Continuing research into the possibility of the reality of the Exodus, and current data/conclusions.

[SelfSim]

It's definitely a parable. There are both stories that are purely parable, and also some accounts of events that are also parables.

Really every story in the Old Testament is a parable, only in the text because it helps us learn something about human nature and so on.

For this story though, there's no way to determine by physical evidence whether or not the actual account in the text is purely parable or instead includes some real events!

Why can't we find out by physical evidence?

According to the actual account in the text, their shoes and clothing did not wear out in 40 years -- ergo, nothing would wear out....

Therefore, so far as the text is concerned, the story indicates no items would be discarded for us to be able to find or expect to find later.

Also in the text, typically they would have no time to find secure places to bury their dead, so that means the bodies would be left on the surface or buried very shallow and fast, for scavengers to find...

Ergo, nothing would remain to be found later.
...

The above reminds me of the classic paradox at the heart of mathematics, which led to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem:

That is, is the statement: 'This statement is false', a true statement?

If you can dismiss the Exodus as being a mere parable, are you saying that the Exodus is false, or is the Exodus true?

 

[Ophiolite]

If you can dismiss the Exodus as being a mere parable, are you saying that the Exodus is false, or is the Exodus true?

You appear to have entered the "The map is the territory"/"The map is not the territory" twilight zone. Are you channeling Korbzybski?

By the way the adjectival "mere" to qualify parable is ill chosen. Parables and their equivalents are immensely powerful tools for education. If Exodus is a parable the truth it presents is not about a suite of historical events, but about such matters as struggle and man's relationship with God. In the territory of the devout Christian these are important truths.

In other words, on the historical map @Halbhh appears to accept it is false. On the theological map he believes it to be true and thus rather than dismissing it as a mere parable he is elevating it to an important espistemological level.

 

[Ophiolite]

@Ophiolite

You'd be lucky if two totally different events happening on completely opposite sides or ends of the earth would even be separated be a "nanosecond of a nanosecond of time" realistically, etc.

God Bless.

Wrong:
Relativity in the Global Positioning System
Goodbye.

 

[Neogaia777]

Wrong:
Relativity in the Global Positioning System
Goodbye.

Sorry, that was accidentally put in the wrong thread, etc.

I'll transfer this back over to the other thread, ok.

But let's get it off if this one, ok.

God Bless.

 

[Halbhh]

The above reminds me of the classic paradox at the heart of mathematics, which led to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem:

That is, is the statement: 'This statement is false', a true statement?

If you can dismiss the Exodus as being a mere parable, are you saying that the Exodus is false, or is the Exodus true?

The parable meaning in a story in the text not only the most important part (by far), but is really the only part that matters (over time, ultimately).

If some literalist reads the text and misses the parable meaning -- the meaning of the story about their own life -- then lacking that parable meaning, they have missed not just 90% of the meaning, but will have missed 99% - 100% of the meaning of the text story.

In contrast, if someone reads the stories as parables, they are on the right track, and can potentially get the actual significance and meaning in the text.

 

[Neogaia777]

The parable meaning in a story in the text not only the most important part (by far), but is really the only part that matters (over time, ultimately).

If some literalist reads the text and misses the parable meaning -- the meaning of the story about their own life -- then lacking that parable meaning, they have missed not just 90% of the meaning, but will have missed 99% - 100% of the meaning of the text story.

In contrast, if someone reads the stories as parables, they are on the right track, and can potentially get the actual significance and meaning in the text.

Every man is a world, or a nation, or a people, or a Kingdom of nations (in the making) on the inside of himself.

Some with God, and others without God, etc.

And in that lies a lot of the OT's meaning.

Besides the individuals and their stories being examples as well, etc.

Luke 17:21- "The Kingdom (nation) of God is within you (in seed form)", etc.

And Jesus claimed to be the first and fullest fruition/fulfillment of that Kingdom, when he said the Kingdom (of God) was here, and was in our midst (meaning himself), etc.

God Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Every man is a world, or a nation, or a people, or a Kingdom of nations (in the making) on the inside of himself.

But no man is an island.

 

[Neogaia777]

But no man is an island.

He also belongs to a Kingdom that is also outside of Himself also, that consists of other people.

Right now that is all messed up, or is all out of order, but one day it won't be any longer, etc.

That one cannot be fixed by us and us alone right now, but is what will happen when Jesus comes back, etc.

Right now that makes our getting along with other people tough right now, sometimes making man want to be an island sometimes, etc.

God Bless.

 

[SelfSim]

...
By the way the adjectival "mere" to qualify parable is ill chosen. Parables and their equivalents are immensely powerful tools for education. If Exodus is a parable the truth it presents is not about a suite of historical events, but about such matters as struggle and man's relationship with God. In the territory of the devout Christian these are important truths.

In other words, on the historical map @Halbhh appears to accept it is false. On the theological map he believes it to be true and thus rather than dismissing it as a mere parable he is elevating it to an important espistemological level.

Hmm ..

Nope .. I'm sorry and perhaps its just me, but a parable based on what turns out as being deliberately misstated historical falsehoods, defeats its own moral purpose when published in documents clearly intended to be regarded as absolute Truths .. (ie: 'the word of God').

The effect this has, (perhaps out of sheer naivity), is instant creation of divisions between literalists and moralists, as well as establishment of, arguably, one of the most pernicious impacts on society I can think of; namely the introduction of individually selectable meanings of the same concept of 'truth'.

Letting this important observation based inference, be swept under the rug and then elevating it to episetemological importance, sits very uncomfortably with me, namely due to the obvious inconsistency it introduces.

 

[SelfSim]

The parable meaning in a story in the text not only the most important part (by far), but is really the only part that matters (over time, ultimately).

If some literalist reads the text and misses the parable meaning -- the meaning of the story about their own life -- then lacking that parable meaning, they have missed not just 90% of the meaning, but will have missed 99% - 100% of the meaning of the text story.

In contrast, if someone reads the stories as parables, they are on the right track, and can potentially get the actual significance and meaning in the text.

Please see my immediately above post #489 for my response on this issue.

 

[Neogaia777]

Hmm ..

Nope .. I'm sorry and perhaps its just me, but a parable based on what turns out as being deliberately misstated historical falsehoods, defeats its own moral purpose when published in documents clearly intended to be regarded as absolute Truths .. (ie: 'the word of God').

The effect this has, (perhaps out of sheer naivity), is instant creation of divisions between literalists and moralists, as well as establishment of, arguably, one of the most pernicious impacts on society I can think of; namely the introduction of individually selectable meanings of the same concept of 'truth'.

Letting this important observation based inference, be swept under the rug and then elevating it to episetemological importance, sits very uncomfortably with me, namely due to the obvious inconsistency it introduces.

We don't know if it was literally true yet or not, etc. But we know that some, or a lot of it still is/was literally true, etc.

But the stories in are also very useful in knowing or learning how to conquer yourself as well, and in knowing how to tear down the all the high places, defeat all the giants and/or proud wicked rulers, that exist within your own mind and heart, etc. Truth on or at different levels, still exists, etc.

And no one single religion, or any religion period, ever introduced individually selectable meanings on the same concept of truth into the world, etc, but the world both has and will always arrive at the conclusion on it's own apart from any kind of religion always, etc, given enough time, and social revolution/evolution, etc. "My truth, your truth", etc, etc, etc, seems to be all of everything that the rest of the world is all caught up in right now, and that wasn't at all because of religion, etc. The world all on it's own without God will always disagree on truth, and say that there is no absolute truth, and no one single, moral or otherwise, "truth", etc. Which is actually something the Jewish/Christian religion sought to rectify, but alas, everyone always questions everything and all, always leading to "my truth, your truth", and "never any one single truth", or "unifying truth" or "absolute truth", etc. But I do 100% agree with you about the ideas very, very pervasive "perniciousness" however, and "absolute destructiveness" however, but it was actually something the God of the Jewish and Christian religion has been trying to fix, ever since the rebellion of Satan, and the fall, etc.

God Bless.

 

[SelfSim]

We don't know if it was literally true yet or not, etc. But we know that some, or a lot of it still is/was literally true, etc.

But the stories in are also very useful in knowing or learning how to conquer yourself as well, and in knowing how to tear down the all the high places, defeat all the giants and/or proud wicked rulers, that exist within your own mind and heart, etc. Truth on or at different levels, still exists, etc.

And no one single religion, or any religion period, ever introduced individually selectable meanings on the same concept of truth into the world, etc, but the world both has and will always arrive at the conclusion on it's own apart from any kind of religion always, etc, given enough time, and social revolution/evolution, etc. "My truth, your truth", etc, etc, etc, seems to be all of everything that the rest of the world is all caught up in right now, and that wasn't at all because of religion, etc. The world all on it's own without God will always disagree on truth, and say that there is no absolute truth, and no one single, moral or otherwise, "truth", etc. Which is actually something the Jewish/Christian religion sought to rectify, but alas, everyone always questions everything and all, always leading to "my truth, your truth", and "never any one single truth", or "unifying truth" or "absolute truth", etc. But I do 100% agree with you about the ideas very, very pervasive "perniciousness" however, and "absolute destructiveness" however, but it was actually something the God of the Jewish and Christian religion has been trying to fix, ever since the rebellion of Satan, and the fall, etc.

God Bless.

As long as religions are based on untestable beliefs and elevate them to the status of 'Truths', such lofty goals will always be unobtainable .. and unsustainable.

Morality is at at the heart of all humans. Why? Because 'morality' is what we humans make it .. (and not some believed-in supernatural God telling us what to do).

 

[Neogaia777]

Morality is at at the heart of all humans. Why? Because 'morality' is what we humans make it .. (and not some believed-in supernatural God telling us what to do).

Good luck getting any secular society to all come into agreement on what morality is or should be for everybody apart from some kind of idea derived from a religion or a God, etc.

Because that is going so very well for them right now so far by what they all already know from within apart from any kind of religion or a God you know, etc.

Anyway, I'll be back later.

God Bless.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hmm ..

Nope .. I'm sorry and perhaps its just me, but a parable based on what turns out as being deliberately misstated historical falsehoods, defeats its own moral purpose when published in documents clearly intended to be regarded as absolute Truths .. (ie: 'the word of God').

The effect this has, (perhaps out of sheer naivity), is instant creation of divisions between literalists and moralists, as well as establishment of, arguably, one of the most pernicious impacts on society I can think of; namely the introduction of individually selectable meanings of the same concept of 'truth'.

Letting this important observation based inference, be swept under the rug and then elevating it to episetemological importance, sits very uncomfortably with me, namely due to the obvious inconsistency it introduces.

I am not saying that @Halbhh 's approach is a wise one, but the intent is honest and honourable.

Setting aside this specific example, are you asserting that as a general case one cannot have a Truth contained within a fictional tale? That this is possible was my main point. That Halbhh had apparently applied it here was the secondary one. (Though re-reading my post I don't think I made that at all clear.)

 

[SelfSim]

I am not saying that @Halbhh 's approach is a wise one, but the intent is honest and honourable.

I can't agree that its intellectually honest .. (even in the slightest degree).

Setting aside this specific example, are you asserting that as a general case one cannot have a Truth contained within a fictional tale? That this is possible was my main point. That Halbhh had apparently applied it here was the secondary one. (Though re-reading my post I don't think I made that at all clear.)

I think the context the story is embedded in, is sufficient to give lie to any semblance of consistency, integrity and its claims, in the absence of any supporting physical evidence. I can easily find 'truths' from far more independently reliable and consistent sources.

I think people are far too willing to pass it off as just a harmless fictional story on the basis of 'diplomacy', (or sustaining their own beliefs).

 

[Neogaia777]

I think people are far too willing to pass it off as just a harmless fictional story on the basis of 'diplomacy', (or sustaining their own beliefs).

And now your accusing him/her (@Ophiolite) of having some kind of bias, while secretly having your own, etc.

Because I can tell you right now @Ophiolite is not afraid to disagree with people just because he/she is afraid to do so, or just wants friends, or is just trying to save face, etc.

So why don't you just be honest with yourself and say that you just now accused him/her of that in this statement you just now made because you're upset that he/she didn't/doesn't agree with you, etc. Or are you now going to tell me that when you said "people", you didn't at all mean him/her (@Ophiolite), etc?

He/She simply believes that any and all stories can teach, and that they don't all have to be literally true in order to do that, etc.

Some of the very best lessons/ideals/virtues/morals, that I might also call "truths", can most definitely come from fiction, etc.

And I would even say they are on a much more higher level than other ones, etc.

The fact that you think there are better sources for that than the Bible, is completely up to you, but not everyone has to agree with you, etc.

It's each "to his or her own" in that area, etc, and not everyone has to agree, etc.

In my opinion, you owe @Ophiolite an apology, etc.

I had to suck up my pride and do it earlier, but can you, etc?

God Bless.

 

[SelfSim]

And now your accusing him/her (@Ophiolite) of having some kind of bias, while secretly having your own, etc.

Because I can tell you right now @Ophiolite is not afraid to disagree with people just because he/she is afraid to do so, or just wants friends, or is just trying to save face, etc.

So why don't you just be honest with yourself and say that you just now accused him/her of that in this statement you just now made because you're upset that he/she didn't/doesn't agree with you, etc. Or are you now going to tell me that when you said "people", you didn't at all mean him/her (@Ophiolite), etc?

He/She simply believes that any and all stories can teach, and that they don't all have to be literally true in order to do that, etc.

Some of the very best lessons/ideals/virtues/morals, that I might also call "truths", can most definitely come from fiction, etc.

And I would even say they are on a much more higher level than other ones, etc.

The fact that you think there are better sources for that than the Bible, is completely up to you, but not everyone has to agree with you, etc.

It's each "to his or her own" in that area, etc, and not everyone has to agree, etc.

In my opinion, you owe @Ophiolite an apology, etc.

I had to suck up my pride and do it earlier, but can you, etc?

God Bless.

That post was just a pile of rubbish!

I merely shared my views on the approach advocated by @Halbhh .. and @Ophiolite can interpret them from that context without the assistance of your obfuscations.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed as there were multiple rule violations and the thread has become a General Apologetics threads.​