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 I thought we had on several points agreed that the writers took excessive liberal takes on the stories through exaggerated numbers.
we did, but we also agreed that liberal takes on numbers doesn't nullify the story's validity in history and is consistent with other documents that are considered valid history.
That would mean the stories did not happen as described. At least to me.
If a story claims that 100,000 invaded and really only 10,000 invaded and that would mean that the story did not happen as described I would agree... but the point of the story isn't the number, it's the invasion... both accounts consider that an invasion was possible or likely regardless of number. (random reference here, not referencing to anything specific other than the number issue)
That I see it all as storytelling based in the dimension of never was (fictional) has been and still is my position. That names are used and places that do exist does not make it part of our reality.
It doesn't automatically make it a part of our reality, but likewise it doesn't negate it from our reality. We've already established this as well. This is from way back.
Much history is filled with story telling and legends. Other means are many times needed to determine what occurred. Artifacts and archeology do help in substantiating possibilities.
there is an archealogical study Bible and scholars throughout the centuries have not accepted the books that are in scripture because the stories gave them warm fuzzies.
I require evidence to substantiate what has happened. Sometimes there is none available. As always, if a story has fantastic events, flying carpets, fire and brimstone destroying a city, the dead being raised etc extraordinary evidence will need to be presented.
As I've asked with others who bring up the "magic" aspects... what evidence would we expect to find today for say... the dead being rasied? I'm sure other writings is part of it... I know other documents in history whether deemed false or not have claimed such extraordinary events. Also, the Bible itself has Paul claiming the how Christianity has to be false if Jesus didn't raise from the dead... that's a daring claim for a book to make if it didn't happen... We're not there yet though.
As we have gone down this road, more and more of the exaggerations have piled up on the scale heavily weighing it to one side. I see the distortions and "liberal" takes as additive in discrediting the whole. The more that is piled on, the less likely it is.
But that's me.
The world of Star Wars may also exist out there in our galaxy or in another. Perhaps Lucas was a prophet of "the force".
I see no validation for a Star Wars Universe. I see nothing that is presented of substance that validates it for me.
So too is the OT stories.
you see exaggerations weighing heavily on one side... but if that's the case, then also historical possibility and accuracy must weigh on the other... The main point of the story would have to have more weight logically than a number that was exaggerated if it did happen. If 100 people went to protest something and it was claimed that 1000 people went to protest, the point remains that there was still a protest. That outweighs the false aspect of the story.
They are claimed to have happened. Yet, no real evidence shows this. In fact, the opposite is indicated. The Exodus, the invasion could not be as described. 2 kingdoms in ancient Palestine established from 12 tribes. Doesn't seem that way from archeology. The stories have issues as I have shown from the flood story forward.
I understand your position. It's not my goal to change your view.
Moving forward to the next chapter.
I know your goal, same as mine. We've agreed from the beginning that this thread is not going to change either mind, but will just be fun to explore. Those invasions as we've talked about were possible considering kingdoms of the time and the scale as to which a named "kingdom' can be... which we found can be quite insignificant. Up to this point, from what I can see, no evidence has been presented about any story we've covered that has sufficiently falsified any story... Names and numbers may have been different, but that is not uncommon in history and that's the only thing we've found that can even be considered not possible.
For others on here, preconcieved notions of what is possible or not does not determine what is actually possible or not. It is logical to say that if God is real, then miracles are possible.
- Login to post comments
. Verse 16 is specifically calling him a man "Is this the man that made the earth to tremble that did shake kingdoms?" In no way is this rant about Satan/Lucifer as there is no tradition where that character was ever a man in the OT.
Speaking of logic and reason, NOTHING stands as true until shown false. All thihgs are false until shown true. That applies to everything else in history. As to could not have happened as described, there is no magic. Therefore any story mentioning a miracle could not have happened as described. Stories which contain magic are intended to be fiction.
Truth is an abstract noun. In this context there are only true stories. A story with miracles cannot be true. AND believers are not permitted to revise out, to remove the impossible parts just to salvage their beliefs. There are no special pleadings permitted just because it is a believer favorite. But if believers insist they are being reasonable then unbelievers have to be granted exactly the same permission. Revising biblical Israel out of existence is equally permitted. Changing things to destroy the story is equally permitted. Ad hoc revision has to go both ways.
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
The original Sci-Fi Star Trek series had a Federation in it's fictional account and so did the later Sci-Fi Star Trek series Voyager, that is what was meant.
I don't see how I was misunderstood here. You mentioned Star Trek and I commented on Star Trek both of which are fictional.
I do understand quite well the Septuagint has no relationship to reality in the curent subject under discussion - it is not reality based. The point of this thread is to sift out fables, myths and storytelling from real history. Viewed either your way or mine, the Ahab rant in kings is not based in history and I consider it to be fictional.
I care less what the real name of any city king of Samaria name might be, they did have kings or leaders following Omnri. His real name could have been Xenaphone or Lord King of the Mountains. Ahab was used for the comparison. I realize you are touchy about name usage that can be misconstrued as validation of any of the story telling of the bible.
I wasn't looking for real meaning only indicating why the story telling does not firt the world of the 9th century BCE. Again, IOW it is not history but storytelling and is not based in reality. That it has a likely fit to the 2nd century BCE as an original is not unlikely, just not the approach I was taking here.
We mostly agree here.
My point here was Samaria was not then a Morphed Yahweh believing area. They were not part of 10 tribes of the fictional story telling legend. The fictional israel of the Bible did not exist. Samaria did. They are not the same. The Morphed Yahweh stories in regard to Samaria are story telling and are not supported as reality. That is the point here. That (a) writer(s) created a world of never was in the Septuagint is what I have indicated throughout this thread.
I refer to The Yahweh here - the morphed god of the Judeans. There was a Yahweh and his consort Asherah called Astarte or one of other names in the area worshiped. Again I realize your touchiness in regard to names. Ugaritic and Phoenician artifacts show these were some of the gods. I know the word Canaanites is not a name that was ever used in the 9th century BCE and is of the Judean origin. Yahweh of artifacts is indicated as a son of El, the king of the gods in Ugaritic & Phoencian stories. Sometimes indicated as Ba'al. The morphed yahweh of the Judeans is not indicated to be in the 9th centiury BCE and appears in its morphed form after the Judeans conquer the area in the 2nd century BCE.
So, we agree once again it seems.
I agree, the word Jews was developed far later and is not a word from the time period. I indicated that, as to the exact date this name was made up the 2nd century BCE is an appropriate time.
It would seem the religion of the morphed Yahweh was created for the purpose of unification by the Shaman priests and as with many other religions such as Christianity under Constantine. It made them different and as with all Shamans they had the power of the god so they had the power over the ignorant who were led to the purposes desired.
Yep. Pretty much what I said. We get there in different ways.
On that, I will continue down the thread to the next chapter.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
I thought we had on several points agreed that the writers took excessive liberal takes on the stories through exaggerated numbers.
That would mean the stories did not happen as described. At least to me.
That I see it all as storytelling based in the dimension of never was (fictional) has been and still is my position. That names are used and places that do exist does not make it part of our reality.
Much history is filled with story telling and legends. Other means are many times needed to determine what occurred. Artifacts and archeology do help in substantiating possibilities.
I require evidence to substantiate what has happened. Sometimes there is none available. As always, if a story has fantastic events, flying carpets, fire and brimstone destroying a city, the dead being raised etc extraordinary evidence will need to be presented.
As we have gone down this road, more and more of the exaggerations have piled up on the scale heavily weighing it to one side. I see the distortions and "liberal" takes as additive in discrediting the whole. The more that is piled on, the less likely it is.
But that's me.
The world of Star Wars may also exist out there in our galaxy or in another. Perhaps Lucas was a prophet of "the force".
I see no validation for a Star Wars Universe. I see nothing that is presented of substance that validates it for me.
So too is the OT stories.
They are claimed to have happened. Yet, no real evidence shows this. In fact, the opposite is indicated. The Exodus, the invasion could not be as described. 2 kingdoms in ancient Palestine established from 12 tribes. Doesn't seem that way from archeology. The stories have issues as I have shown from the flood story forward.
I understand your position. It's not my goal to change your view.
Moving forward to the next chapter.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
Ahab Part 5
1 Kings 21
This chapter is what Ahab is remembered for more than anything else. Not his military conquests, not his building activities. Nope! It’s the storytale of Naboth’s vineyard.
Naboth of Jezreel had a vineyard that was nearby the palace of King Ahab (his house) and Ahab allegedly wanted it. So according to the hearsay storytale he asked Naboth if he could have it. In trade Ahab would give him a far better vineyard or instead he’d pay him for it in gold. Naboth claimed the god had forbid him to give or sell that which he had inherited from his fathers. This of course did not suit Ahab well and he was very unhappy about it.
So Jezebel obviously not getting her due in attention as Ahab was pouting she decided to do something about this situation. So she wrote letters or orders to the nobles aka princes of his city in the name of Ahab. She told them to declare a fast. They were then to put Naboth on trial with 2 men of Be’lial before him bearing witness against him making the claim he had blasphemed the name of the god. They clearly found him guilty and summarily executed him by stoning. The princes informed Jezebel that Naboth had been killed. She told Ahab he could now take the vineyard.
There are many issues in this story tale, but first there is the response of the god to these actions. The god of course contacted Elijah to deliver his message to Ahab. Ahab goes to the vineyard and is met by the prophet of the god Elijah. The god had given his word to Elijah telepathic, spoken, text message, or smoke signals perhaps. The method is not mentioned of course. He told the prophet to tell Ahab have you killed Naboth and taken his vineyard? In the place where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth they will also lick your blood. So Ahab said to Elijah, so you have found me my enemy. No said Elijah I have found you because you have sold yourself to work evil in the sight of the lord EITSOTL. So, Elijah will bring evil upon him and all of his male descendants shall die. (It does not say the Lord will do this, these words are from Elijah.) Jezebel Elijah quotes the god as having said, “the dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.
Then we have narrative indicating there were no others that had given themselves to wickedness. That he had followed idols as did the Amorites. Since, Ahab was clearly of Samaria not of the fictitious Israel of the story, of course he followed idols. And his wife Jezebel as a Phoenician princess did as well as they were the gods of the land in this time period. This is well established by archeology.
One of the main problems with the curse of Elijah is Ahab is not the one who killed Naboth. Nor is he the one that ordered his murder according to this story tale in 1 Kings 21:7-14 it was Jezebel who ordered it not Ahab. So the wicked god of Israel showing his ignorance ordered the death of Ahab unjustly. This indicates the god was confused or not omnipotent or was just a fabrication promoted by the Shaman prophet Elijah. The writer was clear it was Jezebel who ordered the murder but Elijah perhaps had heard it was Ahab due to the forged letters and blamed Ahab. This indicates it was faked by the shaman Elijah meaning he made up the story that he got the word of god. No, he faked it as all shamans do. That’s how I see it. Though the intent is to blame Ahab, he’s innocent in this story tale. But after all, it is all a story tale and is not reality based given all that is wrong with the entire rant against Ahab. The writer lost credibility chapters earlier with his fictional battles between Ahab and Damascus. In addition, the fictional portrayal of a God Yahweh of the Hebrews (Judahites) in the area of Samaria has no basis in anything other than the story tales of the OT. Archeology shows quite a difference with the gods and ba’als of the land as the gods, not the morphed Yahweh of the far later Judeans.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
You're very good with coming up with the "it didn't happen because there's no evidence" tactic, but we've established in this thread that this particular reasoning is not sufficient enough to deem something false. Instead, if it didn't really happen, then what evidence do we have of a timeline in the place of this one? Is there evidence of something else that took place in the location and during the timeline in question?