Is the Bible Just a Myth?

[Ben Avraham]

Is the Bible just a myth?

No, the Bible is especially a compendium of metaphorical literature. Most of it can be understood only by experts on metaphorical language. Since most people lack that expertise, the world is crowded with blindly religious sects.

 

[ArtieE]

Is the Bible just a myth?

No, the Bible is especially a compendium of metaphorical literature. Most of it can be understood only by experts on metaphorical language. Since most people lack that expertise, the world is crowded with blindly religious sects.

What is God a metaphor for...?

 

[ArtieE]

Is the Bible just a myth?

No, the Bible is especially a compendium of metaphorical literature. Most of it can be understood only by experts on metaphorical language. Since most people lack that expertise, the world is crowded with blindly religious sects.

What is your metaphorical interpretation of this passage in Exodus 33?

20And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.21And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: 22And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: 23And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
http://biblehub.com/kjv/exodus/33.htm

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Creating one's own analogy to then tear it apart is quite easy. Let me create mine...

Let's say I read a story 250 years ago about a so called revolution. Then I found a "Declaration of Independence" document that was in the story. Do I reasonably conclude that it is just another troll story? When does truth become fiction?

If you tell me a story where you saw a rabid dog in the park and I go out there and find dog foot prints, does that prove your story?

ps. I hoped that you understand why I didn't comment on your battle of Gettysburg. If there are archaeological evidences that support the historical accounts, then I wouldn't call it myth.

Yeah, but there's a difference between finding Civil-War-era bullets on a battlefield site and saying it proves Joe Bob Jenkins was a Confederate spy who had lots of liaisons with slaves while ... well, etc, etc.

I personally don't find anything wrong is seeing some parts of being historical (for instances, the Assyrian intervention in the war between Judah and the alliance of Israel and Aram in 732 BCE, or that of the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE, because there outside sources to match some biblical accounts) when the bible did get history right, while in other parts of the bible are myths ( e.g. Genesis Flood and the Tower of Babel, the Exodus).

I think the most trustworthy stuff comes around the fall of the monarchy and the Exile. I suspect this is where the texts were actually written (the OT mostly reads like a church vs state contest between those loyal to the prophet guild and those loyal to the monarchy).

 

[Hawkins]

This is a comment that so many people use saying that the Bible is, indeed, mythical stories. And yet I find it so interesting, as archeological discoveries continue, that it continues to validate what was written.

At what point does one accept, after validating documentation appears again and again, does on finally accept it as historical?

Here is the latest one that has been discovered validating the works of King Hezekiah who lived around 700 BC.

http://www.livescience.com/56300-gate-shrine-excavated-in-israel.html

People call things a myth sometimes simply because they don't know how to identify a truth from a myth.

1) It boils down to how a truth can convey among humans across a history of 2000 years.
It's like history, for whatever happened, what humans can do is just to write it down for later humans to believe with faith. There's no other way round for a truth to convey.

2) it boils down to how an event being out of our knowledge to comprehend is conveyed
We usually arrogantly assume that nothing can exist outside of our knowledge. For anything beyond our comprehension we thus call it a 'myth'. So can a truth exist beyond our reach (that is , beyond the reach of our current science and technology)? If so, then in the case that such a truth was encountered by humans 2000 years ago how can this truth be conveyed? Those humans may (or may not) write it down for today's humans to read with faith. It remains the only way for such a truth to convey across history. To some it will inevitably be considered as a myth even when it is a truth!

Do myths exist. Yes they do, a truth can co-exist with all those myths. How humans can tell,

1) by examining the validity of the witnessing itself
2) you need faith to believe anyway under the circumstance that even when it's a truth
3) remove your prejudice of assuming anything beyond your comprehension a myth

 

[Hawkins]

If you tell me a story where you saw a rabid dog in the park and I go out there and find dog foot prints, does that prove your story?

That's how your daily news are broadcast. Do you bother to prove each piece of news before you believe?

 

[Coder]

Is the Bible just a myth?

No, the Bible is especially a compendium of metaphorical literature.

See Ken? Remember our discussion about the Gospel of John?

(Thank you Ben )

 

[roger1440]

Creating one's own analogy to then tear it apart is quite easy. Let me create mine...

Let's say I read a story 250 years ago about a so called revolution. Then I found a "Declaration of Independence" document that was in the story. Do I reasonably conclude that it is just another troll story? When does truth become fiction?

If you only knew of one story about the revolution, I would say you have bigger problems especially if you are from the United States.

 

[Ben Avraham]

See Ken? Remember our discussion about the Gospel of John?

(Thank you Ben )

Yes Coder, but there is a lot of truth in metaphorical teaching. In fact, I find this a little unfair because, IMHO, about 75% of the readers have no control of metaphorical language. Hence, the absurdities of literal understanding.

 

[Ben Avraham]

What is your metaphorical interpretation of this passage in Exodus 33?

20And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.21And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: 22And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: 23And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
http://biblehub.com/kjv/exodus/33.htm

20 - Why can't we see the face of God? Because God has no face. Jesus said in John 4:24 that God is a Spirit. Spirits are incorporeal. To show a face one must be corporeal.
21 - A place by Me is not a place where I stand; but you will be as firm as a rock if you stand by Me.
22 - "My glory" is the unseen presence of God in the life of Moses. It will pass by as Moses will not be there forever with HaShem. In the meantime the Lord will protect him with His "hand" though in a cleft of the rock. The cleft is a limited time in the life of Moses as compared with God.
23 - In spite of what Moses represented the Lord would remove His "hand" of protection and Moses would die as all men do but he would always be remembered for his knowledge of HaShem's "back parts" aka His past glory of what was done in Egypt. But not "His face" aka the things further to happen. This was for Joshua who would continue the job assigned to Moses. Hence, the Prophet like unto Moses. (Numbers 27:18-20)

 

[Ben Avraham]

What is God a metaphor for...?

What's the matter about metaphors? The problem with metaphors is not in the metaphorical elements but with those who do not understand metaphorical symbols. God is not a metaphor but, He is taught through metaphorical symbols even if those who are doing the teaching do not understand the teaching process.

 

[Segev Moran]

This is a comment that so many people use saying that the Bible is, indeed, mythical stories. And yet I find it so interesting, as archeological discoveries continue, that it continues to validate what was written.

At what point does one accept, after validating documentation appears again and again, does on finally accept it as historical?

Here is the latest one that has been discovered validating the works of King Hezekiah who lived around 700 BC.

http://www.livescience.com/56300-gate-shrine-excavated-in-israel.html

That is very much wrong.
Only some of the bible is "approved" by archaeology...
In many many cases, The bible is far wrong than the actual things we find.
Just as an example, is the fossils. They prove quite the other way than the bible.

There were no fossils or relics found near mount Sinai, rather in a different mountain.
There are many examples that do not match, and many that do...

Now regardless of that, the fact some facts are matching, this does not mean that the whole bible is a factual book.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

This is a comment that so many people use saying that the Bible is, indeed, mythical stories. And yet I find it so interesting, as archeological discoveries continue, that it continues to validate what was written.

At what point does one accept, after validating documentation appears again and again, does on finally accept it as historical?

Here is the latest one that has been discovered validating the works of King Hezekiah who lived around 700 BC.

http://www.livescience.com/56300-gate-shrine-excavated-in-israel.html

Every great lie runs parallel to the truth.

 

[jonathan180iq]

This is a comment that so many people use saying that the Bible is, indeed, mythical stories. And yet I find it so interesting, as archeological discoveries continue, that it continues to validate what was written.

At what point does one accept, after validating documentation appears again and again, does on finally accept it as historical?

Here is the latest one that has been discovered validating the works of King Hezekiah who lived around 700 BC.

That an ancient book describes places that actually exist should not be surprising. It's the dictations of events that supposedly took place at those locations that are mythological.

The Iliad, for example, accurately depicts locations and even kingdoms. Does that mean that the Cyclops and Sirens were real?

 

[ArtieE]

20 - Why can't we see the face of God? Because God has no face. Jesus said in John 4:24 that God is a Spirit. Spirits are incorporeal. To show a face one must be corporeal.
21 - A place by Me is not a place where I stand; but you will be as firm as a rock if you stand by Me.
22 - "My glory" is the unseen presence of God in the life of Moses. It will pass by as Moses will not be there forever with HaShem. In the meantime the Lord will protect him with His "hand" though in a cleft of the rock. The cleft is a limited time in the life of Moses as compared with God.
23 - In spite of what Moses represented the Lord would remove His "hand" of protection and Moses would die as all men do but he would always be remembered for his knowledge of HaShem's "back parts" aka His past glory of what was done in Egypt. But not "His face" aka the things further to happen. This was for Joshua who would continue the job assigned to Moses. Hence, the Prophet like unto Moses. (Numbers 27:18-20)

Is there a version of the Bible where somebody has translated all the metaphors into clear and understandable contemporary English? Where it means what it says?

 

[ArtieE]

What's the matter about metaphors? The problem with metaphors is not in the metaphorical elements but with those who do not understand metaphorical symbols.

The problem with metaphors is that anything that doesn't make sense literally can be interpreted metaphorically and made to look as if it makes sense. And that which does make sense literally doesn't have to be interpreted metaphorically.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

That's how your daily news are broadcast. Do you bother to prove each piece of news before you believe?

The reason we have fact checking sites is due to the lowering of standards in journalism. If a reporter tells me the video I'm watching is of a Muslim invasion, and it's really a wedding party in context, then the journalist should be punished for slander and whatever else applies, as the minority becomes at risk for harm by stupid hateful people.

If KenS tells me a story of seeing a rabid dog, points to a bunch of dog prints at the park and says it proves his story, and the dog is put down, but dog prints don't prove the infection status of a dog ... KenS risks killing an innocent life because his logic misses the ballpark completely. Bad logic can be harmful, even fatal.

Proving the existence of the Declaration of Independence would not prove that Ben Franklin slept with Sally Sue that Tuesday because IT'S IRRELEVANT TO THE STORY. Proving that there was a House of David doesn't prove the Bathsheba nonsense because merely stating the name does NOT prove the STORY.

 

[Ana.J]

Well, the Bible exists. But the question is if it is based on a true story......

 

[Coder]

...there is a lot of truth in metaphorical teaching...Hence, the absurdities of literal understanding.

Oh I agree 100%, sorry if I gave other impression. Some metaphor can also be more parabolic (i.e. more like a parable to relate to those who understand a certain language) - true?

You see, I believe that the Trinity doctrine is a result of terminology used in Scripture itself using "father gods" and "son gods" (e.g. Saturn-Jupiter) terminology (in some places) to relate the reality of the one true God becoming man to pagans who had pervasive concepts of "father gods" and "son gods". They even believed that some of their gods impregnated human women and had children of "gods". In the Roman Empire, some emperors were "gods" and had the title "son of god" (Divi Filius)."father-son" "god-man".

So, I propose that much of the Gospel of John (a later Gospel) is a parabolic metaphor for Greek/Roman pagan religious (of Roman Empire) to help them relate to the one true God. In the Christian Creeds we see repeated emphasis: "one God", "true God", "you alone are the Most High"... They are dealing with pagans who believed in many "gods" and "sons of gods". Even the Creeds had to keep stressing this into their heads. Jewish people did not need this, they already believe in one God. Is it any wonder Jews were not interested in what was once a Jewish movement (Christianity)?

 

[Coder]

Well, the Bible exists. But the question is if it is based on a true story......

A certain book is considered to be "Scripture" by a certain group and in the group, the meaning is not confusing. However, to someone who comes along an picks up the book, it can appear very confusing. I think to look at the themes in helpful. For example, the Jewish people believe that they have a special call from God. What is the theme of the Hebrew Scriptures? Here's some themes:

A.) A main theme is that God made promises to and blessed Abraham and his descendants.

B.) God kept His promises and helped the Jewish people such as the Exodus and defending against warrior nations.

C.) God is all-powerful and He is one. "I am the Lord your God". Creation (Genesis).

D.) Prophecy - including the Messianic prophecies

From D.) we can move to the themes of the Christian Bible. Christian themes:

A.) God came to us as a human (Jesus).

B.) Jesus is the Messiah.

C.) The Jewish truth about God is for all nations (the whole world).

D.) God forgives sins and the death and resurrection of Jesus forgives our sins and also gives evidence that Jesus is who He says He is.

(By the way, "Christ" is Greek for "Messiah"). I think that the Jewish movement called Christianity is still moving forward ("recovering from") Greek/Roman/pagan influences including the Roman Empire.

So, once one knows the main "themes" of the Scripture, some of the other things can be understood in context. Some things are intended to be literal and some things may not be, but their meaning is more important. For example, in Judaism, the belief that God created the universe is important. Whether this occurred exactly 5777 years ago may be less important. In fact, science tells us that the universe is about 14 billion years old but that does not change the important belief that all creation is from God.