is said only that he called the place... , which obviously is not the same as rename.

He called the name of that place Bethel, but the name of the city was Luz at the first.
Gen. 28:19
Jacob called the name of the place where God spoke with him “Bethel.”
Gen. 35:15



Also in this case my translations say called, not named. It is weird where do you get the idea of renaming or naming.



I think these can be about the same event. I don't see any reason why not, nor any real contradiction.



Apparently you have a very different idea of what is a contradiction. I don't think there is a contradiction in that or other "doublets". Different amount of information doesn't necessary mean a contradiction.

And it seems to me that you have some different translation, because I don't see Bible saying "the first generation" in here:

but in very deed, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of Yahweh; because all those men who have seen my glory, and my signs, which I worked in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet have tempted me these ten times, and have not listened to my voice; surely they shall not see the land which I swore to their fathers, neither shall any of those who despised me see it: but my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and has followed me fully, him will I bring into the land into which he went; and his seed shall possess it.
Num 14:21–24

First I want to say thanks joelr, you have given probably the weirdest contradiction claims I have ever seen.



But, is it right to think that in ancient era people were like Madonna, known only by one name? Is it not possible for an ancient person to have more than one name?



It seems to me that you are connecting scriptures erroneously.

Was mount Hor in Moserah?



Also in this case it seems to me that you have misunderstood, or wrong information what is actually said in the Bible.



That shouldn't be so difficult, if one just reads what is said in the book, without own assumptions.

Gen. 2 tells actually how man and woman were formed, not created. It is possible that it is about different matter than Gen. 1, which speaks of creating things. Genesis 2 doesn't speak about creating, it speaks about forming and planting of the garden of Eden.

However, it is possible that Gen 2 is just more accurate description of how man and woman was created. It can be said they were created together, even if it was done as in Gen. 2.



I don't see any problem in those scriptures, when I read them directly from the Bible as it is written. And actually, it is amazing how anyone can see a contradiction in those. Maybe you should copy the Biblical text directly here and explain how you come up to the contradictory conclusion.



Nothing of that means there is a contradiction.



Translations that I use, don't say Jacob renamed the place, it is said only that he called the place... , which obviously is not the same as rename.

He called the name of that place Bethel, but the name of the city was Luz at the first.
Gen. 28:19
Jacob called the name of the place where God spoke with him “Bethel.”
Gen. 35:15



Also in this case my translations say called, not named. It is weird where do you get the idea of renaming or naming.



I think these can be about the same event. I don't see any reason why not, nor any real contradiction.



Apparently you have a very different idea of what is a contradiction. I don't think there is a contradiction in that or other "doublets". Different amount of information doesn't necessary mean a contradiction.

And it seems to me that you have some different translation, because I don't see Bible saying "the first generation" in here:

but in very deed, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of Yahweh; because all those men who have seen my glory, and my signs, which I worked in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet have tempted me these ten times, and have not listened to my voice; surely they shall not see the land which I swore to their fathers, neither shall any of those who despised me see it: but my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and has followed me fully, him will I bring into the land into which he went; and his seed shall possess it.
Num 14:21–24

This isn't even worth responding to. Different names? What translation? "No I don't see a contradiction"....."I don't see any reason..."
You haven't given one reasonable answer.
Genesis 1/2, one has mist up from th eearth and the other has waters from the cosmic firmament, clearly 2 different stories.

But as to translations and "my" ideas, this is standard scholarship and from Joel Badens book, The Composition of the Pentateuch. He is using the Hebrew.
he explains the contradictions in Genesis in a short lecture:

Professor Christine Hayes of Yale University speaks about the doublets and contradictions in Genesis in a Yale Divinity lecture here:

25:15 Gilgamesh flood story, Sumerian flood story comparisons

26:21 - there are significant contrasts as well between the Mesopotamian flood story and it’s Israelite ADAPTATION. Israelite story is purposely rejecting certain motifs and giving the opposite or an improved version (nicer deity…)


36:20 2 flood stories in Genesis, or contradictions and doublets.

Yahweh/Elohim, rain/cosmic waters flowing,


40:05 two creation stories, very different. Genesis 1 formalized, highly structured

Genesis 2 dramatic. Genesis 1 serious writing style, Genesis 2 uses Hebrew word puns.

Genesis 1/2 use different terms for gender

Genesis 1/2 use different names, description and style for God


Both stories have distinctive styles, vocabulary, themes, placed side by side. Flood stories are interwoven.

Genesis to 2nd Kings entire historical saga is repeated again in Chronicles.

 

[joelr]

The problem with that claim is, we don't have any proof or reasonable evidence for that. It is possible that the others copied from Bible, or the first versions of Biblical stories. Or that after the flood, people came from same ancestry that had all connection to the original story, which was remembered little differently by different people. No reason to think anything was necessary copy or re-worked.

No reasonable evidence????? That is incredibly incorrect. 2 PhDs debunk an apologist trying to make those claims.
cholars use intertextuality to demonstrate the stories rely on each other. You are just literally making up excuses based on fantasy to make a narrative work, you do not care about what is actually true at all.

Israelites began forming around 1200 BC, Mesopotamian stories were already written 1000 years earlier in some cases. Israel didn't write Genesis until after the exile in 600 BCE. They were exposed to Mesopotamian stories during the exile. Again, this is standard scholarship.

Israelites came from Canaanites.
Canaanites Were Israelites & There Was No Exodus

Prof. Joel Baden

1:20 DNA shows close relationship between Israelites and Canaanites. Israelites ARE Canaanites who moved to a different place.


6:10 Consensus. Biblical story of Exodus and people coming from Egypt and taking over through battle is not true. With slight variations here and there basically everyone will tell you they gradually came from the coastlands into the highlands. Canaanites moved away to the highlands and slowly became a unified nation after first splitting into tribes.


No Israelites until after 1000 BCE.

There is not really two very different creation stories, if we are literal.

dealt with this last post. There are literally 2 stories.

 

[pearl]

40:05 two creation stories, very different. Genesis 1 formalized, highly structured

Genesis 2 dramatic. Genesis 1 serious writing style, Genesis 2 uses Hebrew word puns.

It's what critical scholars refer to as the '4 source theory' reflecting differing styles of writing and names for God. 1st Creation story belongs to the 'P' or priestly authors, 'J' for a Yahwist writing the 2nd creation story. The other two are Elohist, and 'D', Deuteronomist.

Israel didn't write Genesis until after the exile in 600 BCE. They were exposed to Mesopotamian stories during the exile.

I believe it was written during the Exile. The Pentateuch represents the final editing during exile, but from very ancient sources.

 

[Brian2]

First there is no evidence for conquest in Canaanite cities ever. Second - The text is largely an account of Merneptah's victory over the ancient Libyans and their allies, but the last three of the 28 lines deal with a separate campaign in Canaan, then part of Egypt's imperial possessions. - Merneptah inscription is IN CANAAN, further demonstration that the Israelites came from Canaan.

The Canaanites were never conquered. Israelites moved out of Canaan and went to the highlands and eventually were forced to unite because of Phillistine activity.
Joel Baden is a lecturer at Yale Divinity, this conspiracy theory level hand waving of top scholars is bizarre. The versions of Exodus in scripture are not true.

There may be one archaeologist pushing for this (is he even an archaeologist?) yet since he matches your fundamentalist beliefs he is the one with the truth while everyone else has to die off?? That is absurd.

You don't seem to know anything but what Biblical minimalist scholars and anti Bible skeptics say in the books you read.

 

[Brian2]

No these are historical facts used in biblical historicity. No scholar denies this and it's taught at the Yale Divinity lectures.
Fundamentalists denial of scholarship isn't supported by evidence just as Islamic apologetics are not supported. Yes Islamic fundamentalists will say the moon really did split in 2 and an angel really did give revelations to Muhammad but there is no evidence to support that.

The Divinity lectures are all conservative scholars, it's just proven beyond a doubt that Genesis is re-working Mesopotamian myth using techniques like intertextuality.

Yes the first 11 chapters of Genesis are seen as residing in pre history and cannot be confirmed or denied. That does not mean that they are not true however.
Many scholars do see them as not literally true however.
And no, it's not proven beyond doubt that Genesis is re-working Mesopotamian myth. But you say that beyond doubt stuff about most of what you cut and paste, and yes many who deny the Bible and look for justification, do say the conclusions of these scholars are "beyond doubt". That's their faith.

 

[Brian2]

If you read the text you would see that is the section explaining doublets. Although there is also a contradiction in that one.
The contradictions part is the first paragraph -

"Contradictions in the pentateuchal narrative come in a variety of forms, from the smallest of details to the most important of historical claims. On the minor end are ostensibly simple disagreements about the names of people and places. Is Moses’s father-in-law named Reuel (Exod 2:18) or Jethro (Exod 3:1)? Is the mountain in the wilderness where Yahweh appeared to the people called Sinai (Exod 19:11) or Horeb (Exod 3:1; Deut 1:6)? Of somewhat more significance are disagreements about where, when, and even why an event took place. In Numbers 20:23–29, Aaron dies on Mount Hor; according to Deuteronomy 10:6, however, he dies in Moserah. In Numbers 3–4, after Moses has descended from the mountain and is receiving the laws, the Levites are assigned their cultic re- sponsibilities; but according to Deuteronomy 10:8, the Levites were set apart at a site in the wilderness called Jotbath.10 In Numbers 20:2–13, Moses is forbidden from crossing the Jordan because of his actions at the waters of Meribah, when
he brought forth water from the rock; but then according to his own words in Deuteronomy 1:37–38, Moses was prohibited from entering the promised land not because of anything he did, but because of the sins of the people in the epi- sode of the spies. Major contradictions, with important historiographical and theological ramifications, are also present in the text. The premier example of these is the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2: in what order was the world cre- ated? was it originally watery or dry? were male and female created together, or was woman made from man’s rib? is man the culmination of creation, or the beginning? Other examples are equally problematic. For the cult: was the Tent of Meeting in the center of the Israelite camp (Num 2–3) and did Yahweh dwell there constantly (Exod 40:34–38), or was it situated well outside the camp (Exod 33:7), and does Yahweh descend to it only to speak with Moses (Exod 33:8–11)? For prophecy: could there be other prophets like Moses after his death (Deut 18:15), or not (Deut 34:10–12)? These contradictions, from minor to major, are difficult, and frequently impossible, to reconcile."



But this:

"Similarly, in Numbers 14, after the episode of the spies, Yahweh tells Moses that the first generation of the Exodus will die before reaching the promised
land, all except for Caleb (Num 14:21–24). Immediately thereafter, he speaks again and says almost the same thing: the first generation of the Exodus will die before reaching the promised land, all except for Caleb and Joshua (vv. 29–35). Virtually the same message is delivered twice in a row—it is a doublet—but there is a significant distinction in the content, a disparity in precisely who is to survive—and it therefore also entails a contradiction."

Are you telling me you couldn't see that in one line it says everyone will die EXCEPT FOR CALEB. Then when it is re-stated (which is weird) it says everyone will die EXCEPT FOR CALEB AND JOSHUA????

They seem all explainable to me. Even Numbers 14 is explainable if you are open to it.
I cannot do it now because of time constraints but if you want I will try to explain it or any of the others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes the first 11 chapters of Genesis are seen as residing in pre history and cannot be confirmed or denied. That does not mean that they are not true however.
Many scholars do see them as not literally true however.
And no, it's not proven beyond doubt that Genesis is re-working Mesopotamian myth. But you say that beyond doubt stuff about most of what you cut and paste, and yes many who deny the Bible and look for justification, do say the conclusions of these scholars are "beyond doubt". That's their faith.

Actually the flood myth can easily be " denied " since it never happened.

 

[wellwisher]

Lectures on the nature of science from the clueless.

I made the claim that science derives from technology in terms of hierarchy. This is why ancient technology could be quite advanced even without knowing what we call modern science. The tech or innovation could appear even before the science since science is second and evolves after the technology appears. The new space telescope showed new data of the early universe that now requires science catch up.

Let me give a better example. Consider the applied science invention and technology called the iPhone. The iPhone uses natural laws of science that we know. There is nothing magic here. However, the iPhone did not form naturally, such as grow on a tree or form inside of an egg. The odds of finding a naturally produced iPhone, anywhere in our solar system or galaxy. are very very small approaching zero.

What has happened defies the odds; probability, that pure science assumes are possible, based on the known natural laws of science. The iPhone defies the odds set by pure science and its complement called statistical math. This innovation departs from the random assumptions of science, since it is a deliberate manufacturing goal with millions made, collectively defying all statistical math odds, used to supplement modern science and its laws of nature.

As another example, building the Pyramids in ancient Egypt, was not something that would have occurred naturally, based on the natural placement of large stones. What are the odds of this appearing using nothing but the science of natural laws and statistical modeling? Yet, these appeared in defiance of the "done deal" laws of science as we know and assume, without actually breaking any natural laws, besides the casino odds approach.

If science comes first and uses odds, and technology as described above can defy these odds of science, explain how technology is a subset of science, instead of the other way around? Defying the odds places technology in a new category, above science, since we can have a factory of poor quality employees, who will create bad technology, that does not work properly, similar to nature trying to make an iPhone using the odds based laws of natural science.

Our assumed knowledge of science leading, is false since it is still following the tech. Science has built a capacitance of its own, and these bottom lines are often taught as being fundamental to nature, but this fails to explain all the tech from each generation, that defies the assumptions of then known science and natural odds. If science wishes to catch up it needs to grow beyond statistics, since we can show many many things that defy these odds, without breaking any natural laws. The wild card is the brain and consciousness, which can defy the odds assumed in science; innovation.

This topic is about literal versus allegorical in the Bible. Many things of today defy the odds set by science, so it may be safer to assume the iPhone is allegorical. It should not be here by natural laws. Innovations, such as the iPhone, must also be allegorical, since it also defies the odds set by modern science's assumptions of the natural laws. The wild card that comes back is the brain and consciousness; will and choice beyond the natural odds. In my opinion what if often seen as allegorical is more like code for brain IT, which has an impact on the natural laws of the brain, so it can help consciousness defy the odds of science; will and choice.

 

[Audie]

I made the claim that science derives from technology in terms of hierarchy. This is why ancient technology could be quite advanced even without knowing what we call modern science. The tech or innovation could appear even before the science since science is second and evolves after the technology appears. The new space telescope showed new data of the early universe that now requires science catch up.

Let me give a better example. Consider the applied science invention and technology called the iPhone. The iPhone uses natural laws of science that we know. There is nothing magic here. However, the iPhone did not form naturally, such as grow on a tree or form inside of an egg. The odds of finding a naturally produced iPhone, anywhere in our solar system or galaxy. are very very small approaching zero.

What has happened defies the odds; probability, that pure science assumes are possible, based on the known natural laws of science. The iPhone defies the odds set by pure science and its complement called statistical math. This innovation departs from the random assumptions of science, since it is a deliberate manufacturing goal with millions made, collectively defying all statistical math odds, used to supplement modern science and its laws of nature.

As another example, building the Pyramids in ancient Egypt, was not something that would have occurred naturally, based on the natural placement of large stones. What are the odds of this appearing using nothing but the science of natural laws and statistical modeling? Yet, these appeared in defiance of the "done deal" laws of science as we know and assume, without actually breaking any natural laws, besides the casino odds approach.

If science comes first and uses odds, and technology as described above can defy these odds of science, explain how technology is a subset of science, instead of the other way around? Defying the odds places technology in a new category, above science, since we can have a factory of poor quality employees, who will create bad technology, that does not work properly, similar to nature trying to make an iPhone using the odds based laws of natural science.

Our assumed knowledge of science leading, is false since it is still following the tech. Science has built a capacitance of its own, and these bottom lines are often taught as being fundamental to nature, but this fails to explain all the tech from each generation, that defies the assumptions of then known science and natural odds. If science wishes to catch up it needs to grow beyond statistics, since we can show many many things that defy these odds, without breaking any natural laws. The wild card is the brain and consciousness, which can defy the odds assumed in science; innovation.

This topic is about literal versus allegorical in the Bible. Many things of today defy the odds set by science, so it may be safer to assume the iPhone is allegorical. It should not be here by natural laws. Innovations, such as the iPhone, must also be allegorical, since it also defies the odds set by modern science's assumptions of the natural laws. The wild card that comes back is the brain and consciousness; will and choice beyond the natural odds. In my opinion what if often seen as allegorical is more like code for brain IT, which has an impact on the natural laws of the brain, so it can help consciousness defy the odds of science; will and choice.

You swing from ponderously overdescribing tha obvious and very well known, to
boiler plate creationist can’t. “random assumption of science”, off to gibbersish
” science has built a bottom line…false…” and off into hallucinatory “odds” and some woo woo about the brain.

Sorry- ah, but you just doubled down demonstrating how inept your are at analyzing science.

 

[1213]

Trust the Bible is a matter of faith, especially faith in yourself as being infallible at knowing the truth in what it says.

As for physical evidence, of what exactly? world wide,
everything under water?

What physical evidence? Mind telling me?

1. Modern continents as the result of broken and collapsed original continent. Flood came when the continent was broken and sunk and water that was below the original continent was released.
2. Oil, gas and coal fields, the results of all organic material that sunk during the flood.
3. Marine fossils on high mountain areas, evidence for that the area was under water once.
4. Vast sediment formations and orogenic mountains.
5. Vast glaciers. Climate cooled because of the rain and flooding water, which caused the ice age and glaciers.

 

[1213]

No reasonable evidence?

Yes, not reasonable evidence shown. It would be nice to see even one evidence, but, it seems to be too much asked.

 

[Audie]

1. Modern continents as the result of broken and collapsed original continent. Flood came when the continent was broken and sunk and water that was below the original continent was released.
2. Oil, gas and coal fields, the results of all organic material that sunk during the flood.
3. Marine fossils on high mountain areas, evidence for that the area was under water once.
4. Vast sediment formations and orogenic mountains.
5. Vast glaciers. Climate cooled because of the rain and flooding water, which caused the ice age and glaciers.

Where do you get this “information”?

 

[Viker]

Parts of the Bible seem to be literal (Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc.) while much is allegory.

 

[Viker]

1. Modern continents as the result of broken and collapsed original continent. Flood came when the continent was broken and sunk and water that was below the original continent was released.
2. Oil, gas and coal fields, the results of all organic material that sunk during the flood.
3. Marine fossils on high mountain areas, evidence for that the area was under water once.
4. Vast sediment formations and orogenic mountains.
5. Vast glaciers. Climate cooled because of the rain and flooding water, which caused the ice age and glaciers.

So much to unpack there.

Mountains are formed when tectonic plates push into one another. This is why marine fossils can be found on many of them.

 

[Audie]

Parts of the Bible seem to be literal (Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc.) while much is allegory.

How about the big stuff like flood. 6 day creation.
exodus. “ each after its kind”

 

[Viker]

How about the big stuff like flood. 6 day creation.
exodus. “ each after its kind”

Allegory.

 

[Audie]

Allegory.

Allegory.

Allegory about what?
And why the mystery instead of simple truth…?.
What ecific things are supposed to be “true”?

Do you see why someone from outside Christian culture finds it
all so totally unbelievable?

 

[Audie]

So much to unpack there.

Mountains are formed when tectonic plates push into one another. This is why marine fossils can be found on many of them.

The vast ignorance would be tough to overcome
in an interested student. One determined not to learn
is beyond hopeless.

 

[Viker]

Allegory about what?
And why the mystery instead of simple truth…?.
What ecific things are supposed to be “true”?

Don't really know. You'll have to wait for or take that up with those more invested in the Bible.

Do you see why someone from outside Christian culture finds it
all so totally unbelievable?

I totally do see that.

 

[Audie]

Don't really know. You'll have to wait for or take that up with those more invested in the Bible.

I totally do see that.

Ok just wondered where you were coming from