Why?
I am a member of the Legion of Bronze and try to follow the Code of Doc Savage, and I know that he is *entirely *fictional.
Maybe someone could come up with a list of what parts are myth and what parts are possibly history. Having read the Bible myself, I think it most reasonable to put every single supernatural event heading of myth/fiction right from the start, the same as we do with all other stories from antiquity. What do you think?
I am a liberal member of what most on this board would consider a fundamentalist church. The mindset I encounter frequently is almost the opposite of what you describe: it’s a fear that if one thing isn’t true, none of it is true. And yet these same folks revere C.S. Lewis, who referred to the Christian story as “myths that are true”. They apparently read Lewis as haphazardly or infrequently as they read the bible.
There’s nothing that says a poem can’t describe true events. Until relatively recently (the last couple of centuries), “people like you” absolutely thought that the first creation story, and the ages of the patriarchs, were based on fact. And not so long before that, you could put yourself in real danger by disputing it.
Even scholars might have quibbled about whether “day” meant 24 hours, but no Christian doubted that he was reading history. The idea of Genesis being allegorical didn’t become widely accepted until it simply became too embarrassing for a scientifically literate person to bear.
I just think if you are going to take the trouble to describe yourself as something, that something should mean something, else why bother.
I think the question needs to be: Is there any evidence that the genealogies are true? I’m not aware of any source, other than the Bible itself, that confirms their validity. In that case, the default assumption should be: Not True.
I know people across the entire spectrum of belief on this, from YEC literalists to folks who don’t believe that anything in the bible happened. There would have to be a bunch of lists.
[QUOTE=TonySinclair]
There’s nothing that says a poem can’t describe true events. Until relatively recently (the last couple of centuries), “people like you” absolutely thought that the first creation story, and the ages of the patriarchs, were based on fact. And for quite a long time, you could put yourself in real danger by disputing that.
Even scholars might have quibbled about whether “day” meant 24 hours, but no Christian doubted that he was reading history. The idea of Genesis being allegorical didn’t become widely accepted until it simply became too embarrassing for a scientifically literate person to bear.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. I wasn’t suggesting that the poem part of Genesis was untrue because it is a poem, I was talking about what biblical scholars seem to think about the forms and sources present in Genesis 1 and 2. A poem was stuck on the front of a prose narrative from another source.
And there have been people who believed that the creation story is allegory since the beginning of Christianity.
You only need to compare the genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 to see that at least one of them was just made up (probably Matthew’s for sure, since he constructed it to break into neat groups of 14 generations between momentous events, and even miscounted when he did that).
I would expect the ancient Hebrew genealogies to be about as accurate as those of any other ancient people – a few actual heroes greatly exaggerated, a few legendary names whose origin is lost in the mists of time, a few invented people to correspond to place names already existing, and a few pure fabrications to show how important the tribe was in the scheme of things, or just to make the story flow.
For example?
Edit: Please don’t say Augustine. He was one of the people I had in mind who defined “day” differently, but once he explained his definitions, he believed that Genesis 1 was literally true.
OK, but if we were to rationally look at the Bible, the same way we look at other myths, certainly ALL the supernatural events would have to be put under the fiction category. Don’t you think?
Sure. We could then work off the Jefferson version of the Bible.
I’ve heard about it but never read it. Is that what you do?
No, but how I try to live my life is not changed whether a demon was actually cast into a herd of swine or not.
I disagree with you about Augustine, who did stick to some non-literal interpretations despite his young earth beliefs. I was thinking of Origen of Alexandria.
I think that is a reasonable position to take, but it’s not the one I take. I believe that some supernatural stuff actually happened.
For example?
When it comes to interpreting the Bible, the words “myth”, “allegory”, “poetry”, “lesson” and the like are commonly heard. What would it take for the words “inaccurate”, or even “lie” to be accurate?
See my previous post for two people who I consider to be examples. Inaccurate is accurate about lots of stuff in the bible, I suppose. Lie would require a knowledge of the intent of the writers, wouldn’t it?
Now, I would not hesitate to say that liars use the Bible to justify their own prejudices and agendas.
Only if you are (as you almost certainly are) living your life under the unacknowledged assumption that it didn’t happen. Do you take any precautions to deal with possible demon attacks? An exorcist on speed-dial or the like? Probably not.
Liberal Christianity and secularism are built on the unspoken assumption that the Bible is mostly wrong. Because neither is compatible with the Bible being right.
Are there no first-hand accounts of fantastic/miraculous events in the Bible, or are they all second and third-hand stories?
And I would not hesitate to say that you are sidestepping the question.