🚀 go-pugleaf

Antares 531 wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:59:50 +1200, BuddyThunder
> <nospam@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> 
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Jul 6, 12:57 am, BuddyThunder <nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>>> rbwinn wrote:
> (snip)
>> The Bible was very accurately transcribed - for humans. They did an 
>> amazing job. Not a perfect job, there are lots of differences between 
>> the early versions we have, but not bad for a bunch of people.
>>
>> It's the content that I find even less reliable though, that's what I 
>> was driving at, and I think you know that.
>>
>> Much reported as history in the Bible simply never happened. No global 
>> flood, no special creation, no exodus...
>>
> Few of those Biblical stories are to be taken literally. Most are
> allegory, parable, simile, etc., sometimes based upon an existing
> legend. The purpose was to make it possible for a mostly illiterate
> people to get the embedded meaning, retain the story, and pass it on
> from generation to generation with little drift.
> 
> The flood was probably based upon the ancient stories about the
> flooding of the Mediterranean basin shortly after the last ice age
> ended. The Strait of Gibraltar was breached as the Atlantic ocean
> level raised. When this happened the whole Mediterranean basin was
> flooded in a very short time...like 40 days and 40 nights. The relics
> of those stone walls and buildings that were out in what is now the
> Mediterranean are still available for divers to see.
> 
> The main point I'm making is that we should not get hung up on the
> literary form used in the Bible. We can read it and interpret it just
> as effectively as those ancient people could. Neither of us has an
> advantage over the other.   Gordon

They can't sensibly be taken literally, as they apparently never 
happened. I think you're right, these things were sometimes adapted from 
existing legend, which all points to a concerted human authorship effort 
rather than divine origins.

The Bible presents these things as if they happened. Jesus was clear 
when he was speaking in parables, why couldn't the OT be similarly 
up-front? I'm unconvinced that we're meant to disbelieve in the story of 
Noah. Why would the dimensions of the ark be given if it was a parable?

Anyway, where do you draw the line between literal truth and "symbolic 
allegory", or falsified story?

How do I know which bits really happened and which bits are fancy? If I 
can't depend on all of it, how can I depend on any of it?