The Anointed
Well-Known Member
Historical.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
This is how I do it: If I see any signs that it was intended as an allegory, I interpret it as an allegory. If not, I interpret it as being intended as literal. On this case, I interpret it as being intended as literal. How should I vote?
I am afraid that by voting in 'historical' that would be understood as actually believing those events transpired. I do not. I consider it to be a fabrication.
I believe you should reveal what your basis is for believing it is a fabrication. Are there other writers saying so back then? Have you talked to any eyewitnesses?
Excuse my perverse sense of humour but with the coronavirus on the forefront of our minds, I thought a debate about the ten plagues of Egypt might provide a welcome distraction for some of us more scripturally orientated members. I’ve been thinking about plagues after a family member asked me if the coronavirus could be considered a plague. I explained that it couldn’t and the term isn’t used in medicine these days except when discussing the history of medicine long before the advent of the science of microbiology.
It had me thinking about the ten plagues of Egypt. Most of us are familiar with the story but for those who aren’t it forms part of the story of the book of Exodus when Ten disasters are inflicted on Egypt by Yahweh the God of Israel, in order to force the Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to depart from slavery; they serve as "signs and marvels" given by God to answer Pharaoh's taunt that he does not know Yahweh: "The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD."
The last plague is perhaps the most evocative. In Exodus 11:4-6 it is written;
This is what the LORD says: "About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again."
Before His final plague, God commands Moses to tell the Israelites to mark a lamb’s blood above their doors in order that Yahweh will pass over them (i.e., that they will not be touched by the death of the firstborn). Pharaoh distraught at the carnage orders the Israelites to leave, taking whatever they want.
Adapted from
Plagues of Egypt - Wikipedia
So were the ten plagues of Egypt allegorical or historical? What proofs if any can you use to support your position?
@adrian009 I want to revisit this question with you... "So were the ten plagues of Egypt allegorical or historical?"
Earlier, I said, I too [along with a number of persons in the Bible (I named at least six)], believe the scriptures to be true - the inspired word of God. Hence, I believe that for me to claim to believe the scriptures, and at the same time, claim the plagues to be allegorical, creates a contradiction of claims, which would reveal either a gross ignorance, or serious hypocrisy, since I would be demonstrating disbelief in what is written.
I really was interested in getting your response, but did not hear from you.
I want to ask what your thoughts are on what I said, and also ask if you think Psalms 78 is a scripture that does not belong in the holy writings, because I think it definitively refutes the beliefs of those who hold to the view that the plagues of Egypt, as well as other events surrounding the Exodus, are allegorical.
The entire Psalm is worth reading, but here are some excerpts...
Psalm 78
The writer of this Psalm is relating these accounts as history, not allegory.
What is your response?
Firstly, they weren't actually plagues as they weren't all diseases, some were frogs hopping about.
I think that they were intended to be historical but are not.
Maybe, but wrote Exodus and when? No one knows for certain. How can we be certain of the intent if can't even be certain of facts surrounding the authorship and when it was written?
Thank you.Story telling is part of every culture. Some stories may:
1/ Have no historical basis at all
2/ Embellish actual history
3/ Attempt to provide an account of history.
When one generation refers to the stories of the previous generation as completely historical rather than the embellished history or complete myth when first, then misunderstandings begins.
Jesus refers to the story of Noah in His final sermon:
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Matthew 24:37-39
Does that mean we should take the account of Noah in Genesis as being literally true?
I know your answer, and mine is 'No'. There isn't a shred of evidence to support a worldwide flood and the story of all the animals of the earth coming together on the ark is far too implausible to be taken seriously. Same deal with the ten plagues of Egypt. You label my view as 'gross ignorance' and 'serious hypocrisy' if you like. I call it respect for evidence and science.
Thank you.
So to you, the Jews engaged in storytelling which 1) have no historical basis at all; 2/ embellish actual history; 3/ Attempt to provide an account of history. So that later generation of Jews took them as actual true history, and live according to a made up history,, but people in our time take these false stories and claim that they were told with a hidden meaning that can be understood.
You last statement does not seem to fit your argument at all.
Where is the evidence and science for the God you serve?
There is none, but you take your God as literally true.
Seems to me a contradiction of claims here also.
Story telling is part of every culture. Some stories may:
1/ Have no historical basis at all
2/ Embellish actual history
3/ Attempt to provide an account of history.
As you know, I think the stories were meant to be taken literally by those people in ancient times. Today, those stories don't seem as though they could possibly be literal. This puts a lot of pressure on the believers in those religions... How far are they going to go with taking things as literal?The extent to wish Jews took their sacred scriptures literally in the past and now warrants investigation. Orthodox Jews would be more inclined to literalism as opposed to Reformist Jews. I’m sure there were trends towards being more literal in the past. Same deal with Christianity. Of course you are part of a relatively small Christian sect or denomination that takes a more literalist approach.
Having an historical basis to faith and belief in God is very important though. Most scholars agree Jesus was an historical figure who was an itinerant preacher who was crucified. So I believe I’m standing on solid ground in regards Faith in Christ. Not that my faith is determined by what historians determine to have factual basis and what doesn’t. My Faith is founded on historical characters and what they taught.
As you know, I think the stories were meant to be taken literally by those people in ancient times. Today, those stories don't seem as though they could possibly be literal. This puts a lot of pressure on the believers in those religions... How far are they going to go with taking things as literal?
The only problem I have with the Baha'is is when they say that the stories were true, but symbolically true. What does that even mean? To me, that means the story was fiction. Is this accurate, though? Is that what Baha'u'llah has said that the stories are "symbolically" true? If so, what did he say about the plagues?
Why do you think the Jews extended the scriptures beyond what was literally true - a guess, disbelief in what was recorded, or just personal feeling... or other?The extent to which Jews took their sacred scriptures literally iin the past and now warrants investigation.
You are sure, based on what facts exactly?Orthodox Jews would be more inclined to literalism as opposed to Reformist Jews. I’m sure there were trends towards being more literal in the past.
I go by what is recorded as being literal, (by Jewish writers), which is a part of Jewish custom, based on their history. Investigation led me to conclusive evidence that it's literal history. No guesses, or personal views.Same deal with Christianity. Of course you are part of a relatively small Christian sect or denomination that takes a more literalist approach.
Are you saying this is evidence and science for your God?Having an historical basis to faith and belief in God is very important though. Most scholars agree Jesus was an historical figure who was an itinerant preacher who was crucified. So I believe I’m standing on solid ground in regards Faith in Christ. Not that my faith is determined by what historians determine to have factual basis and what doesn’t. My Faith is founded on historical characters and what they taught.
Baha’is have a much stronger historical basis for their faith than Christians as we believe that Muhammad and more recently the Bab and Bahá’u’lláh were Manifestations of God. So we can be much more certain about historical facts concerning lives of more recent Divine Messengers as well as what They taught. That’s not to say we should believe every recorded event attributable to Their lives should be accepted as literal history.
Why do you think the Jews extended the scriptures beyond what was literally true - a guess, disbelief in what was recorded, or just personal feeling... or other?
You are sure, based on what facts exactly?
.I go by what is recorded as being literal, (by Jewish writers), which is a part of Jewish custom, based on their history. Investigation led me to conclusive evidence that it's literal history. No guesses, or personal views.
Are you saying this is evidence and science for your God?
The lack of evidence. The ten plagues would have been remarkable enough for other people to have written about them.
I believe one might expect that but history is often written by the winners and the losers tend to bury it.
Absolutely false. Even within the more orthodox circles, it is an axiom that one needs to try and ascertain "the meaning behind the words".I go by what is recorded as being literal, (by Jewish writers), which is a part of Jewish custom, based on their history. Investigation led me to conclusive evidence that it's literal history. No guesses, or personal views.
So there is no evidence, yet Baha'is believe Moses was a manifestation? So similar to the story of Jesus, things that are told as if actual historical events are not. But the person in the story is real? I still have a difficult time thinking that the whole purpose and the real purpose of the story was that it had a spiritual/symbolic meaning. I think the "literal" meaning is much more powerful. Thousands of years ago who would know? Traditions were past down orally, then finally written down. Children would be taught, "This is our history of how we got here. It is the story of our God and what he's done for us." I don't think they'd get the same effect if they said, "This is a fictional story about our people and our God. In this fictional story our God parted the seas and sent plagues to the people that enslaved us. None of it is true, but you get the idea right? There is a great spiritual message to be learned."There is a youtube video on the ten plaques of Egypt from a Bahaí perspective that may interest you.
What would you do if a religion gave you a book that wasn't literally true? And then told you to follow all the teachings of peace and love in that book but not to get caught up in the stories, since they aren't true? I think it makes Christianity meaningless. What could Christians say when they held up the Bible, "Listen people in this book are great fictional stories about God and his prophets and of his Christ." That is no where near what Bible-believing Christians do say, "This Book is the very Word of God. Believing in it and listen to what it says. Within its pages you will find salvation for your soul."I go by what is recorded as being literal,
So how do Jews take the "historical" stories? Something like the plagues and the parting of the sea, do they look at them and say, "Well, obviously this didn't happen, so what is the spiritual message behind the story?" And I really don't see why hundreds of years ago why people would not take it literal. Why would they doubt that their God did miraculous things for them? Now, of course, is different. So what does it mean to "believe" in the Bible when the person believes the stories are not historical but fictional?Absolutely false. Even within the more orthodox circles, it is an axiom that one needs to try and ascertain "the meaning behind the words".
Also, all branches of Judaism rely at least somewhat on what are called "commentaries", namely various interpretations of narratives, especially by sages, such as Hillel, Akiva, the RAMBAM (Maimonides), etc. If one does Torah study, as I did for a couple of decades, you dig through these commentaries to try and get things put into various perspectives to help with our own personal discernment. Thus, the axiom that "two Jews have three opinions on everything".
BTW, according to my former rabbi, the verse with the most commentaries deals with the verse that says "and God hardened Pharaoh's heart...".
So there is no evidence, yet Baha'is believe Moses was a manifestation? So similar to the story of Jesus, things that are told as if actual historical events are not. But the person in the story is real? I still have a difficult time thinking that the whole purpose and the real purpose of the story was that it had a spiritual/symbolic meaning. I think the "literal" meaning is much more powerful. Thousands of years ago who would know? Traditions were past down orally, then finally written down. Children would be taught, "This is our history of how we got here. It is the story of our God and what he's done for us." I don't think they'd get the same effect if they said, "This is a fictional story about our people and our God. In this fictional story our God parted the seas and sent plagues to the people that enslaved us. None of it is true, but you get the idea right? There is a great spiritual message to be learned."