Hex

Perhaps it's just me, but after some of the discussants here (dramatic examples could be Larsguy and afdave) have gone to great links to reconcile a literal belief of the Bible (especially the OT) with the factual evidence of archaeology/ historical documentation.

As an archaeologist, I'm of course of the opinion that artifacts trump documents, and a wealth of agreeing documentation trumps a single source. In this instance, I have issues with a literal view of the OT. The lack of geological/ genetic evidence of a 'great flood' and the lack of archaeological/ documentary evidence for the plagues of Egypt or the ensuing exodus cast enough doubt in my mind that I just logically couldn't see a literal interpretation of the OT, case closed.

Now, with that in mind, when I see something like Harpur's work getting such publicity, I can only think that Christians are looking for ways to discount a literal view in order to hang onto the structure/worldview of the NT and thus have a basis for the messages encoded within.

Why is it that so many people cannot simple push the OT into the 'myth/legend' category, but seem to need to have it all, word for word (in the KJV :Cheeky: ) be true?

I just don't get it. :huh:

WTF

I would say that this question is central to the whole need for religion. People need religion for so many reasons - in order to be reassured, to feel loved, in short to have a place in the world. Christianity has done very well over the centuries in offering that tailor-made place of comfort. Believe in this and this, don't do that, and you will be assured a place in heaven for everever. Now that the underpinnings of that literal belief is falling fast we will, in my view, see a phase where people try the mental gymnastics of trying to get that square peg into the round hole, but that will pass. I don't think that people will give up on religion in general or Christianity in particular. The need filled by it is too great, and the mind is too flexible a tool. Christians and others will just keep on re-interpreting the scriptures until it all fits nice and comfortable again.

The best efforts of science will not make any significant dent in the belief of those who want to be deluded. Ultimately, we believe what we want to believe.

Sven

Well, Christians obviously need the NT to be (largely) true. But the NT claims that Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies, and Jesus even quotes the OT from time to time. Thus if the OT is a myth, the NT also looks far from being perfect. They can not have this.

Ray Moscow

If one's "beliefs" are symbolical or allegorical, one would not need to take the Bible as literal truth.

However, if one firmly believes that the Bible stories and propostions are literally true, of course one needs the Bible itself needs also to be literally true.

Ray

Lucretius

I agree that it is the very fact that in the NT, Jesus seems to accept the OT (or at least parts of it ) as literally true, means that certain Christians feel that if they were to accept the OT as myth/legend ,then either Jesus was mistaken or lying, neither of which fits in with a "Divine Jesus".

Ray Moscow

Also, isn't most of what became Christian doctrine based on a literal reading of the Hebrew Bible?

For example, if there was no Adam or Eve and no "fall", just what was Jesus supposedly saving everyone from?

WTF

Hmm, makes sense. If the one domino falls .........:angel:

Lucretius

I have actually heard the AiG crowd use that argument on some of their TV "lectures".

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1115chalke.asp

Just one example this time from Monty White the UK's AiG "leader"

Ray Moscow

It's ironic that Jewish interpretors do not, and perhaps never have, interpreted Genesis the way that Christianity traditionally does.

Just were Paul got his notion about a universal "Fall" is a puzzle to me.

One is tempted to ask, "WTF?!!!"

Hex

I guess this makes some of the best sense I've heard, though when -I- hear it it seems to just be knocking the legs out from under it's own table. If I reject just one part, like the 'great flood', I therefore -have- to reject the rest.