OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real
Offline In discussions with Caposkia on his thread regarding his recommended book (New Atheist Crusaders) we have mutually agreed to open a discussion on the OT discussing reality versus myth for stories in the OT. My position is that the OT is largely myths and legends with little basis in reality. There may be stories that may be considered literature as Rook has suggested though it still incorporates myths and legends as well in my opinion. The intent is to examine major stories and discuss the mythical components versus the interpretations by Christians and Jews that these events were real. Caposkia has indicated in many of his posts that he agrees that some of the stories are reality based and in those areas I'm interested in understanding his reasoning or any other believer for acceptance versus others where he does not consider them to be. It may be there are a few where we may find agreement as to a story being a myth or it being real though my inclination is little more is reality based other than kingdoms existed in Palestine that were called Israel and Judah and they interacted with other nations in some fashion.
Since the basis of Christian beliefs started with creation and the fall of man we'll begin there and attempt to progress through Genesis in some sort of logical order sort of like Sunday School for those of you that went. I’m not particularly concerned about each little bit of belief in these stories but I’m more interested in the mythology aspects. We could for pages argue over original sin or free will but that isn’t even necessary in my opinion as the text discredits itself with blatant assertions and impossibilities. Instead consider for example Eve is created in one version from Adam’s rib which can be directly compared to the Sumerian goddess of the rib called Nin-ti which Ninhursag gave birth to heal the god Enki. Other comparisons can be made to the Sumerian paradise called Dilmun to the Garden of Eden as well. These stories predate the OT by thousands of years and tell the tale of the ancient Annuna gods that supposedly created the world. Visit www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/# for more information and some of the translated stories, click on corpus content by number or category.
In order for salvation through Christ from our supposed sins against the God the events of Genesis must have occurred in some fashion. If the Genesis stories are largely mythical or they are simply a parable then this basis is poorly founded and weakens the entire structure of Christian belief. Caposkia claims I error at square one because I don't acknowledge a spiritual world. I suggest that he and other followers error by accepting that which there is no detectable basis. This is done by interpreting parables and myths by the ancients to be more than inadequate understanding by unknowing people that looked for an answer to why things were in the world they observed.
In Genesis 1 is the supposed creation of the world by God. In this account illogical explanations start immediately with the description of the Earth being without form and darkness was upon it. Light is then created and explained as day and night. Next God molded his creation into better detail by creating Heaven above meaning the sky and waters on the earth. He then caused dry land to appear calling it the Earth and the waters the Seas. On this same day he created vegetation with the requirement that it bring forth after its kind by duplication through seeds. The following day he created the heavenly bodies to divide day from night and to be signs for seasons and for years. He made the great light to rule the day and the lesser light the night as well as all the stars. On the 5th day he created all the life in the seas and air with the requirement they reproduce after their own kind. The 6th day he created all the land animals including man both male and female. The gods in this case made man after their image as male and female in their own likeness. He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth.
Problems start with this account immediately. The Earth according to science is leftover material from the forming of our star, the Sun. This material would have been a glowing mass of molten material. The land in any event would emerge first before water could exist as a liquid upon it due to the extreme heat. Light would already exist in the form of the Sun which according to current science is not as old as other stars in our galaxy not to mention in the Universe. The account mentions that day and night were made but this is not so except for a local event on the planet. An object not on the Earth would have no such condition or a different form of night and day. The account further errors in claiming the Sun, Moon, and stars were all formed following the creation of the Earth. In theories of planet formulation the star is formed first and planets afterwords. In the case of the moon multiple theories occur though not one where it zapped into the Universe suddenly. The statement that the heavenly bodies were created for signs and seasons is more evidence of a legend. The other planets and stars are purposeful in ways that aid in life existing or continuing to do so on Earth. Jupiter for example is a great big vacuum cleaner sucking into its gravitational field all sorts of debris that could eradicate life on Earth. Is this then a design by the god or just part of the situation that helped to allow life to progress as it did on the Earth? The observation of specific planets or stars in specific areas of the sky is just that, an observation no more and not placed there by a god to indicate the change of seasons.
One can also see some similarity between Genesis 1 and the Egyptian creation myth Ra and the serpent, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/StudTxts/raSerpnt.html . In this myth Ra is the first on the scene and he creates all the creatures himself doing so before he made the wind or the rain. Ra does not create man but the gods he created gave birth to the people of Egypt who multiplied and flourished.
Some Jewish sects as well as Catholic belief allow for evolution to have been the method for creation of life on Earth. This however is in contradiction to Genesis in that all vegetation and animals were to reproduce only after their own kind. If this is so, then evolution is not compatible with the creation story. Simply put the life could not alter and produce different versions not after its kind. Since obvious examples exist for variation in species such as evolution even as simple as fish in caves without eyes or color versus those that are in streams outside there is obvious adaption thus discrediting this part of Genesis as myth.
The creation of man in Genesis 1 also suggests multiple gods as man was created in their likeness male and female thus following Canaanite gods such as Yahweh and his Asherah or Ba'al and Athirat that may be a reflection of an older tradition from either Egypt or Sumer. Genesis 2 on the other hand has a slightly different version from a variant I'll discuss in a later post.
I consider Genesis 1 to be a myth, legend or a parable based on all the problems discussed with basis in ancient stories from Sumer and Egypt. I leave it to Caposkia and other believers to indicate where they accept parts of Genesis 1 as reality and to indicate their reasoning if they do so.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I find the mind of the believer incredible. If its credibility is not in question then you negate all of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Leviticus and declare they are all false by definition. You also declare Joshua and everything leading up to and including Solomon is false. But that does not register on the mind that wants to believe.
heh, every time you get the ball, you like to just throw it way out into left field and make me go chase it.
The credibility of the book in question is not in question. The point was that there are outside writings besides what's written in the Bible mentioning Solomon.
If that were true it would be different. But you are the only person who claims to know of such a source. Please quote the external mention of Solomon NOT someone claiming there is a mention of Solomon nor a book claiming there is such a mention. The technical term for claims without physical evidence is bullshit.
There was a claim that there wasn't.. false or not. I can't claim fiction or fact on that book because as I said i haven't read it. I haven't investigated it nor analyzed it.
Do you ever read anything that you claim is evidence of your position?
Regardless the credibility isn't what's in question. How you get that to mean I have to take all the Ot books of the bible as false as well is beyond me.
Physical evidence is the only issue but you never produce any.
Stop searching for an excuse and actually show me a reason to not believe. This isn't going to work. If anyone is going to show me why I might be wrong, i believe at this moment it would be PJTS. He seems to actually make an effort to understand both sides as I do.
What you believe is your business. As a participant here I take it on myself to point out lies when people post them. If you want to lie about an external mention of Solomon, fine with me but don't object when I point out you are lying. I realize lying is what believers do but this is not a forum for believers.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Solomon was a Hittite and all of his gods are the Hittite pantheon. And do not forget you have agreed Ezra was a Hittite but you want him to reconstruct a non-hittite history. How can this be?How can believers miss things so obvious?
maybe it's not the believers who are missing something. It seems that you mind can only wrap around one angle at a time.
Why do we need to recontruct a non-hittite history again? I think I missed that part.
The point is Josephus gives no indication he either heard of or believed the Torah contained anything factual.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:And by Against Apion, the ONLY source of what might have been in "Apion" YOU acknowledge a priest of Yahweh knows nothing of Exodus. That means he knows nothing of Passover because Exodus is the only source of Passover. Jesus appears at Passover but it has nothing to do with Exodus.Do you get the picture?
I get your angle.
let's put it simply for you. I grew up catholic...
Noone's perfect.
As a catholic growing up, I knew that Jesus died for our sins. I knew that Christmas was about the birth of Christ and the whole wisemen story. I knew of the last supper and the rememberence of that night... but I had never read the Bible... how did i know what I knew? family tradition. I didn't listen when we went to church... all I knew is when the priest fed us Christ Chex, it'd be one more song and we'd get to finally leave. Every Jew or decendant thereof celebrated the passover.
But there is no indication Passover had anything to do with Exodus. From archaeology we know Exodus is a myth. And we know from Josephus Exodus was not taken as credible by everyone. So the question is what was Passover about before grafted onto the Exodus myth?
Most people today in America celebrate Christmas... what percentage of them do you think celebrate it remembering the birth of Christ and why he was born? Though people have heard the name of Jesus Christ, I'd say most people know nothing of him.Do you get the picture?
We're getting off track... let's get back to where we left of in scripture.
You have records of Solomon the Hittite?
I would love to get in more depth with these conversations with you... just on another forum. Your final statement of Jesus appearing at Passover but having nothing to do with Exodus has such depth to be discussed, but not here.
A priest of the Yahweh cult does not accept Genesis and Exodus as the origin of the Jews, claiming they were Hittite rulers who were driven out of Egypt by the military, and that Passover TODAY tells the Exodus story. That same priest knew about Passover. If Passover told the Exodus story he would know the Exodus story. But he tells an entirely different and contrary story of Hittite rulers.
So what was Passover about in the time of Josephus as it could not have been related to Exodus?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The OT is not the same category as other history because it is a propaganda book promoting a specific god and religion. Other writings were not specifically written as propaganda to promote a specific god(s) except of course the Greek storytelling myths and the Sumerian god storytelling which were. The OT could be in the same category as the Greek storytelling but not the Sumerian. The Sumerian are either original documents or close to them and the OT is not.
Correction, the compilation of the fragments into stories and the compilation of the stories turns it into a book about a specific God. Though funny you should say that because the books we're in now... happen to have a different focus... but anyway the propaganda idea is literally that, just speculation into the purpose or intent of any of the writings.
From a Christian perspective, you're taking what many would consider eye witness or first hand accounts and claiming them to be propaganda. It'd be like me reporting a bank robbery and you accusing me of supporting criminals. It goes beyond our purpose.
When one reads the descriptions of the various kings In 1 & 2 kings as well as Chronicles one gets the impression that it is a propaganda book - such as: and ______ was king over _____ and did evil in the sight of the Lord (EITSOTL - useful later as it's said so many times). The repeated monotonous use of this phrase is certainly propaganda.
There was the repeated mention up to now that the Children of Israel fell away from the god as in "and the Children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord..." in Exodus, Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel .....
That appears to me to be propaganda.
If you reported on the bank robbery and did nothing more it would be news. If however you reported on the robbery and claimed that robberies such as this are proof positive that George Bush had caused the economic conditions leaving the poor no options but robbery due to his ill conceived policies it would be propaganda.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Excessive claims do indicate parts are made up, even in other history. If not told specifically as it ocurred the embelishment represents fictional additions in all.
Just as you said though... doesn't nullify the story, only parts.. which again we've already agreed on. We also know that references to specific places is only in perspective of the writer and not necessarily exactly where or how it happened. Regardless, it doesn't in any way indicate it didn't happen... whatever "it" may be.
It also does not validate the story as one cannot tell for sure what the real story may have been as parts are fiction and false. So how can one ever know if any of it is reality based?
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:This again makes it difficult to determine if Herakles actually did anything or really existed just as much as the creativity used in the David stories creates severe doubts as to any of it actually happening.
If the severe doubts were universal, there'd be no debate as to their place in history. You say severe doubts, I've seen enough reasoning from my own research as well as the stuff you've made me investigate to have less doubt vs. more.
If severe doubts were universal, such as a skeptic, these claims would not be held to be true until proven false.
Do you accept the stories of Herakles as true unless proven false? Do you accept the stories of Enki true unless proven false>
Or of Mohammad?
Why then use a different standard for the OT. The OT is but human words that are not inspired, the books themselves contradict one another, they are at odds to other cultures, they have exaggerations, thus showing human origins. As a product of humans they are imperfect, thus should be questioned.
Though the magic and impossibilities should be enough alone to question the validity, it is for me.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I do not see where either article did this. Be specific on where?
The article was general... it said the Bible claimed X happened in Egypt and then they proceeded to explain why it may not have happened in the country of Egypt. In order for that to be true, Egypt would have had to have the same boarders during the occurence as it did when the writer wrote it down and as it does today. We all know that is unlikely. Therefore, any attempt to discredit the Bible by trying to claim something the Bible says happened in location Y didn't actually happen in Y holds no water for 2 reasons.
1. Boundaries aren't the same they were now, when it was written and/or when it actually occured
2. Authors wrote by currant knowledge, not what might have been historically true. They didn't have historical records or access to accurate history like we do today. Most knew history by word of mouth only, which was the most reliable way of getting information from one point to another at the time.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Again, I'm not getting that the articles specified specific borders for Egypt.
My take on it was they assumed. They didn't specify specific boarders but proceeded to explain location issues without referencing to where Egypt was considered to span. It leads me to believe they looked at current maps and assumed.
*edit* (addition)
There's a lot of the longer link i still have to look at. The Egyptian establishment I think from skimming it again is a small matter. Maybe I was looking into it too much... There are bigger fish to fry in that link... Like their research yielding that no other history writes about Solomon or David. No mention that it is theorized that the names might not be their real names.... as written in the Bible. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt... they may have mentioned it later in the article... I need to read it further.
The border issue seems to be insignificant to me, it's not specified as you indicate. Egypt had areas of influence that varied over the centuries. The area of Palestine was under their influence during and before the period in question. As to an exact border, none is given or important.
No history I have ever heard of discusses David or Solomon. I have never heard of other names being used for them. If you know of either a source circa the 9th or 10th century BCE or of some mention in foreign cultures please provide.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline If that were true it would be different. But you are the only person who claims to know of such a source. Please quote the external mention of Solomon NOT someone claiming there is a mention of Solomon nor a book claiming there is such a mention. The technical term for claims without physical evidence is bullshit.
am i now. so you've asked around and done some investigating to come to that conclusion? I'm guessing not, because if you did you wouldn't have stated that.
King Hiram and Solomon traded and worked on a trade route together. Tyrian court records and... after some investigating, the apion story actually quoted Menander of Ephesus in reference to Solomon, so if you had read the book yourself, you would have known that to be the case and not made a big case out of the authenticity of the writing. In fact it is noted that Josiphus quoted the Menander to further authenticate his own writing.
Just in case it didn't jump out at you due to the fact that I didn't hug it with quotation marks, your request for a quote from the external mention of solomon is the first sentence in that paragraph above. I didn't put it in quotes because after some research, I summarized. It all had to do with how the 2 kings joined forces for financial gain and progression of their kingdoms.
Do you ever read anything that you claim is evidence of your position?
yes, I would say everything though I tend to research and quote some references at times that further my point from reliable sources. If it's a bad reference, it's a learning point for me about the reference... unless of course I'm talking to you... the I get lost in accusations and poor attempts at making my whole case look bad because of that particular source... no mention of the other one BTW... how come?
Physical evidence is the only issue but you never produce any.
We've been talking about.... dude never mind... Any historian knows when there's not physical evidence, to automatically conclude fiction is a poor state of mind.
If that's how history was concluded, we'd have no history to look back on because apparently, when no evidence rears its head on the initial investigation, it's pointless to keep looking for it.
BTW We have Menander's writing fragments... can't mail them to you.. I don't have the privileged access to them. I must be assuming again... not reading before I claim it as a source... man, it's a bad habit you've gotten me into.
What you believe is your business. As a participant here I take it on myself to point out lies when people post them. If you want to lie about an external mention of Solomon, fine with me but don't object when I point out you are lying. I realize lying is what believers do but this is not a forum for believers.
Your ignorance is killing me.
I love how you're trying to make me look bad... tell you what, I'll put my fate in those who oppose me. Ask anyone on here who has really sat down and had an extensive discussion with me about whether I lie or not. Let me know what they say. I'll wait.
The point is Josephus gives no indication he either heard of or believed the Torah contained anything factual.
ok
But there is no indication Passover had anything to do with Exodus.
except that anyone who celebrates it can only associate it with the story in Exodus. There's no indication what-so-ever in history that the literal celebration of Passover was for anything other than the Exodus story... unless again you have something I don't know yet.. please send me the link.
You have records of Solomon the Hittite?
completely ignored the whole statement about people celebrating Christmas... good job... I gave you... um... 3-4 sources at this point. the 4th source being referenced through one of the others, but historically we have physical evidence of it.
A priest of the Yahweh cult does not accept Genesis and Exodus as the origin of the Jews, claiming they were Hittite rulers who were driven out of Egypt by the military, and that Passover TODAY tells the Exodus story. That same priest knew about Passover. If Passover told the Exodus story he would know the Exodus story. But he tells an entirely different and contrary story of Hittite rulers.
So what was Passover about in the time of Josephus as it could not have been related to Exodus?
This goes back to the Christmas celebration. what percentage of people who celebrate it in America really know and understand the holiday, its origin, its purpose and meaning and how it came to be what it is today? Do you know?
Jehovah's Witnesses don't' accept that Jesus was and is equal to God, nor to they believe they are under the Law of God. therefore God doesn't exist
Many Germans believe the Holocaust never actually happened despite the historical evidence and eye-witness accounts (like scripture) Therefore, it never happened.
A priest that follows the same God does not accept part of the history yet celebrates the traditional celebrations... apparently that person also determines whether something actually happened or not.
My conclusion... Christmas is actually a ploy to get people to buy buy buy and boost our economy and only after was it tied into Jesus Christ and that whole history. By your approach to conclusion, that would be rational to conclude.. .unfortunately I have history and eye-witness accounts going against this conclusion. Ultimately, I have no ground to stand on other than the here and now and what I can see with my own eyes and what I have decided in my own head... (I feel I need to add that this is in reference to the Christmas conspiracy theory stated here)
- Login to post comments
, Jeremiah (6), Ezekiel (6), and 1 & 2 Samuel (4) combined. Maybe the scribes liked the storytelling of Enoch for the vivid descriptions of the sex, violence, and torture of the angels more than the errors in Ezekiel and Jeremiah, who knows.
More research needed.
I find the mind of the believer incredible. If its credibility is not in question then you negate all of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Leviticus and declare they are all false by definition. You also declare Joshua and everything leading up to and including Solomon is false. But that does not register on the mind that wants to believe.
Solomon was a Hittite and all of his gods are the Hittite pantheon. And do not forget you have agreed Ezra was a Hittite but you want him to reconstruct a non-hittite history. How can this be?
How can believers miss things so obvious?
And by Against Apion, the ONLY source of what might have been in "Apion" YOU acknowledge a priest of Yahweh knows nothing of Exodus. That means he knows nothing of Passover because Exodus is the only source of Passover. Jesus appears at Passover but it has nothing to do with Exodus.
Do you get the picture?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
heh, every time you get the ball, you like to just throw it way out into left field and make me go chase it.
The credibility of the book in question is not in question. The point was that there are outside writings besides what's written in the Bible mentioning Solomon. There was a claim that there wasn't.. false or not. I can't claim fiction or fact on that book because as I said i haven't read it. I haven't investigated it nor analyzed it. Regardless the credibility isn't what's in question. How you get that to mean I have to take all the Ot books of the bible as false as well is beyond me.
Stop searching for an excuse and actually show me a reason to not believe. This isn't going to work. If anyone is going to show me why I might be wrong, i believe at this moment it would be PJTS. He seems to actually make an effort to understand both sides as I do.
maybe it's not the believers who are missing something. It seems that you mind can only wrap around one angle at a time.
Why do we need to recontruct a non-hittite history again? I think I missed that part.
I get your angle.
let's put it simply for you. I grew up catholic... As a catholic growing up, I knew that Jesus died for our sins. I knew that Christmas was about the birth of Christ and the whole wisemen story. I knew of the last supper and the rememberence of that night... but I had never read the Bible... how did i know what I knew? family tradition. I didn't listen when we went to church... all I knew is when the priest fed us Christ Chex, it'd be one more song and we'd get to finally leave. Every Jew or decendant thereof celebrated the passover.
Most people today in America celebrate Christmas... what percentage of them do you think celebrate it remembering the birth of Christ and why he was born? Though people have heard the name of Jesus Christ, I'd say most people know nothing of him.
Do you get the picture?
We're getting off track... let's get back to where we left of in scripture.
I would love to get in more depth with these conversations with you... just on another forum. Your final statement of Jesus appearing at Passover but having nothing to do with Exodus has such depth to be discussed, but not here.