Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
To help things along, read the story in 2 Sam 12.
so you read 2 Sam 12 1-6? Nathan's store - i.e. he story Nathan tells?Can't see anything that relates to the topic of this thread. Sorry.
All I see is more war, innocent children being struck down by God, and God taking people's wives and making them sleep around in public.
What makes me think that most of the books in the OT are intended to be read as historical?No. What makes you think that?
Serious question. I think this is necessary to explore, before anyone can help you with this.
I don't think that the authors would spend time forming these long ass genealogies and making references to real people and places if it's all just made up.
so you read 2 Sam 12 1-6? Nathan's store - i.e. he story Nathan tells?
Right, now assume for a moment that the back story - David, Nathan, Bathsheba, Uriah, etc is all fact.
Did the events in Nathan's story happen?
The quote in my original post seems to contradict this statement.The most powerful, truth telling, literature is not a collection of facts but literature that reveals something vitally important. Something that may not be reducible to fact at all.
a. different authors don't have to use identical conventions.Are any of these chapters parables?
No, because when Jesus told a parable He either said it was a parable, or He introduced it with a simile, so making it plain to the hearers that it was a parable, as on the many occasions when He said, ‘The kingdom of heaven is like … .’ No such claim is made or style used by the author of Genesis 1–11.
Your quote presumes that the only things God wants to convey reduce to some kind of trivia - small, straightforward, facts.The quote in my original post seems to contradict this statement.
From your cited article, to illustrate its shallowness:
a. different authors don't have to use identical conventions.
b. Nathan didn't tell David he was about to tell him a parabolic story
c. The article is factually incorrect - Jesus did tell parables without explicitly marking them as such.
What makes me think that most of the books in the OT are intended to be read as historical?
Well, the main reason is I've been taught in a Christian school for the past 10 years that this is the only way to read some of these books.
But now you are telling me all my teachers are morons who can understand so much about the books but they can't even identify if the author intended for it to be historical?
Also I just briefly read over some of what this site has to say about genesis and it makes some very good points about why the only way it can be taken is historically:
I don't think that the authors would spend time forming these long ass genealogies and making references to real people and places if it's all just made up. Another reason is the quote by a christian here in my first post.
(Remember for a moment we are thinking through a hypothetical where the back-story is factual)1-6 is the story Nathan made up to show David how stupid he is
But him composing the story in his brain, him explaining it to David... all happen in reality?
What are you trying to prove?
And hopefully the lesson you've learned is that just because something looks convincing it doesn't mean that it's sound.Well shame on them for not doing their homework!
The factual-ness either is or isn't.I'd still like for you to answer this question though:
So what makes the book about Jesus any more factual than the book about the Israelites exiting out of Egypt?
(Remember for a moment we are thinking through a hypothetical where the back-story is factual)
Nathan's story describes a real event, but it doesn't do it in a factual way. He tells the real event through a parabolic story, that brings out for David the seriousness and injustice of what he has done. The parabolic telling gets across to David an important truth that a factual account would not have conveyed.
It's a unique instance where the bible directly shows us how parabolic stories work and why God would choose such literary genres.
I presume what you really mean is "why should I think the Gospels to be more factual than Exodus"?
I'd still like for you to answer this question though:
So what makes the book about Jesus any more factual than the book about the Israelites exiting out of Egypt?
Is it not possible that you're misreading the clues to genre because what you've got to go on are what your culture has taught you to look for, not what the original audience would be looking for?I'll say it again, I'm not questioning that fake stories can communicate an important truth. I'm pointing my finger at the authors of the Bible for desperately trying to convince us that something is historical when so many people here seem to agree that it is not.
If I told you two stories:Yes, answer pls
Add a few more years...I don't really want people knowing my age because that changes the way they are going to talk to me.So, you're in 10th grade? You're 15?
I think God relying on mankind to spread his message makes absolutely no sense, especially in a world where mankind has entrapped billions in false religions. All scripture in my eyes is basically worthless to me. I don't care for the 2000 year old testimony of dead strangers. I really have no way of knowing if they were credible and trustworthy or not. People have to earn my trust, it isn't free.Once you see the intent of Scripture, and different sections of it, it is AMAZING!! It fits together far better than you can imagine, and all becomes incredibly strong. It all has a purpose, and within that purpose its all true. We call this rightly dividing the word. You can place that passage, right?
ok.For that matter, try to find a Rabbi teaching Genesis as literal. I don't think you can do it. If you do, you won't find any agreeing with him. OT is JEWISH; shouldn't the way they teach it count for something?
Nothing is wrong. I want a faith with no evidence or backbone to be shredded to pieces. If it can be replaced by something more substantial and convincing then I'll happily join back in.And yet in the NT we read that we shouldn't concern ourselves with these genealogies. Why is that? Don't get me wrong, if you study deep enough into the language they do all have some value, but ya gots to dig deeper here. Salvation isn't where you're looking, and the way you're going about it your Faith is being torn apart. Doesn't that tell you something's wrong?
If I told you two stories:
The first beginning "once upon a time, in a land far away..."
And the second beginning "last Thursday we..."
Which would you think the more factual?
I'm not questioning that fake stories can communicate an important truth.
I'm pointing my finger at the authors of the Bible for desperately trying to convince us that something is historical
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?