39 replies to this topic

[Ben Masada]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 29 September 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

I was mostly being direct. The light really is the light of the Sun, though of course the word can be used to mean goodness. I am from a Christian culture, though it is not part of my world. To me the Old Testament is simply the creation myth and garbled history of just one tribal group in Middle East. It is an accident of history that this book has made an impact on human history that it should never have had. In my opinion, Judaism/Christianity have created an artificial barrier between us in the modern world and the ancient, pre Judaic/Christian world. It is difficult to properly understand what the ancients really thought because, no matter no hard we try, the mind glogging filters and propaganda of our cultures still exert an influence. Though to me one thing is very clear, the Judeo/Christian god is man made, he is less a god than Ra or Perun. Hmm, or Яр, and then it gets complicated......

And I can't agree with you more if we are to interpret the Scriptures literally. Tell me APT, can you describe to me how your great-great-great-great-great-great grand mother looked like? No, you can't. But you do believe you had one, don't you? Yes. Do you know anything about her? No, you don't. How do you believe she was there somewhere at that so long ago time? Because you are here. Was she a myth? No, otherwise, you would be a myth too. But God, the First Cause of things, you are ready to refer to It as a myth. IOW, It never existed. Bottom line, neither did your gggggggg mother existed nor do you. Do you know what name scientists and atheists have for those who believe something they are unable to say a word for an explanation about its existence? I don't have to mention it here. I am sure you have a good guessing.

Ben

[The Gremlin]

Ben Masada, on 02 October 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

Fantastic work Grimlin you went through to copy all this. I do not refer to God Himself as the official Monotheistic patron of the Jewish People but Abraham who discovered that truth. God has been always One from eternity to eternity. We owe to Abraham to have discovered that truth and shared with his descendants throughout their generations.

I don't see the mistake in reading the Bible metaphorically. The opposite is rather true that, the literal interpretation would be detrimental to the credibility of  Monotheism. IMHO, the key to differentiate between what must be interpreted literally and metaphorically is in the diference between history and poetry.

To answer your question of how I read the first chapter of Genesis metaphorically, why not give you my metaphorical way to look at the whole account of Criation?

  THE DOUBLE ALLEGORY OF CREATION

There are three stages for the account of Creation in Genesis: Two allegories and the Reality which the allegories point to: Man as the theme of Creation.
The first allegory in the Genesis account of Creation is in the letter of the account, and here abide the masses of religious people for taking the account at its face value. I mean, Adam and Eve in the Garden being provided for by God with all their needs, being told what's allowed and forbidden in the Garden, being misled by the serpent into eating of a forbidden tree, and eventually being punished with different kinds of punishments respectively on all three of them, etc. Just literally as it is written.

The second allegory has still the same elements and God is still figured anthropomorphically, but the meaning of the actions and behaviour depicts a more logical version of what happened in the Garden. And here abide those who can think more logically, abbeit not in the archtype level of Reality. In this phase of the account of Creation in Genesis, after God created Adam and Eve, He granted them with free will and expected to be served and sought after by them, but the thing was not working. God would have to search for them and that was not the right method. They would have to become proficient and leave the Garden in order to seek for God in terms of growing in knowledge out in the greater world.

Then, among the many fruit trees in the Garden, God planted a most beautiful of all the trees with fruits much more alluring, and right in the middle of the Garden, so that it would easily call their attention. It was the tree of knowledge. But it was not working. Then, God told them that the fruit of that tree was forbidden under penalty of death, but just in the hope that the warning would make them curious and go for it. It was not working either.

Next, God doubled in Eve the emotion of curiosity so that she would go for it and entice Adam into eating of that tree. However, God had underestimated Eve's emotion of love. She had fallen in love with her man and she would never risk loosing him for no stupid fruit even if it looked the most appetitizing of all. Obviously, it didn't work.

The next step was to use the services of the serpent to persuade Eve that she had misunderstood the prohibition. That what would die in them was not themselves but their stupid innocence and naivete. Then, the serpent showed up on the very tree and somehow called for Eve's attention. As she approached, the dialogue started. To instigate the conversation, the serpent started with a question which surely would require an explanation. "Is it that you guys cannot eat from the trees in the Garden?" Bingo! Eve was locked in. The serpent got Eve to talk by explaining that only from the tree of knowledge, they were forbidden. "Why?" the serpent retortted. "Because we would die," she said. "Nonsense!" said the serpent. "You have misunderstood the whole thing. God meant to say that you two will become like gods, knowing good from evil."

Now, imagine, Eve must have thought, her man like a god! Without much ado, Eve reached for the fruit, ate it and told Adam that it was okay. Adam thought for a second and came to the conclusion that even if it were not okay, he would rather die with her beloved who had just enjoyed half of a fruit. Then he ate the other half and went on eating more. The serpent was right. They did not die. And the first knowledge they acquired was of how much they did not know. I mean, that they were naked, completely destitute of knowledge.

It didn't take too long for God to appear in the Garden to collect the fruit of His enterprise. It had finally happened what He wanted without His having to do anything against man's free will. Then, He formally defined some punishments to everyone according to their nature anyway, and got them out of the Garden into the greater world out there, so that they would grow in knowledge by seeking for God, which would be the right method.

Now, the third phase or Reality, the account of Creation is supposed to point to. I mean, the Humanistic approach, which is the purpose of the double allegory. The riddle points to the three phases in the development of man: Childhood, adulthood, and old age. Here, only the enlightened with Philosophical training dwells. I mean, the Theist who is big enough not to let him or herself be intoxicated by blind faith. In this class we can find also Atheists and Agnostics but under the subclass of sarchasm for not being able to harmonize enlightenment with the conception of God free of anthropomorphism.
Childhood is understood by that phase in the Garden when God would have to provide man with everything. That's the phase when we are dependent on our parents or on others for all our needs. That's the phase of walking on our four legs.

Adulthood is applied to that time when man ate of the tree of knowledge and became conscious of himself. That's when we actually become an adult and responsible for our own actions. I mean, when we can stand on our own two legs, so to speak.

Regarding the phase of old age, the allegory of Creation does not go into details, but it's when we become dependent again on others, especailly our children to take care of us. I mean, the phase of walking on two legs and a cane.

Ben

I have to confess Ben, I am a little disappointed by your reply; for a number of reasons.

I had hoped for a more insightful explaination, perhaps you did not have the time to give it much thought.

for example you started this thread alluding to the metaphor of light and darkness  in the first few lines of the book, and drew my attention to the fact that this was intended as a metaphor, explaining that the creation of the sun and moon later explained how it cannot be taken literally, because how could there be light without the sun.......the simple response is that God here is anthropomorphic, and a big ego, he created the world, light and darkness, if he later decided to create a sun to make that mechanism permanent then he is more than capable.....being God.

Yet you chose to skip all of Genesis to the point of the creation of adam and eve, and focus on the message of the fall. Your explaination completely undermines the moral message of the story; and is entirely revisionist in character.
The allegories that you outline also are not entirely supported by the text; and you miss so much of what could be said. The metaphors that could have been discussed have been ignored. The historical value of the text and its contents are not touched upon at all.

The only point that you really seem to have been concerned with pushing is that Abraham had the right idea, and that God is one, after all, and that since his eyes were opened Jewish tradition has been monotheistic.

I cannot agree with this blinkered stance.

I can see how this discussion is going to go, and so will save myself the effort, as i cannot see it bearing any fruit.

You drive a fast car Ben, but you're doing dohnuts.....I'll leave you to enjoy the screech of wheels and the smell of tyre smoke.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Ben Masada, on 02 October 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

And I can't agree with you more if we are to interpret the Scriptures literally. Tell me APT, can you describe to me how your great-great-great-great-great-great grand mother looked like? No, you can't. But you do believe you had one, don't you? Yes. Do you know anything about her? No, you don't. How do you believe she was there somewhere at that so long ago time? Because you are here. Was she a myth? No, otherwise, you would be a myth too. But God, the First Cause of things, you are ready to refer to It as a myth. IOW, It never existed. Bottom line, neither did your gggggggg mother existed nor do you. Do you know what name scientists and atheists have for those who believe something they are unable to say a word for an explanation about its existence? I don't have to mention it here. I am sure you have a good guessing.

Ben

Well, my ggggggg maternal grandmother was born in Moscow at end of 17th century and her great grandson was one of early settlers of Omsk. However, I only refer to the Judeo/Christian god as a man made myth. The book of Genesis shows him to be simply yet another construct, IMO. Do you pick and choose what elements of your religion to believe? either you believe in your holy book, or you actually worship something other than described. Why not come clean and admit that your god is actually the Aten and you have borrowed much from AE. And not to miss anybody out, Christians, you worship Horus and Isis, good

[Ben Masada]

The Gremlin, on 02 October 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

I have to confess Ben, I am a little disappointed by your reply; for a number of reasons.

I had hoped for a more insightful explaination, perhaps you did not have the time to give it much thought.

for example you started this thread alluding to the metaphor of light and darkness  in the first few lines of the book, and drew my attention to the fact that this was intended as a metaphor, explaining that the creation of the sun and moon later explained how it cannot be taken literally, because how could there be light without the sun.......the simple response is that God here is anthropomorphic, and a big ego, he created the world, light and darkness, if he later decided to create a sun to make that mechanism permanent then he is more than capable.....being God.

Yet you chose to skip all of Genesis to the point of the creation of adam and eve, and focus on the message of the fall. Your explaination completely undermines the moral message of the story; and is entirely revisionist in character.
The allegories that you outline also are not entirely supported by the text; and you miss so much of what could be said. The metaphors that could have been discussed have been ignored. The historical value of the text and its contents are not touched upon at all.

The only point that you really seem to have been concerned with pushing is that Abraham had the right idea, and that God is one, after all, and that since his eyes were opened Jewish tradition has been monotheistic.

I cannot agree with this blinkered stance.

I can see how this discussion is going to go, and so will save myself the effort, as i cannot see it bearing any fruit.

You drive a fast car Ben, but you're doing dohnuts.....I'll leave you to enjoy the screech of wheels and the smell of tyre smoke.

You are quite a lover of metaphorical language yourself, as I can see. Listen Gremlin, the whole point about the Genesis account of Creation is about the origin of man. Every culture of the time had a version of its own about the origin of man. Then, we added one of our own. There is nothing literal about it. Since the whole text was written in a poetic prose, it must be interpreted metaphorically, or it will become nothing more than a legendary myth prone to vanish with time.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 03 October 2012 - 08:28 PM.

[The Gremlin]

Ben Masada, on 03 October 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

You are quite a lover of metaphorical language yourself, as I can see. Listen Gremlin, the whole point about the Genesis account of Creation is about the origin of man. Every culture of the time had a version of its own about the origin of man. Then, we added one of our own. There is nothing literal about it. Since the whole text was written in a poetic prose, it must be interpreted metaphorically, or it will become nothing more than a legendary myth prone to vanish with time.

Ben

As you allude to in your first post, Genesis is about the creation of the universe and earth first, then the flora and fauna, then man. Earth is the centrepiece of God's creation in the universe, the story exists for a reason. People wanted (as they do now) to know 'how' and 'why' things came into being....this is the primary goal, to answer these fundimental questions. Metaphoric allegory pointing to the 3 ages of man for example can be read into it.....as it can into many story formats (just ask hollywood)...but this should not overtake the primary goal of the piece in importance, and therefore undermine the narrative where the main message lies. God's relationship with man, and the reason why suffering is part of our living experience, and why we die, are central themes to the Biblical text.

The people of the time that would later call themselves Jews learned writing from Mesopotamia, they learned it in school classes, and by copying out cuneiform texts repeatedly; we know this because some of the best preserved portions of stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh come from Israel amongst other places, and in different states of accomplishments (displaying the same sorts of errors modern students make).
The people of your culture first learned to write reading the poetry and mythical stories of Sumeria and Babylon....Even Abraham is supposed to have come from Ur.
It is not surprising that Genesis should reflect these same stories, and elements with a 'local' twist. The transference of religious ideas in this and similar ways, most often linked with trade, but also with imperial conquest, is visible across the whole region.

Genesis is however significantly different from these earlier stories....It was probably revised further after the return from Babylon, and exposure to the culture there, and the Zoroastrianism of Cyrus (a Messiah to the Jews)...And it is these differences in the tales that demonstrate the differences in the world views of these early Jews from the originators of the stories.

Reducing the text as you have done to these simplistic allegories (which actually conflict with the text), diminishes its overall value. Unfortunately you are not alone in this revisionist approach, every religion has generations of people who read these religious texts to find new meaning, new significance to them and their world experience. Take the Catholic Church's approach to the OT, trying to find harmony with scientific discoveries and writing that was ignrorant of such information......but only when existing dogma becomes sufficiently challenged to necessitate a change for the survival of the institution.

The final straw is the fitting of lightning rods to the vatican, churces, synagogues and mosques.......think about it.
If God is non-interventionist, what good is a religion, prayers etc......the Deists were right all along.
If God does intervene, then they are taking from him a classical avenue of reproach.....ensuring he cannot punish them with lightning strikes.....also undermining the possibility that he would ensure the safety of the institution from natural strikes (which were not intended as acts of vengence).

This simple act subverts the whole theology.

Instead of interpolating the riddle of the sphinx into the story, we should appreciate it for what it is.

Edited by The Gremlin, 03 October 2012 - 10:39 PM.

[Ben Masada]

The Gremlin, on 03 October 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

Quote

As you allude to in your first post, Genesis is about the creation of the universe and earth first, then the flora and fauna, then man. Earth is the centrepiece of God's creation in the universe, the story exists for a reason.

I do not recall to have ever alluded that, in the creation of the universe, the earth came first. But I can relate to the earth being the centerpiece of God 's creation because of man, who is the theme of the Genesis account of creation.

Quote

The people of your culture first learned to write reading the poetry and mythical stories of Sumeria and Babylon....Even Abraham is supposed to have come from Ur. It is not surprising that Genesis should reflect these same stories, and elements with a 'local' twist. The transference of religious ideas in this and similar ways, most often linked with trade, but also with imperial conquest, is visible across the whole region.

I can relate to that too, as IMHO, Ezra and Nehemiah did most of the writings of the Tanach, especially Torah and historical books.

Quote

Genesis is however significantly different from these earlier stories....It was probably revised further after the return from Babylon, and exposure to the culture there, and the Zoroastrianism of Cyrus (a Messiah to the Jews)...And it is these differences in the tales that demonstrate the differences in the world views of these early Jews from the originators of the stories

Cyrus was not "a Messiah to the Jews." He was a kind of messianic leader, which also can be called an anointed for his role in the ending of the Jewish exile in Babylon and releasing of the Jews to return to the Land of Israel. (Isa. 45:1)

Quote

Reducing the text as you have done to these simplistic allegories (which actually conflict with the text), diminishes its overall value. Unfortunately you are not alone in this revisionist approach, every religion has generations of people who read these religious texts to find new meaning, new significance to them and their world experience.

The use of metaphorical language to prevent anthropomorphism in God, I don't see as simplistic allegories destitute of commonsense. It is rather for God's
credibility as a Spiritual Being.

Quote

Take the Catholic Church's approach to the OT, trying to find harmony with scientific discoveries and writing that was ignrorant of such information......but only when existing dogma becomes sufficiently challenged to necessitate a change for the survival of the institution.

Aren't you aware that some Catholic Jesuits are among the best Cosmologists Science has produced? They are barred to be out in the pictures because of the stain of religion.

Quote

The final straw is the fitting of lightning rods to the vatican, churces, synagogues and mosques.think about it. If God is non-interventionist, what good is a religion, prayers etc......the Deists were right all along. If God does intervene, then they are taking from him a classical avenue of reproach.....ensuring he cannot punish them with lightning strikes.....also undermining the possibility that he would ensure the safety of the institution from natural strikes (which were not intended as acts of vengence).

I stand unmovable in my understanding that to dress God with human ornaments is anthropomorphism and rather dethrones God from His position as a divine Being. According to the Scriptures, God does not intervene in the affairs of man. Otherwise, it would be irrelevant to have granted man with free will.

Quote

This simple act subverts the whole theology.

I agree with you if you have in mind anthropomorphic theology. Hence, the death of the Olympian Pantheon of Greek gods.

Quote

Instead of interpolating the riddle of the sphinx into the story, we should appreciate it for what it is.

It was only taking as a simile.

Ben

[The Gremlin]

Ben Masada, on 06 October 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

I do not recall to have ever alluded that, in the creation of the universe, the earth came first. But I can relate to the earth being the centerpiece of God 's creation because of man, who is the theme of the Genesis account of creation.

so the writers of Genesis were not correct after all,
there is no denying the central moral theme to the story.

Quote

I can relate to that too, as IMHO, Ezra and Nehemiah did most of the writings of the Tanach, especially Torah and historical books.



Cyrus was not "a Messiah to the Jews." He was a kind of messianic leader, which also can be called an anointed for his role in the ending of the Jewish exile in Babylon and releasing of the Jews to return to the Land of Israel. (Isa. 45:1)

.....in other words....he was a 'Messiah to the Jews'.......?
In Isaiah, he is called 'God's annointed one'.....remind me what messiah means....

Quote

The use of metaphorical language to prevent anthropomorphism in God, I don't see as simplistic allegories destitute of commonsense. It is rather for God's
credibility as a Spiritual Being.

Anthropomorphism happened, still does when folk think of God.....and runs through the Biblical text.....not every instance can be written off as figurative.

Quote

Aren't you aware that some Catholic Jesuits are among the best Cosmologists Science has produced? They are barred to be out in the pictures because of the stain of religion.

Yes I am....but ask Galileo how they recieve challenging information......but its ok now, they've changed their minds and shifted the paradigm to suit and encompass what they could not suppress.

Quote

I stand unmovable in my understanding that to dress God with human ornaments is anthropomorphism and rather dethrones God from His position as a divine Being. According to the Scriptures, God does not intervene in the affairs of man. Otherwise, it would be irrelevant to have granted man with free will.

I agree with the first statement......but cannot agree with the second....'According to the Scriptures' he does......including, giving them laws, punishing them in various ways.....leading them from captivity.....leading them to victory....leading them to the promised land.......and so on....
According to the scriptures he is quite involved.
Whether you believe all accounts to be figurative or not, plenty (a majority even) from your culture, and from all Abrahamic religions believe that he does intervene ...... Hence the use of prayer....and also the presence of a sacrificial altar in the Temple.

Quote

I agree with you if you have in mind anthropomorphic theology. Hence, the death of the Olympian Pantheon of Greek gods.

Which began within the Greek culture itself.
There always seem to be levels of understanding dont there.

Quote

It was only taking as a simile.

once seen entirely figuratively, many subjective interpretations are possible.....the unity of the piece should not be compromised however.....where they conflict with the narrative there are problems.

Edited by The Gremlin, 07 October 2012 - 02:51 AM.

[Ben Masada]

The Gremlin, on 07 October 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

Quote

so the writers of Genesis were not correct after all, there is no denying the central moral theme to the story.

The central moral theme to the story is man. If this in your opinion renders the writers of Genesis incorrect, so, it does.

Quote

in other words....he was a 'Messiah to the Jews'.......? In Isaiah, he is called 'God's annointed one'.....remind me what messiah means.

No, he was not. He was a messianic leader. "God's anointed one" was not only the Messiah, although etimologically that's the meaning of the expression. The king too was an anointed, and so were the Hight Priests, the prophets and the judges. Since we are talking specifically about the Messiah, prophet
Habakkuk says, "The Lord comes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." Therefore, Cyrus was an anointed one in terms of a messianic leader in his liberation of the Messiah to return to the Land of Israel and to rebuild the Temple. (Isa. 45:1)

Quote

Anthropomorphism happened, still does when folk think of God.....and runs through the Biblical text.....not every instance can be written off as figurative.

It can, depending on the education of the reader. If poetic and prophetic literature were given to be taken literally, it would be depriciative to learning.

Quote

Yes I am....but ask Galileo how they recieve challenging information......but its ok now, they've changed their minds and shifted the paradigm to suit and encompass what they could not suppress.

As you can see, knowledge is progressive.

Quote

I agree with the first statement......but cannot agree with the second....'According to the Scriptures' he does......including, giving them laws, punishing them in various ways.....leading them from captivity.....leading them to victory....leading them to the promised land.......and so on....According to the scriptures he is quite involved.

Not according to the Scriptures but rather according to the reader of the Scriptures.

Quote

Whether you believe all accounts to be figurative or not, plenty (a majority even) from your culture, and from all Abrahamic religions believe that he does intervene ...... Hence the use of prayer....and also the presence of a sacrificial altar in the Temple.

There is a problem with literal interpretation. One will have to be dealing with contradictions, which will only increase the number of religions and cults.

Quote

Which began within the Greek culture itself. There always seem to be levels of understanding dont there.

That's right. Hence the need of evolution of the mind.

Quote

once seen entirely figuratively, many subjective interpretations are possible.....the unity of the piece should not be compromised however.....where they conflict with the narrative there are problems.

Oh, BTW, there must be no conflict with the narrative. The historical is not subject to metaphorical interpretation. Otherwise, the essence of History would be contradicted.

Ben

[The Gremlin]

Ben Masada, on 13 October 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

The central moral theme to the story is man. If this in your opinion renders the writers of Genesis incorrect, so, it does.

The central moral theme to the story is mans fall from grace.
The narrative attempts at the same time to explain the creation of the world, universe and everything in it, including man......in your first post you claim that there is a figurative subtext that time and education has shown to be correct....I argue that if this were the case, that the poetic writers would also reflect this in the narrative, meant for the uneducated, and not just for the initiated. The unity of the work is compromised otherwise.

Quote

No, he was not. He was a messianic leader. "God's anointed one" was not only the Messiah, although etimologically that's the meaning of the expression. The king too was an anointed, and so were the Hight Priests, the prophets and the judges. Since we are talking specifically about the Messiah, prophet
Habakkuk says, "The Lord comes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." Therefore, Cyrus was an anointed one in terms of a messianic leader in his liberation of the Messiah to return to the Land of Israel and to rebuild the Temple. (Isa. 45:1)

my statement that he was a messiah to the jews is quite correct.....Called 'God's annointed one', and he is a deliverer/saviour of the Jewish people.....I am aware of the meaning of the term, and the historical story.
Heres an interesting snippet from the Jewish Encyclopedia....

Quote

http://www.jewishenc...s/10729-messiah
In Isa. xlv. 1 Cyrus is called "God's anointed one," because God has called him and given him victory after victory for the distinct purpose of putting an end to the Babylonian kingdom and the worship of idols, of setting free exiled Israel, and thus introducing the new era of God's universal dominion.

It is likely that Jewish monotheism began here.

Quote

It can, depending on the education of the reader. If poetic and prophetic literature were given to be taken literally, it would be depriciative to learning.

Indeed, it can depend on the education of the reader, and those being read to. It is clear that the state patron god was claimed to intervene in state and individual matters, judged people and punished/rewarded them according to his will.

The fact that people made sacrifices at an alter in the Temple makes clear that this is the case, the fact that people prayed and still do shows that the majority of jewish people, even educated ones believe in an interventionist God.

Quote

As you can see, knowledge is progressive.

And institutions are slow to react, suppressing what challenges existing dogma until they are forced to concede.

Quote

Not according to the Scriptures but rather according to the reader of the Scriptures.

well no, it is written....so 'according to the Scriptures' is a correct statement. How one decides to read that narritive is subjective and open to interpretation.
Im no literalist, but it is clear that the majority of religious people are to some degree.

Otherwise there would be no sacrifices at the Temple, no prayers. JHVH's personality, and involvement with the Jewish people and their enemies is the gel that holds Jewish culture together.....It is what holds all religions together.....Theism.

Quote

There is a problem with literal interpretation. One will have to be dealing with contradictions, which will only increase the number of religions and cults.

Hence the many offshoots of all religions, schizms, sub-groups etc. Even within Judaism there are/were many.
The sacrifices in the Temple were a central part of the priestly religion, not alway totally inclusive to the lay person.....meaning they took it literally that God intervenes.
Rabbis pray, people pray....they believe that God intervenes.

Quote

That's right. Hence the need of evolution of the mind.

without evolution where would we be?

Quote

Oh, BTW, there must be no conflict with the narrative. The historical is not subject to metaphorical interpretation. Otherwise, the essence of History would be contradicted.

oh but there is.....one has an anthropomorphic patron state god, the other you claim does not.

I think you are splitting the OT into historical and metaphoric Books?
While books like Isiah can be seen as 'visionary', with other books the line is not so easy to draw.
Some of the stories have content deemed 'historical', but should also be considered metaphorically......Take the story of Joshua for example......

now you might not believe that he literally existed, and did the things he did, but many do or did.
Some things in the story are taken literally by folk, but today people look back and see that perhaps there is something poetic going on....History written in poetic terms that reinforce social and cultural cohesion....with JHVH as the patron state god....a construct.
The two can coexist.

My argument in this thread was that the narritive of Genesis was also intended to have Historical significance.....which is not in line with what we now understand about the universe, the earth, and evolution.

[Ben Masada]

The Gremlin, on 13 October 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

Quote

The central moral theme to the story is mans fall from grace

There was no fall in the Eden but rather a climbing into the realm of knowledge. One rather dies from lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6)

Quote

It is likely that Jewish monotheism began here.

Were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob polytheist? Of course not! So, Jewish monotheism did not start with Cyrus who was polytheist.

Quote

The fact that people made sacrifices at an alter in the Temple makes clear that this is the case, the fact that people prayed and still do shows that the majority of jewish people, even educated ones believe in an interventionist God.

That would be a contradiction in the Torah to be taken literally.

Quote

well no, it is written....so 'according to the Scriptures' is a correct statement. How one decides to read that narritive is subjective and open to interpretation. Im no literalist, but it is clear that the majority of religious people are to some degree.

Uncurbed religiosity only foments ignorance.

Quote

Hence the many offshoots of all religions, schizms, sub-groups etc. Even within Judaism there are/were many. The sacrifices in the Temple were a central part of the priestly religion, not alway totally inclusive to the lay person.....meaning they took it literally that God intervenes. Rabbis pray, people pray....they believe that God intervenes.

Animal sacrifices were allowed only in terms to point to the Scapegoat in the atonement of Israel for Judah. And petition prayers only to satisfy the uneducated.

Quote

I think you are splitting the OT into historical and metaphoric Books? While books like Isiah can be seen as 'visionary', with other books the line is not so easy to draw. Some of the stories have content deemed 'historical', but should also be considered metaphorically.Take the story of Joshua for example.

No, I am not. I just happen to detect when something can be literal and when it is metaphorical. Isaiah was a prophet, Prophecies, by definition, are given in similes and by way of dreams and visions. Therefore, expected to be interepred metaphorically.

Quote

My argument in this thread was that the narritive of Genesis was also intended to have Historical significance.....which is not in line with what we now understand about the universe, the earth, and evolution.

You have all the right in the world to your own opinion. IMHO, there is nothing literal in the Genesis account of creation. Not to imply that there is historical narrative in the rest of the book, but a lot of metaphorical language.

Ben