I haven’t read Uncle Tom’s Cabin to compare but if you are comfortable calling the Bible historic fiction, that’s cool. You just probably shouldn’t pedal the god contained therein as any more likely to exist than Zeus or Apollo.
If they all base probabilities or stories relating to realities in accordance with evidence I’d agree. If the Christian scholars are giving preference to the reality of the resurrection at least (which I think they all do) then I think they are self deceived hacks.
But the point is, treating the Bible as a science and history textbook requires that you know what a science or history textbook is, and think science and history textbooks are good things.
The writers of the Bible, and the pre-modern readers of the Bible, didn’t have a scientific world view. Yes, if you asked them, “Did Noah’s flood really happen?” they would probably say, “Sure.” But if you asked them if the rains lasted exactly 40 days of exactly 24 hours each, they would say, “Uh, 40 days and 40 nights just means a long time”.
The Bible puts a lot of words in the mouths of various historical figures. Nobody expected that the dialog reported in the Old Testament was a literal transcript of spoken dialog. Even if they believed Moses really did have a staff that really turned into a snake, they didn’t think a scribe was standing there transcribing the conversation verbatim. The notion of writing down verbatim transcripts didn’t exist. People wrote down the gist of what was said, or what they imagined was said, and this was accepted as part of history.
I mean, what were Jesus’s last words? If we treat the Gospels as journalism, they contradict each other. But the Gospels weren’t journalism. You’d never convert a 12th century Christian to atheism by pointing out that since the last words of Jesus were different in different accounts, the Bible was therefore not inerrant, and therefore since there was no way to tell the truth from the falsehood the whole thing should be thrown in the trash. Heck, you can’t convince 21st Century Christians that way.
Anyway, the point is that the Bible was only taken as a science textbook when science textbooks were already a thing. It was only taken as journalism after journalism was already a thing. It was taken as history, yes, but not as a history textbook until there were such things as history textbooks. The distinction between a history book and a history textbook might be subtle, but I think it illustrates the point.
Could mean that. Could mean it was inspired by the Almighty and preserved without error.
I would think 40 days and 40 nights would mean 40 days and 40 nights, but that’s me.
Nobody? How do you know?
OK, but without the snakes the story is pretty lame.
I think that’s where God is supposed to have helped out, you know, with a miracle.
Of they just made up a lot of what people said, wholesale.
Looks to me like they contradict each other no matter how you look at it.
Cite?
Carrier virus implants new DNA segments in germ cells, meanwhile also altering phenotype, causing changes in brain structure. Changes are concrete and heritable. Heck, we come very close to this today.
Or, y’know, miracle. The guy who made the cosmos can probably just wave his hands and make things up.
The evidence for “it’s a metaphor” is much stronger, of course.
What’s the difference between a metaphor and a made up story?
You know, it looks like the only literalist in this thread is you.
Metaphor what?
Well of course, a lot of them stories read literal to me, and I don’t see much reason to look for some greater underlying truth in them. Plus it seems the dope chases off most all fundamentalist Christians.
Well, metaphors don’t have to be fictional, for one thing. And made-up stories don’t have to stand for anything other than themselves. The sinking of the Titanic is a real thing that can be taken as a metaphor for man’s hubris in the face of nature. Bad Boyz 2 is a made-up story that’s just an excuse to watch a bunch of explosions and people running around with guns.
OK, it just seems to me that most of these Bible stories have more in common with Bad Boyz 2 type of story than they do with the Titanic type. But it seems that the liberal Christians are insisting the reverse.
That’s completely fair, and true – I would say that by insisting that the stories be interpreted literally, you are missing out on the deeper metaphorical meaning.
Take Jonah as an example. One of the themes the story represents is the futility of trying to run away from God. Another (from a later chapter of the book) is the nature of God’s mercy. The fact that a real person would suffocate to death in the belly of a whale is irrelevant; the “truth” of the story is elsewhere.
So, the more incredible the story, the better chance it’s a metaphor?
Most recognize these as works of fiction, however. Not the case with the biblical stories of which some may, or may not. If there was a historic Jesus that the writers portray, it’s possible he may not have literally believed in Jonah and the whale story, but the reason I think there’s a good chance he did, is because of all of the other credulous things he was said to have believed in, and miracles he was able said to have performed.
Throughout time a certain number of people have believed in these miraculous biblical stories as actual historical events, and there are still enough of them, even today that still take many of them literally. Had Gulliver’s Travels been written during biblical times, and some writer decided to adopt it into the bible, it would be just as believable as the rest of the stories among a good portion of the faithful.
FWIW, in Augustine’s City of God his 10th chapter is entitled Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past and argues, “They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.”
Augustine was a product of his time. Had he lived today, I’m sure he would have yielded to the science of the day and educated himself right out of his religion. Do any liberal Christians have a literal take on any of the miracles as having been actual historical events? I’ve been out of the loop, so don’t know what many of them believe, anymore, but I’m again thinking of how many Christian’s quote Paul’s word on what he had to say about the resurrection being true or their faith was in vain. Was he not taking that at face value, or does that have an allegorical, symbolical or other type of interpretation today that is being used?
OK, but when gods talk to people, we generally think the people are crazy. Plus gods sometimes say some crazy things like drown your children or drink this Kool-Aid. So probably ignoring such voices is a better idea.
Also if the God of the Bible is not able to really have you swallowed and spat out with a whale or some other divine intervention it seems there is little consequence.
I think most, but not all, Christians, including some of the more liberal ones, believe that the miracles of Jesus as recorded in the gospels are (and are meant to be taken as) events that literally happened.
One key question in deciding whether to take some account literally is, did the person who wrote it intend for it to be understood literally. The prologue to Luke’s gospel certainly sounds like he’s trying/claiming to give an account of what eyewitnesses to the events actually saw.
You shouldn’t be the only one getting to have all the fun of mimicking ELIZA …
What do you think an affirmative answer to that question would show?
That hiding the more incredible claims in the Bible under the heading “METAPHOR” raises more questions than it answers?
I agree that it makes no sense in lots of ways. How could people with no knowledge of good and evil be held responsible for doing something wrong?
But it is vital in explaining the need for salvation. The premise of Christianity is that we are all sinners, redeemable only through Christ, right? If God made us that way it is his fault, not ours. So, it had to be a choice at some time. But do we make that choice? Do babies? It only works if the supposed ancestor of us all did. Thus, the Fall is absolutely necessary.
Judaism does not have the sense of salvation, and so the story is mostly a just-so story about death, working, childbirth and snakes. When I went to Hebrew School it was definitely treated as a legend, not a real piece of history.
In my experience liberal Christians will only commit to the resurrection. They often will say they believe in more in a general way but won’t commit to any specific miracles.
That’s like trying to have it both ways, but when people want to know if Jesus walked on water, they really want to know if he walked on water. If people wonder if Balaam’s ass spoke with a man’s voice they really wonder if that really happened as written. Same with Moses and his plagues, snakes and genocides. It really seems they were intending to show the power of their god. No miracles, no power, no reason to believe in the existence of said deity.
I think that’s the big flaw in the whole Christianity plot. It’s all about God trying to save us from Himself.