DrJim

I think we should be careful not to draw too sharp a line between ancient Hebrew culture and that of the surrounding folks. Genesis et. al. are in the language, vocabulary and literary repertoire of ancient Israel. There are shared ideas motifs etc with Babylon, etc. but we should not suppose that the Israelites "borrowed" them. Those ideas were part and parcel of the Israelite religious world view.

CX

This whole question is largely a product of applying a 21st century mindset to 1st century and earlier texts. At the time they were written, humanity did not know much about the world or how it works. Clearly, the original authors intended a great portion of the things they wrote to be taken literally because they believed them to be literally true (they had no means to know otherwise).

Now, then, this presents a problem for modern day believers because , of course, we know a bit more than the ancient Hebrews and early Xians. Thus either you have to apply a liberal, metaphorical hermeneutic to the texts or abandon the faith altogether. It's a way to mitigate the cognitive dissonance produced by reading archaic religious texts in light of modern scientific understanding.

runnerryan

Even if these texts were meant literally, and I'm far from convinced they all were, the authors would still have realized that the Noah story was teaching more than that a big boat is useful when there is a lot of rain, or that you can't get back into the Garden of Eden because you would lose a sword fight with the angel guarding it. These stories have deeper meanings even if they are historically true, and these deeper meanings can remain even if they are not historically events or have a historical core that was embellished to some extent.

Mathetes

???

This seems like an unsupported assertion. How can you possibly know this?

If the author is writing a story that he believes to be true, and he is intending it to be taken literally, how can you find a deeper meaning that he was not concious of putting there?

Is there a "deeper meaning" in the Flood story? Well, it's the same old Sumerian myth of Utnapishtim/Ziusudra retold. So what's the reading? That Enlil hates humanity, but Ea/Marduk cares about people? Yahweh was not there in the original story.

Would you have found a "deeper meaning" in it were it not in the Bible?

Mageth

Originally posted by CX
This whole question is largely a product of applying a 21st century mindset to 1st century and earlier texts.

Yes, that's definitely a problem to consider.

At the time they were written, humanity did not know much about the world or how it works. Clearly, the original authors intended a great portion of the things they wrote to be taken literally because they believed them to be literally true (they had no means to know otherwise).

It doesn't seem a "given" to me that an originator of a myth (not necessarily a reteller) believed what he or she was knowingly inventing to be literally true. They may have intented for others to believe their inventions to be literally true, but I don't see them necessarily believing the literal truth of the myths that they knowingly created themselves. I think it's quite likely that many myths were knowingly created "out of thin air" or adapted from other mythologies not in an attempt to record literal history but in an attempt to forge a believable mythology (or to "invent" a literal history).

Further, this view itself may be projecting a 21st Century mindset to 1st century or earlier mythforgers and others by saying that "humanity (of the time) did not know much about the world or how it works", if this leads to assuming that perhaps none of the mythforgers (or other people) were skeptical or knowledgable enough to recognize the stories as myth instead of literal history.

Amos

I hate to tell you this but a scientific mindset has always been the problem in understanding the bible because a scientific mind looks at the world to gain evidence towards understanding. I actually think that the ancient sheep herders knew this and shaded the bible with earthy tones and images so scientific minds would keep looking for evidence and so become their prodigal sons that are needed to feed their sheep and nurture the flocks. The refined images of their findings accumilate to become the civilizations treasures in heaven while they themselves do this all for as little as a feather in their hat -- or even just to shake the dust from their ego so they can die with the dignity of an expired searcher for truth.

The sad conclusion here is that the above is true because many or most of these prodigals never find the courage to return home where they can find rest from their labors and enjoy the fruits of their good works in the eternal right here and now (Rev. 14:13).

runnerryan

Mathetes
How do you know it isn't true?
I certainly think God is capable of using an author to deliver a message they don't completely understand. I'm a Catholic, not a fundamentalist, so I have no problems with the idea of doctrine developing. One generation of Christians can see some things in a different way than those who came before them without changing the substance of the faith.
If the story wasn't in the bible I might put some stock in it. If it was an ancient Jewish story about God I would see if I could gain anything from it. I've come across many Christian authors and professors who will use non-biblical writings to shed a deeper light on some things. They can be of value without being given the same status as scripture. And I believe these works are in the scripture because they have been found spiritually nourishing by centuries worth of Jews and Christians. I trust the scriptures because the authority of the historical believing communities tells me to.

Mathetes

How do I know that the flood isn't true???

Just think about it for a second, please. Can you calculate how many millions of liters of water were needed to cover Mount Everest? Can you show me the catastrophic geological erosion that the flood left? Can you explain me how Noah put the kangaroos in Australia and the polar bears in the Poles after the waters receded? Can you tell me how the thousands of human-only parasites survived (did Noah's family carry them, including sexual diseases)?

This is supposed to have happened some time around 2500-2300 BCE according to the genealogies in the Bible, right? The Egyptians were some time between the IV and V Dinasties of the Old Kingdom. Can you explain to me why they failed to notice that they were annihilated by a global flood, and still continued their lifes uninterrupted with no holes in the historical record?

Does this apply to non-biblical stories?

A lot of people believe in UFOs. Do you find those stories spiritually nourishing?

What about the Big Foot legends? Do they communicate a higher meaning? What about Nessie?

Does the legend of people believing that Elvis is alive tell us deeper truths?

runnerryan

Mathetes
I wasn't asking how you knew the flood story wasn't historically true. I was asking how you knew that the stories couldn't have a deeper spiritual meaning even if they weren't historically true. That was in response to when you said

"This seems like an unsupported assertion. How can you possibly know this? If the author is writing a story that he believes to be true, and he is intending it to be taken literally, how can you find a deeper meaning that he was not concious of putting there?"


The Elvis, big foot, Nessie stories etc are in a different category then religious stories. No one defines their life by these things. The big foot stories aren't instruments of moral change. People don't die rather than renounce stories about Elvis being seen at a Missouri gas station. These stories don't even contain claims that they are supposed to be spiritually nourishing.

Doctor X

Mathetes:

They were not paying attention? Actually, the offspring of Noah that settled Egypt did not know about the flood, thus no holes in the record. They also did not, apparently, notice the tons of sediment and general devastation, but, we know how stupid the ancients were. . . .

Seriously, I think you are taking runnerryan a bit too literally. I do not see that he is advocating a literal truth for the OT stories. What I think he does recognize is that the writers of the stories--or compilers--may not have believed in the literal truth of the stories. This should not surprise anyone but the strict fundamentalist.

You are correct to recognize that "read it as metaphor" is a chronic apologist "solution" to contradictions and horrifying passages in the OT. However, that does not mean that the writers did not intend metaphor in their writings.

--J.D.