/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9983368]

So whenever Bible contradicts reality, christians say "It was a metaphor". How do they know? Is there lists of literal and metaphorical passages compiled by different churches.

[Anonymous No.9983412]

>*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.9983557]

>>9983412
>*tips baseball cap*

[Anonymous No.9983570]

>>9983368
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_xOfxY5n2U

[Anonymous No.9983797]

You need to examine the language being used, the genre, the authors, the intended audience, but above you have to examine what message is being communicated. What is the purpose of the book? You're not going to find any sort of list of metaphorical or literal passages because that's not how books work, and many things are open to interpretation. Sometimes it doesn't matter if it's a literal account of actual events, like the story of Jonah. Sometimes it's essential, like in the gospels. The story of Jonah teaches us obedience, and the existence or nonexistence of Jonah doesn't make the story any less valuable but a fictional story of Jesus dying and coming back to life wouldn't teach us anything.

We are not limited to saying that every story in the bible is either literal history or poetic fictions. They could instead be non-literal accounts of actual historical events. Think about how a parent might explain to his child that babies "come from a seed daddies give to mommy's that grow inside the mommy's tummy." That's a true explanation, but it shouldn't be taken literally since it was accommodated for a child's level of understanding. Likewise, the stories in genesis are true but consist of non-literal language that comes down (or condescends) to the level of understanding found in the audience that first heard these stories.

Above all you have to realize that the bible is a library, that is, a collection of diverse books that encompass a variety of genres. A critic might say that if Job and Jonah did not exist, then maybe Jesus and Peter never existed as well. Maybe the entire bible is didactic fiction. But that leap of logic is as unwarranted as saying that because a library contains books of fiction, it follows that every book in a library is fiction. Like any piece of literature, we can examine the genre of a particular scriptural passage and see what kind of message it communicates.

[Anonymous No.9984122]

If you're genuinely seeking answers to supposed contradictions you should ask specific questions rather than deal with generalities. The books of the bible are too complex to simply say "this is literal" or "this isn't", and not all contradictions are solved by appealing to fiction or non-fiction perspectives.

[Anonymous No.9984444]

>>9983368

I am enlightened by my own intelligence

[Anonymous No.9984452]

>>9983368
>So whenever Bible contradicts reality, christians say "It was a metaphor".
no, we say it was a MIRACLE, because that is literally the definition of a miracle
as for a "list" just find a commentary on whatever scripture you're questioning, I'm sure you can find a free one online easily for every major denomination.

[Anonymous No.9985138]

It's interesting how atheists always wanna talk about contradictions of the bible but they can never get specific.

[Anonymous No.9985144]

>>9983368
the bible is fan fiction

OP should be banned

[Anonymous No.9985715]

>>9985138
The gospels give different days of Jesus' death, different places of his birth, the order of events in his life, omissions of major events in his life according to gospels other than the one being read, massive differences in Christology, enormous contradictions about the details of the infant Jesus. That's only some of the contradictions from just the gospels that are just about Jesus.

[Anonymous No.9985735]

>all the apostles gathered together
>still cant figure out if theyre seeing the same thing
>saints coming out of their graves and walking around
>did he fly to heaven or not
>implying any of this shit wasnt mostly made up afterwards

[Anonymous No.9985744]

>>9985715

You're making the assumption that the gospels were intended to be an exact chronicle of history. This is not how ancient histories were recorded, especially not roman biographies which is the genre that the gospels belong to.

Modern history tends to be recorded in very precise and literal ways so it's easy to make the assumption that this was how it was always done, but in ancient times, for example, if a historian was recording a speech he may change some words around to make it flow better. This is why some gospels that are recording the same event where Jesus speaks might use different verbiage. Both are recording precisely what Jesus is asserting even though the quotes and words are different. Many people do this same thing without realizing it today, like if you were watching a long speech and somebody asked you what it was about, you would probably give a very brief but accurate summary with some quotation instead of an hour long recitation.

This is also why there may be different ordering and omission of events, because it's being tailored for specific audiences. Mark was evangelizing to the Romans, this is why Mark is the most action packed gospel, because Romans were the leaders of the world and they respected strength. So the author highlighted those aspects of Jesus that would most appeal to them. Omission isn't a contradiction.

As far as the different times of death is concerned, it's very likely that its a simple transcription error, which is what Eusebius believed.

>Mark says Christ was crucified at the third hour. John says that it was at the sixth hour that Pilate took his seat on the tribunal and tried Jesus. This discrepancy is a clerical error or an earlier copyist. Gamma signifying the third hour is very close to the episemon denoting the sixth. As Matthew, Mark and Luke agree that the darkness occurred from the sixth hour to the ninth, it is clear that Jesus, Lord and God, was crucified before the sixth hour., i.e., about the third hour, as Mark has recorded. John similarly signified that it was the third hour, but the copiest turned the gamma into the episemon

[Anonymous No.9985745]

>>9983368
most of the time they just claim it happened anyway or the whole narrative crumbles to pieces like that post the other day about the book of exodus. i think you're getting confused by genuine parables which are pretty obvious to pick up on if you're not a brainlet

[Anonymous No.9986829]

>>9985745

You don't think the Exodus happened?

[Anonymous No.9986855]

>>9986829
i find it hard to believe, at least in a literal sense.

[Anonymous No.9986904]

>>9983368
You know it's a metaphor because if it wasn't then it would be a contradiction and there aren't any contradictions in the Bible.

[Anonymous No.9986913]

>>9986855

Well why don't you believe it happened? There's good evidence to suggest that the Jews were in Egypt at the time, which includes details that corroborate the account of Exodus.

[Anonymous No.9986928]

It's definitely all true and 100% all actually happened.

A translation of a translation of a second-hand source based on multiple second-hand sources by anonymous authors certainly sounds reliable.

[Anonymous No.9986934]

>>9983368
For someone who uses images to represent things, this comes as 'not serious enough'.

[Anonymous No.9986935]

>>9983368
how do you personally as a human being know what is metaphor and what isn't

[Anonymous No.9987107]

>>9985744


Your comparison to what people would say in a common conversation is quite poor because on one hand I didn't really care that much about what I watched, on the other you have chroniclers who are divinely inspired. And when chronicles are subjectively recorded, it's not that big a deal when there are multiple different viewpoints so the truth can be pieced together, but the for the majority of the bible which doesn't have those multiple viewpoints, nothing can be taken as truthful.

>divine unerring word of god
>transcription errors
Incredible

[Anonymous No.9987111]

>>9986913
I've heard the opposite, that there's no historical evidence that the Jews were captive in Egypt. Could've actually been a metaphor, right? Because Egypt in the old testament is often used to signify a state of faithlessness and a sort of "good enough" materialism.
Anyway I want a source on the historicity of Exodus just 'cause I've had professors assert the contrary.

[Anonymous No.9987113]

>>9987107
It's not the Koran, most Christians know that the Bible is divinely inspired, not written *by* the divine.

[Anonymous No.9987119]

>>9987113
Ok? Not really a relevant observation, I don't understand the point of your post

[Anonymous No.9987121]

>>9987119
My point is that Christian doctrine doesn't declare all of the Bible to be the unerring word of God the way that the Koran is for Muslims. We know how it was compiled, more or less when each book was edited, and in some cases have a good idea about who the redactor would've been (or at least their position in society.) This leaves room for human error.

[Anonymous No.9987126]

>>9987121
Ah, I see your point now. But this room for human error combined with the fact people can pretend to be the authors of a book in the Bible to further their own agenda, kind of makes deriving anything valuable from the Bible impossibility

[Anonymous No.9987147]

>>9987126
*an impossibility

[Anonymous No.9987168]

>>9987126
>People can pretend to be the authors of a book in the Bible
It's your turn to clarify what you mean, now. We've had the completed Bible for almost 2000 years now. Nobody is making authorship claims. Its value is derived from the text itself, with clarification from archaeological and linguistic study giving the stories their due context.
As for the human error, point me to discrepancies that actually matter, or that have a huge impact on how the text can be interpreted.

[Anonymous No.9987186]

>>9987168
As in someone who is not Paul could write one of the books in the Bible as Paul. And they wouldn't be divinely inspired (though I doubt anyone who wrote the Bible was divinely inspired).

Obviously I can't point to discrepancies, because human error leads to uncertainty, and the only way to be certain about where the uncertain parts are is to have multiple stories corroborating the same thing in different ways. If I could point to areas where human error has fucked up the intention then there'd be no uncertainty, so I could trust the words of the bible, but the complete inverse is true, as that is the nature of true uncertainty.

[Anonymous No.9987187]

>>9987107

The bibles human authors were not divine stenographers. Scripture is free from error in what the ancient authors asserted, not what they wrote. For example the author of Genesis did not understand some of the scientific truths we know today (just as we don't understand scientific truths humans will come to learn in the future). But any lack of knowledge on the part of the ancient author would not constitute an error in his text because the author is not asserting a scientific description of the world, but a popular one.

Is it your opinion that an ancient account of history or biography can only be trusted if its complete or comprehensive? If so I would like to see an example of such an account that you deem trustworthy. Your treating the historical accounts in the bible as being "guilty until proven innocent" but you're not providing any justification for this hermeneutic of suspicion.

[Anonymous No.9987195]

>>9987186
>and the only way to be certain about where the uncertain parts are is to have multiple stories corroborating the same thing in different ways

So do you believe that Jesus died and was resurrected?

[Anonymous No.9987210]

What the fuck is up with moby dick?? The whales are real but the book has metaphors so they aren't real, I don't FUCKING GET IT

[Anonymous No.9987214]

>>9987111

Egyptologists have discovered the presence of Semitic names in Egyptian records from the time of the Exodus. They have also found descriptions of forced laborers making bricks in order to meet quotas as well as failures to meet those quotas because of a lack of straw--details that can all be found in the book of Exodus.

James K Hoffmeier, The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009), 64.

The famed Egyptologist Sir Alan Gardiner, who was generally dismissive of the historicity of the Old Testament, said "that Israel was in Egypt under one form or another no historian could possibly doubt."

Cited in Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 112.

[Anonymous No.9987221]

>>9987195
No, but I'm not aware of the multiple sources corroborating his resurrection

>>9987187
But what they assert is part of what they wrote, you're making an arbitrary distinction. So if there is human error of any kind the truth of the stories recorded falls into doubt.
I didn't say anything about lack of knowledge, though that might affect how they retell stories. My point was simply that if they can and do alter stories, and surely they're more likely to do so if they don't understand what they're writing, those stories simply can't be trusted.

I don't really trust historical accounts in general, but I naturally trust incomplete and non-comprehensive historical accounts of mundane, established events infinitely more than the same but for supernatural, novel events.

[Anonymous No.9987233]

>>9987221
>No, but I'm not aware of the multiple sources corroborating his resurrection

There are multiple sources in the bible alone, or do you think the four gospels were all written by one person?

[Anonymous No.9987241]

>>9987233
There's also the epistles and the deeds of the apostles.

[Anonymous No.9987249]

>>9987241
>and the deeds of the apostles

I don't know why I laughed so hard at this. IT'S ACTS

[Anonymous No.9987250]

>>9987233
None or which were even written by eyewitnesses

[Anonymous No.9987258]

>>9987250

Well lets go one at a time. Who do you believe wrote Matthew and why do you believe this to be true? If you want I could go first in answering.

[Anonymous No.9987272]

>>9987258
I wish I knew who wrote it, safe bet is it was a jew

I'd imagine they wrote to further their agenda, to write an everlasting literary piece, and to propagate the burgeoning cult of Christianity

[Anonymous No.9987292]

I didn't ask you why it was written. You said that none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Okay, so how do you know this to be true if you don't know who the authors are?

Tradition holds the gospel of Matthew to be written by the apostle Matthew, who lived at the time of the crucifixion and would have allowed access to direct eyewitness testimony. Virtually all ancient manuscripts that preserve the title of the work give some form of heading "According to Matthew." There is also a consensus among Church Fathers: St. Irenaeus, Origen, St. John Chysostom, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine all affirm apostolic authorship of the Gospel of Matthew and there are no traces of a rival tradition attributing the work to somebody else.

[Anonymous No.9987298]

>>9987292

meant for >>9987272

[Anonymous No.9987340]

>>9987292
My mistake, I wasn't really paying attention when I read your post

The authora themselves don't claim in the gospels they are eyewitness, and they write in the first person. We've already established ITT there isn't a focus on objectivity in the chronicling, so there is no reason for the pretence of objectivity that writing in the third person gives. The next likely reason for writing in the third person is not being an eyewitness

But the writer of the Gospel of Matthew didn't claim he was Matthew. It's just a later addition, and the fact that it's a common addition is irrelevant.
Yes, there are no traces if a rival attribution tradition. That's not surprising it the author is anonymous, especially because the gospels aren't pro-jew so if the author was a jew he would likely face persecution.

[Anonymous No.9987367]

>>9987340

What do you mean by objectivity in chronicling? I hope you're not assuming that because a historian didn't include everything that ever happened we can't trust anything he wrote. That's like saying that because Tacitus didn't record certain details of the Roman economy the great fire didn't actually happen, or that we can't trust his account of the fire.

I agree that Matthew didn't claim himself to be the author within the gospel itself but so what? It doesn't follow from this lack of a signature that he isn't the author, or that we can't know who the author is.

[Anonymous No.9987388]

>>9987340
>The next likely reason for writing in the third person is not being an eyewitness

Is it your position that historians can't give an accurate depiction of events unless they experience an event first hand?

[Anonymous No.9987399]

>>9987367
Ideally it would be everything you see, but at the very least it's not exaggerating certain parts and not omitting certain parts.
The differences are far greater in the gospels than simply tacitus' omission of some details of the economy. In the books of John and Matthew, Jesus' approach to performing miracles are completely at odds. So, a great deal of subjectivity is implied, so a great deal of the gospels' trustworthiness is lost

The fact the author didn't claim to be Matthew in the Gospel means there is no evidence Matthew was the author. But there is evidence he wasn't the author, like the author writing of Matthew's experiences in the third person


>>9987388
If it's not first hand, then they're just giving an accurate depiction of what they're told to depict by someone else. And people can make stuff up and lie

[Anonymous No.9987415]

>>9986913
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews were slaves, but yes, they were present in Egypt.

[Anonymous No.9987438]

>>9987399

Can you elaborate on Jesus' miracles being at odds? I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm also unclear of where the author of the book refers to Matthew in the third person. If you can cite a verse that would be helpful.

Tradition and consensus among the Church Fathers do count as evidence and it is a defensible position, but even if I were to give in on this and say that we don't know who the author is, how do then support your belief that the author was not an eyewitness or had no contact with eye witnesses? You're saying that we don't know who the author is but then you're making a positive claim about the author--this is a self-defeating position.

[Anonymous No.9987443]

>>9987415
See
>>9987214
>They have also found descriptions of forced laborers making bricks in order to meet quotas as well as failures to meet those quotas because of a lack of straw--details that can all be found in the book of Exodus.

[Anonymous No.9987459]

>>9983368
Yes. They're called "lists of things we want to pick and choose as they suit us" and they're different for almost every "believer."

[Anonymous No.9987469]

>>9987438
His approach to miracles, not his miracles themselves. In one he's reported to be all about showing miracles to show his divinity, in the other he's reported to be the opposite. I don't remember him being referred to in third person alone but when Matthew's in a group, it's always "they" rather than "we"

The tradition comes way after when the gospels were actually written though, so the tradition is just that: tradition. It's people believing something with no evidence to support it, and them believing it purely because it's convenient and it convinced the masses the Bible wasn't a shitfest of anonymous authors that was significantly lacking in eyewitnesses
I already explained how the third person suggests it wasn't written by eyewitnesses. And no, that's not a self-defeating position since "eyewitness or not" and "identity of author" are two things you can know completely independently
I didn't say he had no contact with eyewitnesses. But see reply to second anon in >>9987399

[Anonymous No.9987472]

>>9983368
That says The Bibble

[Anonymous No.9987473]

>there are idiots in this thread who say they believe in an immensely powerful God but don't believe Genesis is literally true

[Anonymous No.9987476]

>>9987443
If that is all you base it on, you have no conception of what it takes to prove something through archeological records.
The Hebrew Bible itself is not archaeological evidence, as usually understood. Looking at the bible as a historical document, its references to Egypt only prove that the authors had some knowledge of Egypt. It doesn't mean that any of the authors' people were there. Plus, scholars typically date the Pentateuch to centuries after the exodus.
No Egyptian records mention slaves known as Hebrews. The first Egyptian reference to Israel (in Canaan) is the Merneptah Stela. It is very ancient, though later than would be expected for the exodus, and its brief reference does not corroborate Israelite presence in Egypt or their enslavement.
If you take a neutral or skeptical approach to the bible, the external evidence is not sufficient to prove or corroborate the Biblical claims regarding Hebrew/Israelite life in Egypt.

[Anonymous No.9987483]

>>9987469
>I don't remember him being referred to in third person alone but when Matthew's in a group, it's always "they" rather than "we"
The Bible never uses the first-person (that I know of) I don't think it was a popular convention for history books at the time.

[Anonymous No.9987498]

The Bible is full of contradictions, anyone who says otherwise is in denial.

[Anonymous No.9987509]

>>9987483
Or maybe the Bible has no eyewitnesses.

[Anonymous No.9987546]

>>9987483
actually, looking back at it, there are a few parts with first person, but those are meant to be historical accounts. they're letters like Timothy and the dream of Revelation

[Anonymous No.9987555]

>>9987469

>I don't remember him being referred to in third person alone but when Matthew's in a group, it's always "they" rather than "we"

In any case I don't think tells us anything useful. "they" doesn't mean that Matthew isn't a part of the group, and this very well could be an artifact of the language the book was written in, or even an artifact of the genre--as in it being a convention of the time that histories be written in the third person.

I still don't know what you're talking about with Jesus' miracles. You have to provide specific examples.

We can create a profile of the author of Matthew. He was clearly steeped in biblical and religious traiditions of Israel, which makes it probably that he was a Jewish believer of Jesus. Second, because the author demonstrates a bilingual competence in writing accurate Greek and translating quotations directly from the Hebrew OT, it is probable that he was a native to Palestine or educated there, because Greek was widely known there, and hardly known outside of Israel. Third, the gospel features multiple references to currency, debts, business transactions, and other financial matters. Taken together, these three aspects of the gospel suggest that the author was Jewish, that he knew Hebrew and Greek, that he was probably from Palestine, and that he had some interest in the episodes and teachings of Jesus involving money.

This makes Matthew the tax collector and apostle a suitable candidate and it coincides with the external evidence of Christian tradition which I believe is being unjustifiably dismissed by you.

[Anonymous No.9987566]

>>9987509
third-person is for clarity's sake, originally the books of the bible were read aloud in public readings, people were illiterate and copies had to be made by hand, so not everyone could read it themselves
what happens if you're a passerby who wants to listen in for a while after it had already began? if the work was in first person, some of the audience would get confused, so instead of "I did X" it's "Joshua did X", for the sake of clarity

[Anonymous No.9987585]

>>9987476

Nice gish gallop. You're assuming that this is the only archaeological evidence to support the existence of Jews in Egypt at the time of the evidence when I never claimed that this was the case. I merely provided one piece of extra-biblical evidence that indicates the presence of Jews in Egypt working as forced laborers. I also never claimed that the bible is archaeological evidence.

I agree that the most likely assembled or written centuries after the fact but so what? The Jews of the time of the exodus had an oral tradition and didn't write anything down. It doesn't follow that because something isn't immediately written down it's not true.

The Bible is allowed to be the sole witness to history. People who reject the bible because it was the only witness to something have been proven wrong before. Prior to the late 19th century, the bible was the only source that attested to the existence of the Hittites. Since no other works or artifacts corroborated their existence, modern critics said this was yet another example of the bible getting ancient history wrong. But in 1880, Henry Sayce delivered a lecture demonstrating that hieroglyphics found in Turkey and Syria showed that the Hittites had actually existed. Just as they did with the Hittites, modern scholars also doubted Belshazzar's existence because it was only recorded in the bible, but that too was disproven. You're assuming that unless a historical event described in the bible is also described in a nonbiblical work, then the event either never happened or we have no way of knowing if it did happen, what is your justification for this?

[Anonymous No.9987590]

>>9987476

Nice gish gallop. You're assuming that this is the only archaeological evidence to support the existence of Jews in Egypt at the time when I never claimed that this was the case. I merely provided one piece of extra-biblical evidence that indicates the presence of Jews in Egypt working as forced laborers. I also never claimed that the bible is archaeological evidence.

I agree that the most likely assembled or written centuries after the fact but so what? The Jews of the time of the exodus had an oral tradition and didn't write anything down. It doesn't follow that because something isn't immediately written down it's not true.

The Bible is allowed to be the sole witness to history. People who reject the bible because it was the only witness to something have been proven wrong before. Prior to the late 19th century, the bible was the only source that attested to the existence of the Hittites. Since no other works or artifacts corroborated their existence, modern critics said this was yet another example of the bible getting ancient history wrong. But in 1880, Henry Sayce delivered a lecture demonstrating that hieroglyphics found in Turkey and Syria showed that the Hittites had actually existed. Just as they did with the Hittites, modern scholars also doubted Belshazzar's existence because it was only recorded in the bible, but that too was disproven. You're assuming that unless a historical event described in the bible is also described in a nonbiblical work, then the event either never happened or we have no way of knowing if it did happen, what is your justification for this?

[Anonymous No.9987599]

>>9987546
*aren't meant

[Anonymous No.9987623]

>>9987210
wtf LOTR is just an allegory for WW2 it's not like orcs actually existed.

Sauron is real tho. He created the universe.

[Anonymous No.9987721]

>>9983368

Christians are Materialists. Materialists are Christians. Persons are ghosts. Phenomena are silly putty.

Gnosis>Faith.

[Anonymous No.9987819]

>>9987585
>Since no other works or artifacts corroborated their existence, modern critics said this was yet another example of the bible getting ancient history wrong
>Thereafter proceeds to give an example where there was evidence added to the case for the existance of the Hitties

You're not very bright, are you?

[Anonymous No.9987851]

>>9987819

I'm not sure you understood what you read. At one point there was no extrabibilical evidence of the existence of the Hittites, and skeptics used this as an example of the bible getting history wrong. Those skeptics were proven wrong when extrabiblical evidence was eventually uncovered. The point is that we're not justified in doubting a historical episode took place just because the bible is the sole witness to it.

[Anonymous No.9987858]

>>9987721

[Anonymous No.9987882]

>>9987851
And it is a very proper position to be in, as I told you in my original post, to be either neutral or skeptical if the sole proof is the bible.
>were proven wrong when extrabiblical evidence was eventually uncovered
That is exactly the point I was making, and you are very much justified in every way shape and form to doubt and be critical of a given "fact" when that fact is only present in the bible. To draw on one example, is not enough.

I suppose the flood is also a fact that is "not uncovered yet" or a metaphor. I suppose The plagues aren't "uncovered" as fact yet either, or is a metaphor. I suppose the resurrection of a multitude of saints were also metaphor, or haven't been uncovered yet. Etc. You cannot lose this game if you take the position you are in as of now.

[Anonymous No.9987917]

>>9987882

You're conflating neutrality with skepticism, they're not the same thing. Neutrality in regards to scripture is what I'm calling for which is why it's not justified to doubt an event just because the bible is the sole witness. The bible counts as evidence and it should be treated that way, meaning you need reasons to refute an episode recorded in it. It's not enough to simply say the bible is the only record.

As far as the flood goes, geologists have discovered that melting glaciers near the black sea could have caused the collapse of giant ice dams about seven thousand years ago. This isn't to say that the flood narrative isn't a sort of "epic narration," but it does absolutely have a historical and geological basis to believe it actually happened.

We shouldn't assume the author of Genesis was asserting that a worldwide flood took place. Modern readers may interpret passages in Genesis that describe water covering "the earth" as meaning the entire planet was inundated. But a resident of ancient Mesopotamia may have only understood "the earth" to mean "the land" or the region he knew. In fact, the Hebrew word for "earth" in this passage, eretz, can also mean "land," as in Genesis 41:57, where it says that "all the eretz came to Egypt to buy grain" when a famine struck the region. Of course, this doesn't mean that everyone on the planet went to Egypt to buy grain, just those people who inhabited the region the author was referring to went there.

Similar accounts of a massive flood in the Ancient Near East serve to corroborate the Genesis account. The Author of Genesis may also have used popular storytelling devices found in other flood narratives in order to show how the God of the Israelites was superior to pagan deities. For example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh the gods are afraid of the flood and flee to higher ground, but in Genesis God is in complete control of the disaster and is unaffected by it.

The Epic of Gilgamesh also seems to have been derived from an even older story called the Epic of Atrahasis. In this story, a pantheon of gods flood the earth because human beings had become too huberous and noisy. The author of the Genesis account may even have been purposefully subverting this anti-life attitude in his own narrative in which God commands that Adam and Eve "be fruitful and multiple." God's decision to send the flood in judgment of sin instead of as a population control measure would be a further subversion of this theme.

[Anonymous No.9987923]

>>9987917
>As far as the flood goes, geologists have discovered that melting glaciers near the black sea could have caused the collapse of giant ice dams about seven thousand years ago. This isn't to say that the flood narrative isn't a sort of "epic narration," but it does absolutely have a historical and geological basis to believe it actually happened.
lmfao nevermind dude, you're just trolling at this point

[Anonymous No.9987926]

>>9987923

Read the next paragraph before you go. I'm not claiming that the entire earth was inundated with water.

[Anonymous No.9987984]

>>9987882
>you cannot lose this game if you take the position you are in as of now.

And at last the fedora reveals his true power. The fact that you look at this as a 'game' to 'win' is exactly why you are derided on the internet as pseuds who are only interested in winning internet arguments. If you can't into allegory, symbolism, literary criticism. et al you're on the wrong board.

As the other anon has said, the Bible is a collection of books, not a singular book. Certain books are meant to be allegorical, some mythological, some poetic, and some books are books of straight jurisprudence. If you don't understand the difference between these literary forms you're never going to understand the purpose, beauty, or intent of the Bible.

You're attempting to discredit the merits of the Bible on the basis that it isn't 'true', but the Church has never hid the fact that much of the Bible is allegorical and poetic. In fact, the early Church fathers saw no problem in this and even wrote a great many works on the subject as this >>9987292 anon has pointed out.

Ecclisastes is a philosophical tract. Proverbs is a book of, well, proverbs. Psalms is a book of songs. I could go on and on but you get my point.

If you're having trouble understanding this concept, look into Tolkien's understanding of a 'santifying myth' and how he applies it to Christianity.

[Anonymous No.9988043]

>>9983797
Good post. Answers the OP perfectly well and has no replies. Typical.

[Anonymous No.9988510]

>>9983797
This is an extremely well written answer. Keep it up, lad.

[Anonymous No.9988519]

>>9987214
Excellent reply, m8. Love the proper sources and justification of your statements.

[Anonymous No.9988739]

>>9988043
>>9988510
>>9988519
Great replies, anons. Loving the compliments. Keep up the niceties.

[Anonymous No.9988788]

>>9983368
shrek fedora.jpeg

[Anonymous No.9988849]

>>9983368
>So whenever Bible contradicts reality

It doesn't. If you think it does, you simply were not paying close enough attention.

[Anonymous No.9989066]

>>9987221
As regards the resurrection we have something better. We have sources showing Jewish elders at the time spreading the word that Jesus WASN'T resurrected, and that his body was stolen from the tomb by the apostles. The reason this is better is because it confirms Jesus execution, and his burial in tomb, which would never be afforded to a person of his station at that time. So in trying to contradict the resurrection, Jewish authorities antagonistic to the story of Jesus confirm the only things which are not corroborated by multiple sources. Keep in mind that the testaments themselves are not at all like the books of today. While we recognize authorship to John, Luke, Matthew, and Thomas, you must understand that this is not in any sense of authorship we recognize today. It was only later ecumenical councils that codified the texts into uniform documents. Prior to that they existed as memorized oral tradition of the words spoken by the four named individuals. The nature of this codifying process is what makes these four gospels particularly important. Oral tradition can often run afoul of the same problems as a game of telephone. But if you have enough people from many places all saying the same things credited to the same person, you can be very confident that what's repeated is an accurate representation of what was said. So then when you have four varied but agreeing accounts of events all passed down in this same manner, with little ability to coordinate, you actually have a very strong case for authenticity. This means we have multiple sources, including antagonistic sources, confirming the execution of Jesus, his burial in a vault with stone entrance, and the setting of guards to prevent any followers of Jesus from stealing his body as the Jewish authorities would obviously fear, and later claim happened, despite their setting of guards. If you consider this too far fetched, then you must consider the alternative even less believable--that Jesus did die, was buried, and his disciples stole the body, still believing him to be the messiah, and then lost the body. Unless the evangelists spread the word of Jesus knowing and believing it to be a lie, the alternative could not have happened. When you consider the nature of communication at that time, and the distances over which these stories were communicated, the idea of conspiracy becomes the most absurd possible option. While, of course, there is no explicit empirical evidence of the resurrection, there's even less evidence for all the other possible alternatives which are all more complex solutions given the few things which are confirmed. Since these alternatives are more complex and have less evidence, it is less rational to believe them than to believe in the resurrection.

[Anonymous No.9989088]

>>9989066

Good God throw in some line breaks every now and again. Every three or four sentences is a good rule of thumb.

[Anonymous No.9989101]

>>9989088
G
o

B
a
c
k

T
o

R
e
d
d
i
t

[Anonymous No.9989130]

>>9983797
/thread

[Anonymous No.9989163]

>>9987498
Name one

[Anonymous No.9989166]

>>9989101
Is this satire?

[Anonymous No.9989170]

>>9989088
>reddit spacing

[Anonymous No.9989172]

>>9989170

No they're called paragraphs.

[Anonymous No.9989182]

>>9989172
you have to go back.

[Anonymous No.9989241]

>>9986913
because i don't believe the sea split in half, also i don't think the jews were slaves in egypt

[Anonymous No.9989308]

>>9989241

You don't have to believe that the sea split in order for the exodus to have happened. Why don't you believe the Jews were slaves in Egypt? This guy post some pretty compelling evidence that they were. >>9987214

[Anonymous No.9989404]

>>9989308
that's just saying that there were jews in egypt
>You don't have to believe that the sea split in order for the exodus to have happened
so you just dismiss the parts that don't make sense? supposing they were slaves, how did they escape the egyptians then?

[Anonymous No.9989579]

>>9989404

No I believe the sea was actually split, the point I'm making is that it's not necessary to believe that for the exodus to have actually happened. An argument could be made that the narrative is mythologized to include those miracles. Other ancient histories like those from Josephys, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Herodotus also record miracles and these writers represent our only knowledge of many historical episodes.so it wouldn't be that crazy,

So you believe that the Jews were in Egypt at the time of the Exodus but they weren't slaves. Why? What reason do you have to deny it?

[Anonymous No.9989616]

>>9989579
>An argument could be made that the narrative is mythologized to include those miracles.
thats retarded. if you take out say, the burning bush, the whole story makes no sense

[Anonymous No.9989756]

>>9989616

Explain why it wouldn't make any sense. Does every tribal leader need divine inspiration to do great things?

[Anonymous No.9989789]

>>9989756
the only reason moses went back is because god tells him to and why would he go back to the same mountain to receive the ten commandments if god never told him to come back to Mt Sinai in the first place? essentially you would be saying that moses was never a prophet

[Anonymous No.9989790]

>>9989616
What's so irritating about your arguments is that they were already answered thousands of years ago. The earliest discourses of religion are over which things should be understood in what context to mean what. You could literally read any theologian and have answers to your questions. Do you think that the Ancient Greeks LITERALLY believed Zeus was a man flying around the sky who held thunderbolts in his hand and turned into animals to rape women? When you look at primitive art, do you believe that indigenous people really believe abstract shapes to hold literal spiritual significance and that they hold absolutely zero allegorical or representational meaning? Are you surprised to discover that the Venus of Willendorf is not based on any actual person? Why do you assume that the increasing complexity of language means we have more clarity now, rather than more confusion? Why do you assume that the thoughts you grapple with in your life were never thought by ancient peoples? Why do you assume you are smarter than the minds that have shaped history when you don't even bother to try and understand what they said? Do you think life is harder now, or easier? If it is easier, how did it become so? If it was harder then, why would people more gullible, instead of less? Sure, you know things about the material world that they did not, but you did not think any of it on your own--it was all handed to you. You are not a free thinker, but a lazy one. You think you are rational, but you don't even have the slightest glimpse of logic. Honestly ask yourself this--how did a religion of non-aggression and mercy rise from the most ignorant and oppressed people to take over the world if its metaphysics and ethics was not true? How could such an ignorant and oppressed people develop such a profound ethic and metaphysics by chance?

[Anonymous No.9989816]

>>9989789
If you take the bush as allegorical, why can't you take the mountain also as allegorical? Or, if only the bush is allegorical, why shouldn't Moses return to a place where he previously received revelation out of a very natural human instinct for ritual and pattern recognition? And how do the physical movements of Moses change the wisdom of his teachings and the power of his leadership, which are the characteristics that identify him as prophet? The demands you make are completely nonsensical. It's like you're demanding that chocolate milk come from brown cows, or else it isn't milk.

[Anonymous No.9989839]

>>9989789
Continuing from >>9989816, did you know many of the things attributed to Moses are not actually intended to be an account of what he actually said, but rather use his name to mean that the words that follow are an extension of the law as passed down by him, and that by either logic or insight they must be taken as an emanation of his divine inspiration, and not that of scribe?

[Anonymous No.9989843]

>>9989789

If I was a secular historian who believed the exodus happened, I would be saying that Moses was not a prophet who was actually communing with God. You lack an imagination if you can't think of any reason why a chief priest might put on a show for his followers. This is all beside the point because these are details that are not necessary for there to have been an exodus of Jews from Egypt. There doesn't even have to be a historical Moses for this to be true.

I'm getting very bored with you because I've have asked you good questions about what you believe and why and you refused to answer. You're not providing any reasons for believing the Jews weren't slaves in Egypt or that the exodus didn't happen. I don't think you realize that many secular historians actually believe it happened in some form.

[Anonymous No.9990148]

>>9983368
Not true. The resurrection of Christ contradicts reality, because it's impossible, yet it is not considered metaphorical.

[Anonymous No.9990152]

The amount of christians on this board surprises me

[Anonymous No.9990427]

Wew boy this thread blew up fast. Point of reference I have only made a single comment in this thread so far so whom I am engaging with I probably won't be anyone you have been talking to previously.

>>9985744
>Your treating the historical accounts in the bible as being "guilty until proven innocent" but you're not providing any justification for this hermeneutic of suspicion
I wanted to bring this point up because you fully acknowledge in the other post I just quoted you from (though not from the section you were quoted) how ancient histories are not trying to be accurate in the sense that we understand. I would add that as we can see from the falsely claimed writings by Paul that remain in the bible. The lies in regards to Paul are still made by a Christian to influence his particular audience just as the writers of the Gospels change the details of their story for maximum effect. Therefore Papias writing at a time after the death of Mathew in a part of the world where his audience would probably never meet anyone who knew Mathew or anything about the construction of that Gospel in addition to a history among Christianity to distort the truth and to even lie makes the claim of Mathew being the author extremely tenuous.

>a consensus among Church Fathers: St. Irenaeus, Origen, St. John Chysostom, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine all affirm apostolic authorship of the Gospel of Matthew and there are no traces of a rival tradition attributing the work to somebody else.
There is also universal consensus that Jesus was resurrected, that does not make it a fact. All of the figures you mention the earliest any of them are alive is around the 180AD which comes after the initial claim by Papias of the authorship of Mathew. It is obvious that at somepoint it became a tradition that he was the author. We have zero reason to believe that any of these figures thought Mathew was the author based on any sort of evidence and without any of them providing evidence their testimonies are worthless and it is a safer bet to assume they were merely following a common idea at the time because it was common.
As for Mathew being the only attested author, this can simply be explained as the text being anonymous in it's early years and no one bothered to ascribe it authorship until someone like Papias did, and because no one else was there was no competition and as it took hold it extinguished any chance of rival attestations. This last argument is only to show that their are alternative explanations for the things you are claiming strongly indicate the authorship of Mathew.
tl/dr We cannot say for sure that Mathew was not the author but we have nothing even approaching the level of certainly that would be required to think Mathew as the author is even probable.

[Anonymous No.9990435]

>>9989163
In the Gospel of Mark Jesus only develops a special relationship to God at the moment of his baptism where in John he is cosubstantial with God.
The differences between the depictions of Jesus are a major deal. Basically if we should believe Mark instead of John then almost every Christian ever has had radically wrong ideas about Jesus and considering that Jesus is the fulcrum on which Christianity turns is a pretty huge deal.

[Anonymous No.9990464]

How many of you are Christians? I've read most books of the Bible several times over, and I appreciate their power on a shallow level, but I struggle to accept that Jesus literally rose from the dead. What can I do to break through this skepticism? Is the resurrection of Jesus the only historical miracle which was attested to by hundreds of eyewitnesses? Are there no equivalents in any other sacred texts? I try to live as Christ advised us but I'm not a true believer right now.

[Anonymous No.9990472]

>>9983797
Bishop Barron, is that you?

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.9990481]

>>9983797

[Anonymous No.9990527]

>>9983368
The bible doesnt contradict reality ever

[WOLFSHIEM !!tuOwy1ct2dy No.9990533]

>>9990464
>How many of you are Christians?

Reporting in.

>Is the resurrection of Jesus the only historical miracle which was attested to by hundreds of eyewitnesses?

Well no, there is also things like Fatima and Zeitoun but people still attempt to circumvent that as mass hysteria when it comes down to it.

>What can I do to break through this skepticism?

Learn more of Christian thought. Specifically on their cosmological view as it goes into God and God's relation to nature. Expecting you to trust that a historic event occurred is not good practice when you have good reason to not believe it due to your understanding of laws of nature (such is the issue with naturalists coming into Christianity often). If the possibility of it becomes available to you, the claim of the miraculous need only be defended by having enough evidence to show that that it at least could be true (no evidence that suggests fraud) and showing that there is enough evidence to show that this worldview was making itself known via revelation before its academic realization. This would give reason to support the miraculous claims as legitimate.

But of course this rests on the worldview being true. I could give you resources to get you started if you could tell me where you are in regards to Christianity intellectually.

[Anonymous No.9990537]

>>9987623
Souron didnt create the universe dumbass. Eru did

[Anonymous No.9990828]

>>9987555
Parts of John are written in first person, so it doesn't seem like an artifact of the language or the genre. And it's clear the focus of the Gospels' authors wasn't on providing an objective historical account, it was simply there to convert others and appeal to specific audiences. So, this pretence that the gospels were intended to be historical accounts primarily seems off

Just read the gospels nigga, in Matthew he's pretty clear about not performing miracles to prove he's the son of God, yet in John it's the opposite. You're the Christian, you should cherish the opportunity to reread the gospels

From what I can remember, the financial references aren't central to the book, so they could be later additions to make Matthew seem a more likely candidate.
There is no reason to take tradition as evidence, because the tradition was not put into place because of evidence, it was chosen because it was convenient and made the word seem more trustworthy. It's being unjustifiably taken to be evidence by you.

>>9987566
If you preface a book with "I, Matthew" it pretty easy to understand what's happening, and one of the other gospels does do that (for the respective "" "" "" "author's" "" "" "" " name) iirc
And if you listen to a work after it's already began, you wouldn't understand the context of what was happening so you'd be fucked anyway

>>9989066
I don't see how it confirms that he was fully executed, though it does confirm that he was buried in a tomb

I've already noted in this thread the authorship is not in any sense of authors up we recognise today. It's likely not even in any sense of authorship anyone would recognise since the names attached to the gospels

Why would there be limited coordination? They all spoke extensively with the ringleader, jesus. They all spoke with each other at one point. They had the ability to coordinate their stories initially, and the effects of the game of telephone are discernible in the drastically different representations of jesus in different gospels. To say they're agreeing is a stretch and a half.

I don't see that jesus even had to die, the roman who finished him might have done a shit job. He could have been on the brink of life or even pretending to be dead when he was put in the tomb. The disciples could have brought him to see the people he saw in almost a weekend at bernies-esque manner, there's no reason to believe they actually lost the body. No matter which way you slice it, a small number of devoted cult members believing in their ringleader no matter what and propagating what he said is hugely more believable than someone coming back from the dead.

Also, the other anon is right, learn to paragraph

[Anonymous No.9990839]

>>9990828
There's no such thing as an "objective historical account", you tard.

[Anonymous No.9990855]

>>9983797
I'm not sure why people are jerking off over this post since it's basically reducible to
>the Bible is too complex to take at face value lmao
>it's all about moral values even though theres no way to know which stories are moral values and if reports of God like moses' burning bush are simply hallucinations or even made up so people can back their personal beliefs up and enforce them with the threat of eternal punishment
>bro God has to communicate complicated concepts so his divinely in spired authors have to use figurative explanations and simplified language sometimes, even though God is omnipotent so he can communicate those concepts in understandable, literal ways which would lead to less schisms in Christianity, less inter denominational war and conflicts, and less people going to hell because they believed Christianity but in the wrong type
>lol just believe the parts you want to believe are true, even though literally every book in the Bible can communicate a message if it's fictional (jesus dying shows the cruelty of humanity, how self-sacrifice and suffering can lead to benefits later (the resurrection) and how even if you provide evidence to the common masses, if the people in power do not believe you, you have nothing)

[Anonymous No.9990863]

>>9983797
Not necessarily connected, but I would like to add that one of the main points of Jonah is that you cannot outrun or escape your faith as Jonah tried to. Was a major turning point in my life, maybe helps someone out there.

[Anonymous No.9990895]

>>9989790
Not him, but the thing is they haven't been answered satisfactorily. The supernatural entities who would so readily give their orders to mankind, are mysteriously absent when mankind tries to figure out what they mean, and because of that scholars keep on arguing and there are no real answers.
Some Greeks probably believed it literally. Some didn't. That's what happens when there's no way to know what's the real answer.
Sure, there was allegorical and representational meaning. As people went through life they would likely find how the stories they grew up on had significance in their own lives and helped them make their own decisions. That's because religion is generally nebulous nonsense that isn't entirely clear on what it means so the human brain, which is adept at finding patterns and making connections, will take what it knows to mean whatever it can mean.

Then there's some worthless rhetoric

Then there's an ad populum, which ignores the fact that Christianity simply presents a nice story that's comfortable to believe in, and is a nice outlet for people's slave morality tendencies.

[Anonymous No.9990898]

>>9990839
There is though. It's rare, especially when you have oral traditions, limited impartial oversight of the historians and quite possibly mentally ill people as shown by their devotion to a cult leader

[Anonymous No.9990906]

>>9990464

I am a dissenting Christian, I do not believe in the divine inspiration of the bible, nor do I believe in the infallibility of the oral teachings of the Church. I believe that the true teachings and salvation of Christ can only be revealed or attained at the second coming. And until that day, all other Christian theological or eschatological traditions are not compulsory nor are they necessarily accurate, I'm not saying they are wrong, or that it is wrong to be a part of the organised church. Just that the coming of the messiah will cement the correct path, and it is conscientious to wait for Christ.

When it comes to miracles it's up to you, if you struggle to literally believe in them, that they are logically impossible, then you need to entertain the proposition that it is better to believe in God 'because' it is illogical and unreasonable, rather than believe in God because he is necessary or can be logically proved.

Rational to know God through logic

Righteous to know God through faith.

Good luck.

[Anonymous No.9990923]

>>9990906
Not him, but how you can pick and choose which parts are divinely inspired? Because the concept that christ will come again is surely divinely inspired, and if you don't believe in the infallibility of the oral teachings, then how can you believe christ will truly come again, since that comes from the teachings.

How would it be better to believe in God because doing so is illogical and unreasonable?

[Anonymous No.9990932]

>>9983368
There are various different books in The Bible. Some are history books, some are philosophy and wisdom books, some are fables. Conflating them to all be one thing only reflects poorly on you.

[Anonymous No.9990960]

>>9990855
>it's basically reducible to greentext greentext greentext lmao
So is everything.

[Anonymous No.9990976]

>>9990855
This is your brain on shitposting.

[Anonymous No.9990986]

>>9990923

>Not him, but how you can pick and choose which parts are divinely inspired? Because the concept that christ will come again is surely divinely inspired, and if you don't believe in the infallibility of the oral teachings, then how can you believe christ will truly come again, since that comes from the teachings.


It's a leap of faith, I can have personal faith alone that Christ will return and he will further instruct us. If Christ does not return then the instructions in the Bible or in the church are not necessary, and if he does return then we will all be compelled to listen his ministry first hand, not through a medium.

>How would it be better to believe in God because doing so is illogical and unreasonable?

Is it better to become a musician because of the coordination you attain or because you simply like music? I distrust the intentions of people who rely on ontology to affirm their belief in God, you need to believe in him because you have faith, not because a formula told you it is necessary.

[Anonymous No.9991004]

>>9990986
If christ does return but it's at judgement day, and you are judged on your past deeds and belief rather than your luck of the draw conversion to what christ really wants you to do, you're fucked big time.

I'd say because of the coordination and general benefits because I'm a pragmatist. If you have faith rather than an ontological backing, you have no reason to have faith in this God rather than this other conception of God from a different denomination or religion

[Anonymous No.9991010]

>>9990960
>>9990976

[Anonymous No.9991015]

>>9991010
You weren't contributing either so fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9991020]

>>9991015
Even though I explained his arguments were shit and simplistic and simply couched in verbosity and handwaving to give the illusion of a meaningful refutation? Kys

[Anonymous No.9991032]

>>9991004

I don't think I deserve heaven, I'll do what God wills. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, and if he needs to punish me for that then who am I to argue with God?

>If you have faith rather than an ontological backing, you have no reason to have faith in this God rather than this other conception of God from a different denomination or religion

You're quite right, but keeping personal faith against the evidence is best part of the mechanism of faith itself.

[Anonymous No.9991143]

>>9990855
Why are you even on a literature board if you don't understand how literature works?

[Anonymous No.9991156]

>>9991032
But you have a record of what God wills in the form of the bible. You're really picking and choosing what you have your personal faith in, and what you choose as the destination for your leaps of faith

>keeping faith against the evidence
This is so irrational and genuinely contemptible, and it's not even recommended by the Bible. Keeping faith with no evidence is weird but fair enough, but keeping faith against the evidence is just ridiculous. If you unironically do this kill yourself. And I don't mean that in an offensive way, I mean that if your faith is so strong that reality has no bearing on it, then you should be sure you'll be judged appropriately. You have nothing to gain by living.

[Anonymous No.9991162]

>>9991143
See
>>9991010
Miss me with that vacuous, ad hominem shit

[Anonymous No.9991184]

>>9999999

[Anonymous No.9991252]

Bible, Like any work of literature is open to interpretation. You don't read poetry and go "How do I know that Poe was talking about a talking raven metaphorically? He doesn't tell me." The only reason people such as yourself have a problem with interpreting the bible is because you can't except that people live their lives by their interpretations. Furthermore you're approaching the bible as one book...when in fact it is a collection of many works, from multiple authors, spanning several time periods collected by the church, edited and thrown together so they could call it a canon.

Take it for what it is and try to read it without constantly questioning it's validity and instead read it for what it is. A hell of a collection of literature. With some damn good poetry too. Song of Solomon is one of the best.

[Anonymous No.9991508]

>>9990923
>how you can pick and choose which parts are divinely inspired
Because that's the core of religion. Not Jesus, not God, not any spiritual crap. The main part is the ability to take a tome made by a bunch of goatfuckers 1.5-2-3-4 thousand years ago and say whatever you believe and point to a justification somewhere in this cobbled together fantasy short story collection your parents have been filling your head with since birth.
It's very liberating to be not only right but divinely right in your convictions.

[Anonymous No.9991725]

>>9991508
That's nice dear

[Anonymous No.9991764]

>>9991725
Not him, but I don't get most of this meme. What are the hands, the wheelchair, the piano and the torn out pages of scripture/random writing?

[Anonymous No.9991776]

>>9991764
It's probably a "metaphor".