Antonio83 said:
But that is the point, it doesn't matter the degree of historicity for most of Scripture, although I do believe the large majority of it to be historical or based on historical events. Getting back to Job for a minute, what you seem to be saying is that you would find the truths contained in the story less applicable and less a "message from God" to the extent it sounds historical to you, but isn't really. But, as you say, whether it is historical or not is unclear, as is seen in this thread. If Calvin, an arch-literalist can doubt its historicity, we can see the scope of the problem.
But, if we say we will doubt God's message to the extent we doubt historicity of a given text, what do we do with Job? My pointing to the parables was NOT to say Job is written like a parable, but that a non-historical story, if that is what Job is, is no less the words of God to us. We would take it just as seriously and as "real" for us, correct? If you found out today, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Job was non-historical, what would you do? I suspect you would say "ah, OK then, I will simply read it that way and treat it the same as any other non-historical presentation, like a parable."
Now, if that is how you would react anyway, then its historicity is not crucial, since your ultimate treatment of the text is the same in your life. So, the only problem lies when we are insisting that it be something, then doubt whether it is that thing.
Yes, there are some texts which a lack of historicity would actually effect our Christian beliefs and theology. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus, for example. So, for that reason alone, we can know that they are historical events.
Upvote
0
