Wednesday, August 31, 2011

You Think WHAT??

Paul by paynehollow

Paul, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Okay, seriously, I'd like some very honest, hard-hitting answers to some direct and reasonable questions on this point. I've been having an email conversation with the fella mentioned in the previous post who said I'd misunderstood and misrepresented his position. Fair enough, it happens. I'm not perfect. I certainly have not done so intentionally, but he says I've got his position wrong.



No problem, I said to him. Just tell me what I've got wrong and I can correct it.



First off, as you'll recall or can go back and read, I said that the fella stated (his exact words),



"Most people have no idea that the concept of having a say in marriage is remarkably new ... and not necessarily a good thing.



Arranged marriages were the norm for most of the history of marriage and still are the norm in some cultures today. They were even occurring in American culture as late as the 19th century. I'm sorry, but calling that "rape" is a function of ignorance, not value judgment."




Those are his words, no error there.



Where I erred, he says, was in saying that this quote above was in reference to the passages that I referenced in the previous post: Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 21. He clarified that was NOT speaking of women captured during war time and taken home to be made into wives. He was speaking specifically of the idea of "arranged marriages" that were common back in the day and still are common in some more fundamentalist (my word, not his) circles, like with some Muslims and some extreme Mormons, as well as with some Asian cultures. These are not typically FORCED marriages - the bride can say No. It's just an arranged marriage in which the bride and groom are consenting.



Okay, no problem, I get now that he was speaking of arranged marriages when he made that quote. BUT, that was not the question I had for him, nor the point of the last post: What of the biblical passages that were being raised? Deut 21 and Num 31, for instance?



Those aren't arranged marriages. They are what I think we can all agree might be called forced marriages. In my opinion (and, seriously, I can't imagine I'm in the minority here), a forced marriage (one in which the "bride" is not willing but, as in this case, a kidnapped or captured woman from another nation) is much closer to rape than to marriage.



FIRST QUESTION: Am I right? Can we ALL agree that when you have a situation in which a woman is FORCED to marry, against her will; is forced to have sex in that forced marriage, that this can legitimately be called rape? Unwanted, forcible sex IS the definition of rape, am I right?



Well, I just couldn't get him to answer these questions. He dodged and ignored the questions asked of him, rather than answering straightforwardly. And so, while I can acknowledge that he was speaking specifically of a certain type of consensual arranged marriage, I can't say what his position is on the topic of my post because he won't answer what his position is.



The reason I was asking him was so I COULD accurately correct my supposed misrepresentation and reflect his actual position. From what he has said, he SOUNDS LIKE he doesn't think that capturing a woman and forcing her into marriage is equivalent to rape in any way, but he just wouldn't answer directly.



And so, I am asking anyone here who'd like to address the question (especially the conservatives) to look at the actual words of this "command from God," (Deut 21 is a passage that is part of God giving directives to Israel) and address this serious problem with a literal hermeneutic.



What serious problem?



If anyone looks at this text and hears that someone saying this is a historically accurate text, then you are making a CRAZY-sounding representation of the God of perfect Love and perfect Justice: You are saying that God approves of killing an enemy's family, "capturing" the women that they "are attracted to," take her home and SHAVING her head, cutting her fingernails (traditionally used to subdue rape victims to take away their spirit and their fingernails which can be used to defend themselves), giving her a month to mourn the family you've just killed, and then "taking her" as your wife.



SECOND QUESTION: Do you see how astoundingly crazy that sounds to regular people out here? I don't mean that as an insult, just a statement of fact: For many, many people, suggesting that there is a God of perfect love and perfect justice and that God is ALSO okay with this arrangement sounds insane.



Now, here's Deuteronomy 21, again:



When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.



Bring her into your home and have her shave her head,

trim her nails and

put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured.



After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.



If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.




Okay, first off, I recognize this is not a "command" from God, but God saying, "This behavior is okay." Nonetheless, for the folk who say this passage represents a literal retelling of factual history and God DOES allow people sometimes to behave like this: You are making a rather astounding claim about God. How do you defend it?



THIRD QUESTION: Can we agree that this is describing a forced marriage or, if not, what do you think is happening here? Do you think that these women, after having their families slaughtered, are going to say, "well, you know, he's sorta cute. I think I WILL consent to marrying my parents' assassin..."?



FOURTH QUESTION: If you think that God is okay with people - at least in the past - killing off whole families and sparing the "beautiful daughters" to take home and make them their wives, how do you rectify this with the self-evident Truism that it's wrong to force people into marriage against their will and after having killed their parents? Do you reject that as a moral truth?



FIFTH QUESTION: Are you of the tribe that thinks it doesn't matter how heinous the behavior, if God commands it (or allows it), it's okay? If so, do you recognize that this is not an instance of God commanding people to forcibly marry the orphaned girl/woman of the family they've just killed, but rather, God saying "it's okay if you want to do this..."? How do you explain this rather hard-to-believe position?



SIXTH QUESTION: Are you of the tribe that says, "God USED to allow this, but it was ONLY for Israel at that time, and now it's not okay anymore for anybody?" If so, are you saying that God changes God's position based upon the people and time and culture?



I can't get across how HARD this is to reconcile this sort of passage - taken as literal history - with the Christian understanding of God from the teachings of the Bible and our own God-given reasoning. If you're holding to the position that this behavior described here as acceptable truly IS acceptable, you really need to be able to provide something like rational and biblical support for that position. I'd love to see direct answers to these direct questions.

354 comments:

1 – 200 of 354   Newer›   Newest»
Marshall Art said...

To begin with, I most strongly object to your mischaracterization of the events depicted in the highlighted passage. Nowhere does God instruct anyone to kill or murder the parents of any soon to be taken captive girl. You put it this way:

"You are saying that God approves of killing an enemy's family..."

Where is it ever expressed this way? Nowhere that I can see. In restating it in this way, you are putting your spin on the issue in a manner that suggests killing the parents for the purpose of taking the daughter is the point. It is clearly not. The verse in question speaks to a practice already in place and the directive mitigates what is not described as either expressly forbidden or approved.

We can find instances that state the encouragement to only marry within the Jewish community so as not to bring into it the influence of pagan adherents. But there is also the fact that taking captives was a way to assimilate outside peoples into the community of the Chosen people.

Marrying captive girls was frowned upon for reasons stated above, and the passage provides a means by which the lust of the captor might have time to subside. After a month, the girl might show no signs of being receptive to the advances of the captor, no desire to reject her beliefs and assimilate and together with the novelty of her hotness, the whole idea of taking her as a wife would prove to be less than desirable.

But this whole issue points again to your refusal to accept such passages as historical fact due to YOUR demands as to how God must act, not an acceptance of His nature as described by His inspired Word. And as you accuse those who stand up for God's clearly revealed prohibition on homosexual behavior of all forms, you judge this history through the lens of modern, and worse, liberal, standards of right and wrong.

"For many, many people, suggesting that there is a God of perfect love and perfect justice and that God is ALSO okay with this arrangement sounds insane."

That's only true of the many, many people who don't like what they read in the Bible and reject those parts as untrue and thus not worthy of acceptance as part of His clearly revealed revelation of His character. You, and they, are judging God. Good luck with that.

More later...

Craig said...

There is too much here to tackle all at once so I won't.

Pre #1. Interestingly you have chosen to ignore what could be the most important section of the passage.

"When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands"

The text as you pasted it clearly states that the victory in battle was God's doing and it implies that the taking of captives is a part of the victroy given by God.

1. Yes we can agree that "forced marriages" are not a good thing. However the text does not necessarily demand force.

"IF you notice among the captives a beautiful woman AND are attracted to her, you MAY take her as your wife."

Nowehere in the text you posted is anything that actually commands this practice. It allows and regulates a practice that was taking place, but does not command that folks actually engage in the practice.

It seems that if your premise (as it appears to be) is flawed this early in the series of argumenst then anything further based on this flawed premise couldbe questioned.

2. It seems that what God is doing is allowing time and circumstances for passions to cool. If you take this "beautiful woman" into your home take actions that mitigate her physical beauty (again your are assuming with little foundation why they cutting of hair etc is to be done), live with her, provide for her for a period of time then one can decide whether or not one wants to marry the woman. (Although it certainly doesn't line up with our madern day sensibilities, it is a better deal than captives of other groups were treated, and should probably be judged in that context not ours)

3. No I don't think this text supports your premise that this would be a "forced" marriage. Nor does the text support your "marry her parents assin" conclusion.

4. It seems you have a problem differentiating between "trusim" and Truth.

More Later.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

You put it this way:

[dan:] "You are saying that God approves of killing an enemy's family..."

Where is it ever expressed this way? Nowhere that I can see.


So you DON'T think God approves/approved of people killing the families of their enemies? Imagine my joy at hearing you come around to agreeing with me on this point, Marshall.

Marshall...

you are putting your spin on the issue in a manner that suggests killing the parents for the purpose of taking the daughter is the point. It is clearly not.

No spin and that was not my intent. I was just re-stating what a literal interpretation of that passage means. I'm NOT "suggesting killing the parents for the sake of taking the daughter is the point..." As always, Marshall, you can tell it's not my point by the way I NEVER SAID THAT.

Marshall...

The verse in question speaks to a practice already in place and the directive mitigates what is not described as either expressly forbidden or approved.

So, are you saying "WHEN GOD SAID, 'You MAY TAKE her as your wife,'" that doesn't mean that God approved of it?? What do you think the words, "may take her" mean?

Again, this is the problem that you need to try to address if you don't want to sound crazy: A literal reading of that, as the one you suggest, says EXACTLY that God approves of taking this woman and placing her in a forced marriage.

Which leads me to Craig's comments...

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

No I don't think this text supports your premise that this would be a "forced" marriage. Nor does the text support your "marry her parents assin" conclusion.

Okay, Craig, I'm willing to listen. Explain some way where this PRACTICE (and apparently it was a common practice, not an exception) which God APPROVED (taken literally) is NOT a forced marriage?

What set of circumstances might lead women whose families have just been killed to joyfully wed a member of the army who just killed her family and attacked her village? Are there ANY POSSIBLE circumstances where you can imagine this NOT being a forced marriage that you can support?

You're stating a pretty astounding thing again with that comment. I hope you can understand how reasonable people would find such a statement a bit bizarre and unprovable, but I'm willing to listen to you make a case for it.

Go.

Craig also said...

It seems you have a problem differentiating between "trusim" and Truth.

Here, I don't know what you mean. I DO know that you misspelled truism, but beyond that, what do you mean by that statement. You DO know the meaning of truism, don't you?

Truism: an undoubted or self-evident truth;
From Merriam Webster

A Truism is a truth. An especially obvious truth.

What was your point?

Marshall Art said...

"As always, Marshall, you can tell it's not my point by the way I NEVER SAID THAT."

But you DID say that when you made a point of saying:

"You are saying that God approves of killing an enemy's family..."

How else can it be understood? Especially in light of your claim:

"I was just re-stating what a literal interpretation of that passage means."

So, I was just re-stating what a literal interpretation of your words mean, like I always do. Like everyone else always does when you claim you didn't say what you said.

"So you DON'T think God approves/approved of people killing the families of their enemies?"

I clearly didn't say that or imply it in the least. My point was clearly that you are spinning the passage when you said

"You are saying that God approves of killing an enemy's family..."

You put an emphasis on something that is NOT the point of any of God's commands to go to war, even if He commanded to wipe out the entire population. The point is how you wish to frame the passages in question in the most horrific terms so as to justify its elimination, and thereby justify your created god from what is left of the Scripture you've reduced.

"What do you think the words, "may take her" mean?"

Pretty much the same thing God means when He said they "may divorce" their wives. He doesn't approve of divorce, but He tolerated it. He doesn't approve of multiple wives, but He tolerated it. To say one "may" do something isn't anything more than allowing one to act in a manner that was questioned in some way. It can indicate approval, but that depends on what else is said or said about the situation. No such indication of either approval or disapproval exists in this passage. As earlier comments of mine suggest, that can be found elsewhere.

So, a literal reading does NOT prove that God approves of taking a captive girl as a wife. Indeed, a literal reading CAN'T prove any such thing. More to the point, to suggest such a thing is proof that one hasn't read the passage literally, but with bias and projection. Which IS crazy.

Craig said...

As I was driving around on my forklift last night (gotta do something to keep the mind busy while moving lumber, right?) coming up with additional devastating arguments that would completely destroy Dan's contentions here, I had a moment of complete and utter inspiration.

This entire conversation is about whether or not Dan can get anyone to agree with his opinion on his hunch about his interpretation of a piece of literature that he considers to be one of the following (fiction, hyperbole, myth, legend, or epic). Further anyone who doesn't agree with his (and his "reasonable people") is " CRAZY-sounding" and/or making "bizarre and unprovable" statements.

So the reasonable, logical, rational question that must be asked is "why bother?".

Having said that, I'll address Dan's comment as a matter of courtest, while more than likely forgoing any comment on the rest of his points. I will also note that there was not attempt to address what I suggested was the critical point in the whole discussion.

First, YOU are the one who is asserting that the TEXT MUST be interpreted in a certain way, therefore it is incumbent on YOU to demonstrate that the text a) actually says what you think it says and b) that there are no other possible interpretations. As you have not done so, I see no reason to elaborate much on my opinion.

I will lay out a hypothetical.

First, this practice appears to have been pretty common at that time (and much later) and I would seem reasonable that beautiful women would assume that this would happen during one or more of the various wars/confilcts that took place. (this is not a value judgement on the practices, just a not on possible state of mind)

A poor Canaanite pesant has a beautiful daughter. The family is killed when the Israelites conquer their town. A wealthy Israelite sees her and is smitten with her beauty. He goes through the proper procedure and after spending time as a member of his household the Canaanite woman realizes that perhaps this guy wasn't some nasty evil murderer/assassin after all and that this she has an opportunity at a better future than as an impoverished Canaanite peasant.

Now, as a hypothetical sitation it seems reasonable to me, it also seems that the presnece of what is called the "Stockholm Syndrome" supports the notion that onten times people bond with their attackers.

As to the "spelling" imbroglio, I was under the impression that typos were a pretty accepted fact of blog coments and therefore somewhat let slide. If I am wrong I'll keep a better lookout in the future.

Since dictionary .com says that the synonyms for truism are "cliche (sorry no accent) and platitude, and that trusim is not to be confused with truth, it seems as though the two do not mean exactly the same thing. Further I would argue that there is a distinction ebtween Truth and truth.

Craig said...

Sorry, now that the grammar patrol is out I need to make this change.

I meant...

"cliche (sorry no accent) and platitude"

Marshall Art said...

To be fair, as if Craig isn't fair enough, I would add that it is certainly more than possible that the warrior directly responsible for a girl's parents/family during the conquest might be the one who wants to take her home to mother. If she can't accept the dude as a result of his having offed her family, she would likely reflect this displeasure in every move she makes while a captive of the warrior. At the end of a month's time, this attitude may have lessened his horny-ness for the girl and now she's seen as more trouble than she's worth. He is now obligated to set her free. Period. Likely the former practice was to sell her off and make a profit.

Commentaries suggest that the original language can indicate sexual relations took place, but not automatically. Thus, the word "violated" could carry a different connotation than what modern sensibilities might conjure.

Nonetheless, even if we allow that a warrior took a girl after wiping out her family and waited the month and THEN did the nasty despite her preference otherwise, an actual sex by force situation, the passage still does not reflect approval by God of the practice.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, first off, on the truism kerfluffle...

I am using the standard definition of the word found in Merriam Webster:

an undoubted or self-evident truth; especially : one too obvious for mention

This is also the first definition at dictionary.com, your source.

If you are using another definition, one that means "cliche," then we're speaking of two different meanings. In the sense that I used it and meant it, do you agree with my comment (admittedly, saying a self-evident self-evident truth is poor English on my part)...

how do you rectify this with the self-evident Truism that it's wrong to force people into marriage against their will and after having killed their parents? Do you reject that as a moral truth?

1. DO you, in fact, reject as NOT self-evident that it is obviously wrong for the people of a nation to attack and kill their enemy, but take captive the surviving young women (virgin girls, in Moses' understanding of it in Numbers 31) and MAKE them your wives?

2. DO you, in fact, recognize that most people are very comfortable with saying that this is always wrong (and I think I can safely speak for most people on this front), or do you actually think that for most people, it is perhaps morally OKAY to capture the surviving virgin girls and make them your wives?

That was my purpose in using "truism," if you are assigning some other meaning to it, then that's not what I'm speaking of.

Clear enough?

Craig...

As to the "spelling" imbroglio

I pointed it out as a misspelling because you put it in quotes, as if I misspelled the word. I was just clarifying that I did not. Sorry if you took umbrage to that. I almost never point out typos, except for mine occasionally.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

A poor Canaanite pesant has a beautiful daughter. The family is killed when the Israelites conquer their town. A wealthy Israelite sees her and is smitten with her beauty. He goes through the proper procedure and after spending time as a member of his household the Canaanite woman realizes that perhaps this guy wasn't some nasty evil murderer/assassin after all and that this she has an opportunity at a better future than as an impoverished Canaanite peasant.

Again, I have to ask: Do you truly not see how insane and morally illogical this sounds? "Yeah, I know you killed my parents and all, speared my baby brother to death, destroyed my village and taken me captive, but geez, I DO think it would be cool to be married to one of you all."

Sure, this COULD happen in rare circumstances - mainly if you take into account the Stockholm Syndrome (which wouldn't make it right, that someone was SO TRAUMATIZED that violence against their family that they start identifying with their captors, that they are slightly unbalanced and "fall in love" with their captors? Really? Are you suggesting that this might be a moral situation?) but it certainly would not be the norm and it would not be moral.

Again, this is the problem that I think one ends up with when one tries to justify a literal history take on these OT stories - it's just hard to take seriously. Perhaps it's the case that you all can't see that. Perhaps you just don't see that it sounds - to many people - like a desperate grasping at straws trying to explain away horrible ideas that just doesn't sound believable or logical or biblical (UNLESS one insists that certain passages can and must be taken as literal history).

Dan Trabue said...

Which leads me to Craig's...

YOU are the one who is asserting that the TEXT MUST be interpreted in a certain way, therefore it is incumbent on YOU to demonstrate that the text a) actually says what you think it says and b) that there are no other possible interpretations.

1. I have not insisted that a text must be interpreted a certain way. I've said that there is a problem with interpreting it as literal history, representing God's will.

2. One of those problems is it just does not pass the "smell" test. Do people really believe that a God who is perfect in love and justice would actually say, "yes, it's acceptable to me for you to kill an entire family but spare the virgin daughters to take them and make them your wives?"

No, it's not believable or logical.

It sounds contradictory on the face of it. Logically and biblically, if you take the Bible as a whole. WHY would we assume that this is a literal telling of God's will, rather than what it appears to be, an epic account of history that is loosely, but not wholly, based upon facts - one which reflects what the Israelis were thinking about God, rather than a rule book to be gleaned for its dos and do nots. The problem of taking it literally is it just appears self-evidently immoral in some of its teachings IF they are taken literally, but if we don't take it literally, but as a reflection of the people's ideas of God in that particular time and culture. An imperfect peoples' understanding of a perfect God.

3. Does that diminish the TRUTHS found in the Bible, in the OT? No, it does not. On the other hand, taking it literally DOES diminish the TRUTHS of the Bible, because it suggests a god who would command acts that are otherwise evil, it suggests that sometimes it IS okay and sometimes it ISN'T okay to shed innocent blood; it suggests that SOMETIMES it's wrong to kidnap/capture and othertimes it's okay to kidnap/capture; it suggests sometimes it's wrong to force people into sexual activity and other times it's okay to do so. The insistence upon a literal history take is self-contradictory and thus, problematic.

Which leads me to Marshall's suggestions that we who find a literal interpretation problematic are doing so because we are imposing OUR MODERN opinions upon God. This is a mistake, as has been noted: We oppose a literal interpretation because it does damage to a SERIOUS interpretation of the Bible. It is THE BIBLE and its representation of the nature of God and morality that we are defending by disagreeing with the unbiblical hunch that we should take passages such as this literally.

Craig said...

Dan,

As I pointed out the synonyms for "truism" are cliche and and platitude. Truth is not a synonym for truism. If you are using it in that manner cool.

Beyond that, I offered a hypothetical that given the circumstances extant at the time seems at least potentially reasonable. You asked for an example I gave a hypothetical, whether it fits within your hunch of reasonableness or not makes little difference to me.

I have come to realize how silly this is. You've still not addressed anything other than one small point (continuing to bypass what I identified as a main point you failed to address in your original post.

So why should we continue to go around all this is about is This entire conversation is about whether or not Dan can get anyone to agree with his opinion on his hunch about his interpretation of a piece of literature that he considers to be one of the following (fiction, hyperbole, myth, legend, or epic). Further anyone who doesn't agree with his (and his "reasonable people") is " CRAZY-sounding" and/or making "bizarre and unprovable" statements.

So again why would anyone continue to engage given that.

Marshall Art said...

"Which leads me to Marshall's suggestions that we who find a literal interpretation problematic are doing so because we are imposing OUR MODERN opinions upon God. This is a mistake, as has been noted: We oppose a literal interpretation because it does damage to a SERIOUS interpretation of the Bible."

"Serious" interpretation according to Dan. Not necessarily serious interpretation. Therein lies the problem and why my opinion that you are imposing your standards and sensibilities on the text so on the money. I've commented on the caution you should employ in using that word in relation to how you interpret or study the Bible and you give more support to my caution here (note to Geoffrey--what follows is an example of what it looks like when someone contradicts himself in the same comment):

"It is THE BIBLE and its representation of the nature of God and morality that we are defending by disagreeing with the unbiblical hunch that we should take passages such as this literally."

The very same Bible is depicting something about God's nature in this very passage, but you reject it and then say you use the whole Bible as your guide to understanding His nature. Nonsense. You clearly do not.

What's more problematic is that it states what God said. Here you call it "one which reflects what the Israelis were thinking about God". So it seems clear that everywhere the OT authors state that God said something all hippy and kumbaya-like, it is to be taken literally, but when they state He said something like this, it is just their reflection of what they were thinking about God. And you dare say it ain't you projecting your biases and preferences.

"1. I have not insisted that a text must be interpreted a certain way. I've said that there is a problem with interpreting it as literal history, representing God's will."

...because you insist that the text must be interpreted in a certain way. In this case, I point again to the constant reference to killing a girl's family, "spearing her little brother", etc.

"Do people really believe that a God who is perfect in love and justice would actually say..."

You're speaking of what Dan's idea of what a God who is perfect in love and justice would do or say, not what THE God of perfect love and justice would do. Again, you are judging Him by YOUR belief of what constitutes a loving God, not the Bible's description of Him.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

The very same Bible is depicting something about God's nature in this very passage, but you reject it and then say you use the whole Bible as your guide to understanding His nature. Nonsense. You clearly do not.

You are welcome to your opinion. Clearly, though, the Bible DOES teach us that God is love, God is justice, that God does NOT want us to shed innocent blood, that doing so is wrong, that God won't tell/cause us to do wrong. So, GIVEN THAT the Bible DOES teach this, one can see how another can use THOSE teachings as a guide, thus helping inform how to interpret other teachings and interpretations of teachings that would contradict what the Bible says.

Thus, I AM clearly using the Bible as a guide. Whether or not you want to believe that is inconsequential to whether or not it is true.

Marshall...

What's more problematic is that it states what God said. Here you call it "one which reflects what the Israelis were thinking about God". So it seems clear that everywhere the OT authors state that God said something all hippy and kumbaya-like, it is to be taken literally, but when they state He said something like this, it is just their reflection of what they were thinking about God. And you dare say it ain't you projecting your biases and preferences.

So, are you saying that if the Bible has what appears to be contradictory messages (love your enemy, do not shed innocent blood VS kill them all, including the innocent children and you can kidnap their virgin girls and make them your wives) that IF one agrees with Marshall and sides with the more "OT-sounding" God, then one is not projecting biases, but if one disagrees with Marshall and sides with a more "Jesus-y, NT-sounding" God, one IS projecting biases?

I see no logical or biblical reason to think that you are right, but you are welcome to your hunches.

Craig said...

Dan,

The more I think about it the more fascinated I am be your reference to "the "smell" test". I spent a lot of time studying hermeneutics with my wife last year and actually am reading her text. Nowhere did/do I find a reference to any "smell test". Do you consider this to be a standard hermeneutic tool? Is there some reference you can provide that defines what exactly the "smell test" is? Or is this just another way for you to re phrase "my hunch is XYZ"?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

You've still not addressed anything other than one small point (continuing to bypass what I identified as a main point you failed to address in your original post.

What are you speaking of here, Craig? This...

Interestingly you have chosen to ignore what could be the most important section of the passage.

"When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands"

The text as you pasted it clearly states that the victory in battle was God's doing and it implies that the taking of captives is a part of the victroy given by God.


?

I have not given that much thought because it is rather an irrelevant question-begging fallacy.

The question I'm raising is: Is it reasonable, rational, biblical to think that this is a literally historically accurate passage?

If your answer is, "Yes, it IS and we can know it is because the Bible clearly states that the victory in battle was God's doing...," then you are answering the question with the assumption that the question is asking. Yes, IF the Bible is truly teaching that God literally commanded this, then you are correct that God literally commanded this, but the question is, IS IT REASONABLE to believe God literally commanded this?

You're begging the question with that comment.

If that isn't the point you're thinking I've by-passed, then please tell me what it is so I can address it.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, Marshall, a few clarifying questions: Could you please answer as specifically and directly as possible:

Are you all then saying truly that you think captive women were given a choice in whether or not they would marry their captors in general in ancient times and specifically with Israel?

I will reference you to this Bible study material if it helps give you some insight...

Even the feelings of a female war captive were, to some extent, respected; she was given a month to mourn for her lost family before being forcibly married to her captor (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).

It sounds like Craig is saying that this wasn't forced, while Marshall, you appear to be saying that YES, they WERE forced, but there was at least some restraints put upon it, giving such "wives" at least a bit of protection.

Further, Marshall, you appear to be saying that while God said "it's OKAY for you to do this," God wasn't saying it was a good thing. If so, Marshall, are you saying that it is definitely NOT a good thing to force women to wed their captors and the people who just attacked and killed their family?

If so, Craig, do you think Marshall is wrong, too, for thinking this?

Just trying to get some clarity as to your collective positions.

Marshall Art said...

"You are welcome to your opinion."

It is NOT opinion, Dan. It is what the Bible clearly states, thus providing more insight as to God's nature and character. And you continue to make this mistake:

"...God does NOT want us to shed innocent blood, that doing so is wrong, that God won't tell/cause us to do wrong."

Truth: God does NOT want US to shed "innocent" blood on our own volition for our own purposes. But innocent or not, each life belongs to Him to do with as He pleases, including taking it when He wants in the manner He wants to take it, even by the sword of a warrior of His Chosen People at His direction. This means the warrior has done no wrong, because it is at His request, and has committed no sin.

Truth: God won't tell/cause us to do wrong. He might tell us to do what He wants us to do regardless if that act might be wrong if we did it of our own volition, or if we feel the act is not "kind" for a God of perfect love to command. You insist that He MUST act only in ways YOU find pleasing or the record of His actions are untrue, false, an interpretation of the author.

False: "Thus, I AM clearly using the Bible as a guide."

No, you're not. You're using only those parts that you find personally appealing and rejecting those that you find problematic in beyond your capability or desire to resolve.

"So, are you saying that if the Bible has what appears to be contradictory messages..."

There is no contradiction for one who reads the Bible as it is presented. And there's no conflict for one who does not impose on God limitations the Bible does not provide, and for one who does not insist that God must act a particular way in order to justify the label of "God of perfect love and justice". I let the Bible present what that means and adjust my thinking accordingly. You reduce the Bible to reflect your preferred idea of what His perfect love and justice must look like in order for you to worship Him.

"...that IF one agrees with Marshall and sides with the more "OT-sounding" God, then one is not projecting biases, but if one disagrees with Marshall and sides with a more "Jesus-y, NT-sounding" God, one IS projecting biases?"

No. I'm saying that if you reject what the Bible clearly says about the God's nature and character, the most likely reason is that you don't like what you're reading BECAUSE of your personal biases, which is what you're doing. It's got nothing to do with agreeing with me as I had no hand in recording the history you reject. What's more, there is no difference between the OT God and the NT God. There is only human misunderstanding about what both Testaments are trying to say. That's an ailment from which you plainly suffer.

"I see no logical or biblical reason to think that you are right..."

There's so much you don't see.

Marshall Art said...

Your "clarifying questions" later...

Marshall Art said...

"Are you all then saying truly that you think captive women were given a choice in whether or not they would marry their captors in general in ancient times and specifically with Israel?"

As there is no specific answer from Scripture on this question, my response would have to be, "How the hell would I know?" I would suspect that one guy might consider the girl's opinion and another wouldn't. I would also suspect various degrees of either in between the two extremes.

"If so, Marshall, are you saying that it is definitely NOT a good thing to force women to wed their captors and the people who just attacked and killed their family?"

I don't think it's a good thing to force women to do anything that I wouldn't find reasonable to force anyone else to do.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

As there is no specific answer from Scripture on this question, my response would have to be, "How the hell would I know?"

A general awareness of world history?

Marshall Art said...

The question was two-fold. I'm not concerned with what happened in ancient times in general, but specifically in Israel. What may or may not have been the rule in general might have been the exception in ancient Israel, especially given the fact that God intended they be distinctly different than the rest of the world, and to the extent that they'd be easily recognized as Israeli.

So, my answer stands. How would I know? I suspect it depended on each such situation and the individuals involved. I don't know that we can say that warriors were prohibited from giving captive women any choice, certainly not by God.

As to any general awareness of world history, your own understanding has compelled me to believe that you drift toward interpretations of history that suit your sensibilities. That is, I would doubt your "awareness" would reflect the best understanding of history.

Craig said...

I wrote a long response on Friday which got lost in the blogger ether somewhere. So, between a 900+ mile road trip to go visit son #1 at school, see his marching debut, spending some time with family, and a quick outpatient knee surgery this morning, I'll try this again.


"I have not given that much thought because it is rather an irrelevant question-begging fallacy."

Your hunch about this baffles me. If, in fact, God did deliver Israels enemies to defeat then one could reasonably conclude that God ordained and approves of the outcome. If this is the case then your entire post becomes pointless speculation. If it is not the case, then Israel was clearly acting outside of the will of God, and the entire operation was wrong. So, I'm not sure how you can consider the premise that underlies the entire passage irrelevant, but that's your hunch. As to it being a fallacy, you have yet to demonstrate that this particular hunch of yours is correct.

"The question I'm raising is: Is it reasonable, rational, biblical to think that this is a literally historically accurate passage?"

Since this is the question you raise about any OT passage that causes you the least bit of discomfort I'm not really surprised. Do you have any new reasons to demonstrate that it is not what it appears/purports to be? Or just a hunch? Or ill defined "smell" test?


"Are you all then saying truly that you think captive women were given a choice in whether or not they would marry their captors in general in ancient times and specifically with Israel?"

I would suggest that in the case of Israel one could argue that the cooling off period was at least partially intended to provide the "captive" with an opportunity to asses the situation and make her opinion known on the potential marriage. It seems reasonable to me that since God established Israel to live differently than other societies and that would include this type of thing. I would also guess that what we see here would be more palatable than being killed outright, being subjected to multiple rapes then killed, or being offered as a sacrifice to some nations god of war. To clarify further, I'm not saying anything definitively, as women were treated much differently in all societies during this period of time and I'm not going to try to overlay my 21st century preconceptions on this sort of thing. It also seems that the status of women at this point in history one could make the argument that all marriages were forced to some degree or another.

"It sounds like Craig is saying that this wasn't forced, while Marshall, you appear to be saying that YES, they WERE forced, but there was at least some restraints put upon it, giving such "wives" at least a bit of protection."

I'm not saying anything dogmatically, I'm offering some hypotheticals that seem as though they might address some of your concerns. Further, since this is one of those instances where there is very little application for 21st century believers, I fail to see why one would invest a bunch of time and energy on it. I would also agree with MA that these restrictions are in place to provide a degree of protection for the women, that was probably not extended in other societies at the time.

Craig said...

contd.

"Further, Marshall, you appear to be saying that while God said "it's OKAY for you to do this," God wasn't saying it was a good thing."

As with a number of things, it seems clear that God is permitting and regulating something without actually commanding or commending the practice.

"If so, Marshall, are you saying that it is definitely NOT a good thing to force women to wed their captors and the people who just attacked and killed their family?"

I'm suggesting that you question is based on a false premise. We are not, nor will we be, confronted with this choice. Therefore attempting to pass judgment using our 21st century perspective is kind of silly.

"If so, Craig, do you think Marshall is wrong, too, for thinking this?"

I think Marshall's position is a reasonable position given what the text says. I don't know that I agree 100% with his take, but I think we're both in the same ballpark.

"
Just trying to get some clarity as to your collective positions."

Since we each seem to have individual (although somewhat overlapping) positions, I am at a loss as to how to address something that does not exist.

Craig said...

Dan,

I would suggest that you check out Erasing Hell by Francis Chan. He does an excellent job addressing the types of passages that seem to trouble you so much.

While I'm stuck at home this week I'll probably do a post with some quotes from the book. But it's well written/researched book that deals with a lot of this stuff and asks some provocative questions.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

He does an excellent job addressing the types of passages that seem to trouble you so much.

Thanks for the suggestion, Craig, but just to clarify: These passages DON'T trouble me. At all. They make perfect sense with the biblical hermeneutic that makes most biblical and logical sense to me. The passages are fine.

It's the literal translation that OTHERS hold that causes people to make all sorts of - what seems to me to be - very bad logical and biblical contortionism. For the literalists, there is a problem, but not for those in my tribe.

The problem, as this discussion has made clear, is that, to take these passages literally, one has to defend a god that is inconsistent (saying, "Don't harm the innocent" AND "harm the innocent...," as well as, "I won't cause you to sin" and, "IF you do something I command, it's not a sin, even if it normally would be...") and monstrous in approach and a bible that is lacking logical consistency.

Craig said...

Dan,

At the risk of repeating myself, Chan addresses your issues in a very provocative way.

Dan Trabue said...

And Craig, let's not be a buffoon and ass. You say...

Since this is the question you raise about any OT passage that causes you the least bit of discomfort I'm not really surprised. Do you have any new reasons to demonstrate that it is not what it appears/purports to be?

You can repeat false and spurious charges over and over (as, indeed, you do), but that won't make them any more true or relevant.

My interpretations have NOTHING to do with passages causing me "the least bit of discomfort" and EVERYTHING to do with holding a rational and biblical hermeneutic. IF two passages appear to contradict each other, we need to explain that in a rational way. AND SO, in order to defend the Bible as rational and moral, I hold the positions that I hold. FOR THE DEFENSE of the Bible, not because some passages make me uncomfortable.

Calling shit, "candy" will not make it taste any better, Craig. Quit trying to do so. You're a better man than that.

Dan Trabue said...

Feel free to offer a paragraph or so from Chan that explains why your approach to exegesis is NOT internally inconsistent and disrespectful of biblical teachings.

Craig said...

Dan,

That's it, that's all your going to address.

Since I have never seen you provide anything more than your hunch that these passages are not to be taken literally, I fail to see how my observation is anything but accurate.

Since you feel that context is important, I'm going to suggest that you invest the time to read Chan in context and then address what he says.

I'll probably post some excerpts at some point, but as with most things the actual context would be better.

We keep coming back to this.

So why should we continue to go around all this is about is This entire conversation is about whether or not Dan can get anyone to agree with his opinion on his hunch about his interpretation of a piece of literature that he considers to be one of the following (fiction, hyperbole, myth, legend, or epic). Further anyone who doesn't agree with his (and his "reasonable people") is " CRAZY-sounding" and/or making "bizarre and unprovable" statements.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

Since I have never seen you provide anything more than your hunch that these passages are not to be taken literally

I've gone down this road before Craig. Here it is again, two solid reasons why I believe as I believe:

1. Modern historic writing, with an emphasis on literally factual history of the style that you're suggesting these passages are written on, did not exist at this time. Modern history writing began appearing between 500 BC and 500 AD. Having no evidence that ANYONE was writing history in the manner you're suggesting, WHY would I think that these stories in the OT are different?

That is not my hunch, it's just an observable reality. If you have no reason to support YOUR hunch that this was written in a style non-existant in the time period, WHY would I buy into your hunch?

2. If you take these stories literally (regardless that the writing style not existing at the time), then you are presenting a Bible with internally inconsistent teachings, suggesting that God teaches inconsistent morals. You have a god that commands people to kill innocent people, even though the Bible (and our own moral reasoning) teaches us that we ought NOT shed innocent blood.

This approaches devalues Biblical teachings, and for that reason, I find no reason to buy into your hunch.

Craig said...

"1. Modern historic writing,...did not exist at this time."

This is a staggeringly broad claim to be stated as fact. If you have any support for your hunch that this type of fact based history "did not exist" prior to 500 BC I'd be happy to consider it.

2. No, your conclusion does not automatically follow.

Your hunch approaches devalues Biblical teachings, and for that reason, I find no reason to buy into your hunch.

Craig said...

Perhaps you could move past trying to resurrect this dead horse and deal with more than one sentence of my comments in response to you.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, I'm sorry, but I'm looking at your sentences and not seeing much of anything to respond to that has not been responded to.

Marshall Art said...

Dan continues to have a major problem with the distinction between a person killing on his own volition, for his own purpose versus God telling him to kill for His purpose. The former is sinful (assuming it is murder), and the latter is not for it fulfills God's purpose regardless of Dan being filled in on the details of that purpose, and regardless of Dan approving of that purpose or the manner in which that purpose is fulfilled. For Dan, God MUST act in a manner that always makes sense to him or it is "inconsistent". This despite the myriad examples of God acting in a particular manner.

Dan Trabue said...

Dan continues to have a problem with what he considers poor exegesis and sloppy reasoning. For Dan, God behaves according to God's character (including acting in perfect love and justice) and does not tempt, command or otherwise cause us to sin and those who suggest otherwise just come across as unbelievable and rather shallow in their understanding of God.

Dan Trabue said...

re: my observation that there was no one telling stories in a modernistic literally factual style, imagine this conversation:

A: I think the OT was written in King James English.
B: ? Why would you think that?
A: Because it's what I'm used to reading, it's been around for a long time and why WOULDN'T have God written it in KJ English??!
B: Well, there's no evidence that I know of that there were stories told in English back then.
A: Nonetheless, I think that's how God had it written!
B: But English-as-a-language DID NOT EXIST at the time! WHY would you think it was written in English?
A: IF God wanted to write it in English, are you saying that God couldn't do so?? Hmm? Hmm?? Are you doubting God's power to explain things in a way that is understandable to us?? Hmm???
B: But what EVIDENCE is there that the Bible was written in a language that DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME?
A: We have all the evidence we need. I have read the OT in KJ English, my parents and grandparents have read the OT in KJ English... why, I'll have you know that our family personally owns a Bible written in KJ English that my great-great grandparents owned over 100 years ago! It's the way we've understood it for generations, so it must be so!

Do you see the problem? Are you really asking me to "prove" that there are NO stories from 2,000-6,000 years ago told in a modernistic style? Wouldn't it be easier for you to provide some evidence of what you're suggesting IS the case rather than expecting someone to prove a negative?

Herodotus (484 BC - 425 BC) is often considered the "father of history" because he was amongst the FIRST known to write with an eye to literal factuality and avoiding fanciful, undocumented stories. The other person considered the "father of scientific history" or "father of modern history" because of his attention to factual literal history is Thuyucides (460BC - 395BC).

Lacking any evidence that people before ~500 BC wrote in a literally factual historic style, FOR WHAT REASON would we guess that these stories are told thusly? There is no biblical support for that - no biblical mandate that tells us these stories are literally factual - and there is no logical reason that I have heard any of you present. So, lacking any substantial reason or support for such a position, I have to consider the claim for just that: an unsupported and less-than-logical hunch.

Craig said...

"Are you really asking me to "prove" that there are NO stories from 2,000-6,000 years ago told in a modernistic style?"

I would see it as a slight difference. Your claim is that this "factual" storytelling did not exist prior to 500bc. You have provided minimal evidence to support your claim that "factual" storytelling did not exist. Therefore I see no reason to subscribe to your hunch.

I have this strange view of God. I believe that He is powerful enough to present His story in a factual manner despite what the conventions of the day may or may not have been. You, it would appear, do not share that view of God.

Your KJV English "example" is simply stupid as no one is claiming the Bible was written in English. What I am claiming is that people throughout history are capable of recognizing what they see and of communicating what that have seen in a factual manner to others. I know this is a bizarre concept, but there it is.

As to your "responding to all of the stuff I have written, if you think you have then that's fine.

However I did ask for some background on the hermenutical tool your refer to as "the smell test". I spent a term working with my wife on her hermenutics homework, and never saw the term in the textbook. I have done some additional research since you used the term and can find no mention of this test anywhere. So, once again, could you please enlighten me s to where I can find out what this test is and how those who study hermenutics apply this test.

Dan Trabue said...

Your claim is that this "factual" storytelling did not exist prior to 500bc. You have provided minimal evidence to support your claim that "factual" storytelling did not exist. Therefore I see no reason to subscribe to your hunch.

The evidence is the LACK of evidence to support any such claim. I can point to ancient "histories" from before 1000 BC and none of them are told in a modernistic style with an emphasis upon literal facts and they include fanciful elements that are not likely factual. In each instance that I've found thus far, there is nothing like modern history telling techniques in use.

Lacking ANY evidence that stories were told in that more modern factual manner, I tend to think that stories weren't told in that manner.

Craig...

I believe that He is powerful enough to present His story in a factual manner despite what the conventions of the day may or may not have been. You, it would appear, do not share that view of God.

I believe God is powerful enough to do anything God wants. God COULD have written the Bible in English, for the ease of modern readers' understanding. God COULD have written the bible in binary code or in a digital format. God is God and can do whatever God wants that isn't contrary to God's nature.

The question is not what God COULD do (where we appear to agree) but what God DID do. Lacking any evidence whatsoever that the bible was written in English, or in binary code or in a digital format OR in a modern history style, I see no rational or biblical reason to think that God DID do so.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

I did ask for some background on the hermenutical tool your refer to as "the smell test".

Are you saying you're unfamiliar with the term or something else?

If you're unfamiliar with the concept, it's just a casual way of saying that something seems extremely unlikely.

If someone were to claim that God told them to kill babies, I would say that it does not pass the smell test. In other words, such a claim stinks.

In other words, it's just a casual way of saying a point seems extremely (and insultingly) unlikely given the evidence at hand. I'm not sure what the hang up is there on the term, but if it bothers you, just substitute "seems extremely unlikely given all of logic and reason and ethical evidence."

Craig said...

I am saying that you referenced what you referred to as "the smell test". I was trying to ascertain if this was a specific test or set of parameters that is applied universally, or if this is "what smells bad to Dan". You have answered my question.

It seems as though your logic for the factual accuracy of communication prior to 500 BC is a circular argument.

Essentially you seem to be saying; because I have not found any that meet my criteria for factuality, therefore there must be none. I do not find your hunch to be compelling. So, feel free to keep beating the dead hunch or you can go back and see if there is anything else you might have missed and could comment on.

Dan Trabue said...

It IS a circular argument, Craig, but on YOUR part.

You are saying, aren't you...

"I have this hunch that this passage was written in a modernistic historically factual style. I have NO evidence to support that anything LIKE that style existed, so until I have evidence that it NEVER existed, I'll hold to my hunch, even though I have no support for it."

You're committing the logical fallacy of asking someone to prove a negative, rather than providing EVEN ONE INSTANCE of that style of storytelling existing in this time period.

And it's funny that you are suggesting my "smell test" is less than valid because such reasoning "stinks" to me, all the while clinging to this UNSUPPORTED HUNCH that these passages were written in a style that does not appear to have existed.

Irony, much?

Marshall Art said...

Frankly, we don't have to prove a modernistic story telling style existed because it's a stupid point upon which to insist---that it never did. You, Dan, continue to point to those who used a fanciful style to prove or support a contention that the OT is done in just such a style. You further state the OT does not describe itself as either "modern" or myth, but one must make the case that it is mythic or default to actual history. To compare the Bible to all other ancient works diminishes the OT to simply story telling. But all NT defaults to the OT as if it is truth, including Christ Himself, but what does HE know? He's only the Son of God.

Craig said...

Dan,

I'm not sure I'll agree that I have a circular argument here. I would argue that the Bible is unique in ancient literature. I would argue that to simply assume that because one believes X to be true about stories from antiquity then it must be true for the Bible as well is a simplistic point of view. I have not asked you to prove a negative, I have asked you to prove your point. The fact that you feel so confident as to state categorically that nothing comparable to "fact based history" existed prior to 500 BC, should be demonstrable. You provide one link to Wikipedia that somewhat supports your point "since he was the first historian KNOWN to...". Which anyone can realize is not nearly as definitive as you would like it to be.

Finally you mis-state my position. So I'm not sure that you can accurately characterize my position if you can't accurately summarize it.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep beating this horse, I've responded to the questions that are the topic of your post, I've repeatedly explained why this is pointless, yet you keep coming back to this.

I know that I will not change your mind about your hunch regarding ancient writings (or collections of stories), I see no need to try. You have provided no compelling evidence that would lead me to believe that the Bible is just one more ordinary collection of ancient fables. So, if continuing down this road is your desire, please do so, I see no point.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

You, Dan, continue to point to those who used a fanciful style to prove or support a contention that the OT is done in just such a style.

I point to that style because it is evidence and makes most sense to me. On the other hand, you all have NO evidence other than your hunch and your position does NOT strike me as biblical or rational.

What would you have me do? Ignore what I think is the MOST Biblical and rational answer, or go with your hunches?

Craig...

The fact that you feel so confident as to state categorically that nothing comparable to "fact based history" existed prior to 500 BC, should be demonstrable.

I don't state categorically, I say simply that there is NO EVIDENCE that I have seen, and certainly nothing you have provided, to support your hunch. That is just a statement of fact.

And, as I said to Marshall, seeing as I see NO EVIDENCE to support your hunch and that I don't find your position to be biblical or rational, what would you have me do?

And, Craig, IF I have misstated your position, I apologize and will gladly correct it. All you have to do is point out WHERE I misstated your position and what your position actually is, and I will be glad to amend my mistake.

If, on the other hand, this is just another vague statement that goes unsupported, I hope you can understand that I can't really correct a vague nothingness.

Craig said...

"I have this hunch that this passage was written in a modernistic historically factual style. I have NO evidence to support that anything LIKE that style existed, so until I have evidence that it NEVER existed, I'll hold to my hunch, even though I have no support for it."

This is not, has never been, or never will be my position. Since you wrote these words I can only assume that it was you who mis-stated my position.

Dan Trabue said...

I am sorry, then, if I incorrectly identified your position. You WILL notice, I hope, that it was ASKED as a question if this was your position. I said...

You are saying, aren't you...

Thus, it was a question of your position, NOT a statement of your position. I'm sorry if that was not clear.

So then, it is NOT your position that the passages in question were written in a "modernistic historically factual style..."? Then you agree with me that this was likely written in an epic style, the style that was common to the day? Or some other style?

Or are you objecting to the line that says, "I have NO evidence to support that anything LIKE that style existed, so until I have evidence that it NEVER existed, I'll hold to my hunch, even though I have no support for it..."?

It IS true that you have no evidence that some historically factual piece of writing exists from that time, isn't it? So you're not objecting to that, I suppose. Are you objecting to the suggestion that you won't change your position until you have some evidence that no literally factual writing ever existed from this time period??

I'm not sure what it is I've gotten wrong, but if you clarify for me, I can correct it.

Even though, as noted, it was asked as a question, not stated as a fact...

Craig said...

Is a rhetorical question really a question?

1. I agree with neither of your offered positions.

2. With all the double negatives I have no idea what you are actually saying.

3. I would argue that the Biblical text is (where appropriate) historically factual.

I see no reason to suspect that what we all agree (I hope) is God's primary communication with us, would be judged according to the same criteria as other texts from antiquity.

Finally if the criteria for proof is that you haven't found it, pardon me if I don't find that as a convincing standard. When you state dogmatically that something does not (or has not, or will not) exists virtually guarantees that you are probably wrong.

Dan Trabue said...

1. So if it isn't written in a historically accurate style, and it's not written in an epic style, what style DO you think it is written in?

3. "Historically factual," based upon what? The Bible does not require that we do so and, as I have pointed out, taking it literally requires a rejection of OTHER biblical teachings, teachings that are CENTRAL to Christian morality.

Just to clarify: You think it is historically factual EVEN THOUGH there is ZERO evidence that you can produce that ANYONE in that time period was writing in that style, isn't that a correct summation of your position?

If that is correct, as I'm pretty sure it is, there is no need to respond, the non-answer will serve as a summation of part of the problem with your approach.

Craig said...

1. I do think that portions of the OT are written in a historically factual style. While other portions are written in other styles. The fact that you are attempting to reduce something that contains as many styles as the OT to one style says plenty.

3. I would argue that the Bible is unique and that to judge it in the same way you judge other works minimizes or eliminates the fact that the authors were inspired by God, and not by their imagination.

3a. The fact that you require the rejection of other Biblical teachings doesn't make it a requirement across the board. There are a significant number of Christians that would disagree with you.

Just to clarify: You think it is not historically factual EVEN THOUGH there is ZERO evidence that you can produce that NO ONE in that time period was writing in that style, isn't that a correct summation of your position?

Excellent tactic, you "restate" what you believe to be my position in your terms and If I don't comment you take my silence as agreement. Sorry, not playing that game.

Are you really sure you want to stick with the position that NO ONE prior to 500 BC ever, not even once communicated factually accurate historical information.

Dan Trabue said...

Are you really sure you want to stick with the position that NO ONE prior to 500 BC ever, not even once communicated factually accurate historical information.

Craig, if you'll look at what I actually said, you'll see that I have never said that. I have stated the FACT that: I HAVE SEEN ZERO EVIDENCE THAT PEOPLE IN THAT TIME TOLD STORIES IN A LITERALLY FACTUAL STYLE. That is, I have seen ZERO documents doing what you claim these passages are doing. I have not said and can not say that it didn't happen, because ONE CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE. I have simply stated the fact that I have seen zero evidence of it. YOU HAVE OFFERED zero evidence of it.

So, yes, I can easily respond to your question.

If you don't like my question (which is just a restatement of your stated positions), then answer it in a way that you deem fit.

But breaking it down, I can't see how you would say this ISN'T your position and the facts on hand...

1. "You think the passages in question are historically factual..."

This is YOUR STATED position.

2. "EVEN THOUGH there is ZERO evidence that you can produce that ANYONE in that time period was writing in that style,"

While that may not be your position, it is the facts as we have them. YOU HAVE NOT PRODUCED ONE BIT OF WRITING DONE IN THE STYLE THAT YOU CLAIM THESE PASSAGES WERE WRITTEN IN.

You seem to be dodging your own position, Craig. Part ONE simply states YOUR WORDS. Part TWO are the facts as we have them thus far.

Where is the "tactic" in that question?

Own your position, Craig. If that's what you believe and the facts as we have them, stand up for it. If it's NOT your position, speak up.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

I would argue that the Bible is unique and that to judge it in the same way you judge other works minimizes or eliminates the fact that the authors were inspired by God, and not by their imagination.

And that is a FINE HUNCH, Craig, but my point (and my question which you dodged/missed) was: The Bible does not demand/teach/tell us that we must take these passages as literal history. (my question was "Historically factual, based on WHAT?").

I guess your answer is that BASED UPON YOUR HUNCH that we ought not read/study/critique the Bible as we do other books, we ought to take it as literal history, although that is not really an answer to the question asked.

For my part, I love the bible and think it is God's Word and believe it is entirely capable of being judged/read/studied as we would critically study other texts. Why wouldn't we? How ought we study it if not critically, prayerfully and seriously?

Craig, I'd really like to know: How OUGHT we study the Bible, in your opinion, that is different than other texts? And it's a given that you and I both believe it is the inspired Word of God, but beyond that, what would you suggest doing differently?

Edwin Drood said...

All these questions can be answered with a few facts.

1. War is not a sin (The Bible never says otherwise)

2. Slavery is not a sin (the Bible never says otherwise)

3. Equal rights for woman is not mandated in the Bible. (The Bible never says otherwise)

3. Nations are given power to do things that would be a sin for individuals to do. (Romans 13, 1 Samuel 8)

Dan Trabue said...

ANNNND... there you have it: Edwin documenting clearly what the problem is with this approach to Bible study/ethics - "Because the Bible does not say that slavery is wrong," Edwin says, "it isn't wrong."

EVEN THOUGH owning other human beings is clearly an egregious and obvious moral wrong, one can reach conclusions such as Edwin has reached, IF one is looking to the OT as a source of Dos and Don'ts rather than just what it is: A people's story of their relationship with God from their point of view.

You think WHAT???, indeed.

Craig said...

Dan,

I have responded to your questions several times, I don't know how to give you the answer that you want. I have no desire to change your position, you are free to keep at it. If you can offer something more compelling than "I (Dan) have never seen anything..." I'd consider it. But I just get tired of saying the same things over and over.

Craig said...

Dan,

If I were to concede your point, you are still left with the fact that you have no reliable way to provide an alternate interpretation of these histories.

Edwin Drood said...

Now you're putting words in my mouth and you're showing a very immature interpretation of scripture.

Dan Trabue said...

Edwin, did you NOT just say...

All these questions can be answered with a few facts...

2. Slavery is not a sin


? Am I misunderstanding you? DO you or do you not think slavery is a sin, because I understood you to say that the "fact" is that "slavery is not a sin" based on, you know, your actual words.

Perhaps you can understand my confusion?? I don't see where I have put words in your mouth, but feel free to let me know specifically where I did so and clarify your position.

Edwin Drood said...

Then you accuse God of sinning and Jesus of encouraging sin.

You think WHAT???, even you don't know what you think.

Dan Trabue said...

Or will this just be YET ANOTHER vague and unsupported charge?

Dan Trabue said...

I have not accused God of sinning nor Jesus of encouraging sin. Don't be a goof.

Edwin Drood said...

I'm sorry I forgot I have to spell everything out to you like you were five. Slavery is a sin because our nation forbids it, we are to submit to the governing authorities as the Bible says.

Since the Old Testament Jews didn't live in modern America or a nation that criminalized slavery then it wasn't a sin.

Edwin Drood said...

You should read 1st Samuel, more specially 1st Samuel 8. This is where Israel no longer wants to be ruled by God and instead wants a human king. God gives his advice on what it is like to serve a human.

It also serves as an important transition point between God ruling the Israelites and Saul ruling the Israelites.

Dan Trabue said...

ANNNNNDDD.... There you go! Again! Edwin has very nicely explained EXACTLY WHY we ought not take such passages as literal history and treating them as if they are a universal list of Dos and Don'ts...

Slavery is a sin because our nation forbids it

Edwin, slavery is a sin because IT IS EVIL. IF A NATION DID NOT FORBID IT, IT WOULD REMAIN EVIL.

It is evil because it is oppressive, because it causes unjust harm to innocent folk, because it is UNJUST and counter to God's ways.

Seriously, man, I don't even know what to say about that...

Edwin Drood said...

does a slave have a greater or lesser chance of entering heaven than a rich man?

Dan Trabue said...

WHAT?

Tell me Edwin, does the moon take the forlorn madmen with them to the lake on weekends?

Edwin Drood said...

Sorry Dan I was trying to spur deeper reasoning. Good luck and don't let your Bible get too thin

Dan Trabue said...

Spur deeper reasoning by asking a question unrelated to your ridiculous position on slavery?

Does that work for you often, brother Edwin?

Edwin Drood said...

You're ADD is in full force, the original (sub)topic was why the Bible doesn't condemn slavery. You cant argue that so you shift to the fictitious argument "why Edwin doesn't condemn slavery".

Without attacking me or people you think are like me, please tell me where the Bible condemns slavery. (chapter and verse please)

When you can't find it, think to yourself"
"why doesn't the Bible condemn slavery?"

Then you should think "What's the ultimate purpose of the Bible?"

The answer should be: To show us the path to heaven, you probably disagree but who cares.

Then the thought "does a slave have a greater or lesser chance of entering heaven than a rich man?" of course a rich man being the opposite of a slave.

So maybe slavery doesn't preclude the Bible's ultimate purpose and therefore is not condemned.

Now instead of saying "these books of the Bible are false" you should think "wow old testament times were hard"



thats my last word Dan

Dan Trabue said...

This is my point, Edwin: The Bible DOESN'T condemn slavery, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong. IT OBVIOUSLY IS WRONG, IMMORAL, SINFUL, HORRIBLE. For reasons that are self-evident (ie, it removes freedom, it is oppression, it is unjust to innocent people, etc).

The POINT of these two posts (which you appear to be missing altogether) is exactly that IF one tends to try to read the Bible in this literalist sort of way, one can come away with HORRIBLY wRONG conclusions, including the hunch that slavery isn't wrong. "The Bible doesn't condemn slavery," says the literalist (thank you Edwin), "therefore, it isn't wrong..."

But this is EXACTLY THE WRONG WAY TO READ THE BIBLE FOR THIS VERY REASON. If one reduces the OT stories to a series of Dos and Don'ts, rather than what it actually is, then one can come away from THAT sort of "bible study" with conclusions like, "sometimes, God is okay with forced marriages of girls you've just orphaned by killing her family," and "sometimes, it's okay to go in and kill babies of the enemy," and "slavery is okay" and "sexism is okay..."

You continue to make my point for me, Edwin. For that much, I sadly thank you.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

If I were to concede your point

I'm not quite sure what point you're conceding? That I quoted YOUR WORDS that YOU SAID that you think the passages in question are historically accurate? You're conceding that what you said is your position is, in fact, your position? If so, okay.

Or are you conceding that you have not/can not present any evidence of any other stories from that time period that were told in a factually literal way? Okay. I thought that much was just obvious, but okay.

Which is NOT to say that you're addressing if we think it's reasonable to conclude that, just because there is no evidence of people back then writing in this more modern history-telling manner is NOT evidence that it didn't happen. It's just saying that we have no hard evidence to support that conclusion. Only traditional opinions.

Craig...

you are still left with the fact that you have no reliable way to provide an alternate interpretation of these histories.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, either. I have no reliable way to provide an alternative interpretation of these histories?

How about just accepting them for what they appear to be? They appear to be sometimes mythic, sometimes epic stories (of the kind of loosely factual, but not literally factual, history-telling that existed at the time) of probably real people in real, if possibly somewhat exaggerated, situations?

When we deal with these stories in our church, we don't spend much time debating the facts of the story. We read Jonah, for instance, and find this absolutely fascinating and painful story of a man who tried to run from God, of a God who loved everyone, even the worst people, even people who try to run from God, and of God's gracious, all-embracing mercy. Wow, what a GREAT story!

Tell me, Craig, do you really think whether or not Jonah was an actual person who was actually swallowed by a whale impacts on the incredible power of that story?

Also: If you were to discover positively that the world was NOT created in six literal days about 6,000 literal years ago, but something MUCH different, would you think that indicates that the mythic story in Genesis was "not reliable," as your comrades seem to be suggesting? Or is it still a powerfully cool story of Creation? At our church, we speak of these stories all the time and are moved and challenged by the truths found within these stories. We never (or rarely) even touch on the literal factuality of the stories as that is entirely besides the point, at least to us.

What is wrong with that approach?

I know some people say that if the literal facts aren't exactly as represented then the Bible's TRUTHS are not reliable, but I just don't get that. Are you in that group?

Craig said...

Dan,

My point is if you remove ALL of the facts from the story, then you must pour some meaning into the story. For example, you have suggested that the passover story fits into your category of epic/mythical/non factual stories. So what meaning do you pour into that story? We can see how the Jewish people have treated passover for thousands of years, we can see how Jesus/the early Church treated passover. So how do you treat passover?

Let's take your example of Jonah. Before I could even begin to address your point I'd need some clarification.

What parts (if any) of the story of Jonah do you consider factual?

What "truth(s)" do you take from the story of Jonah?


As to my conceding your point. You seemed to be saying that if I didn't respond then you would assume that your version of my point would stand. So, even if I conceded your point, your are still left with the problem of assigning meaning to the "non factual, epic/mythic" stories. While you say that you have no problem with doing that, your position allows anyone to draw any point they wish from these, stories. Because you haven't suggested any coherent consistent way to interpret these stories. So while you have obviously come up with a hunch or series of hunches that satisfy your sense of logic and Reason, there is no reason for anyone else to accept your hunches on the matter. Does that not seem problematic to you?

That's plenty for now. As I count there are six questions for you. When you hit those I'll respond.

Craig said...

If it would be easier I'll post a bullet point story of Jonah at my place and you can just go through that.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

My point is if you remove ALL of the facts from the story, then you must pour some meaning into the story.

This is true for all stories, isn't it? IF we read the story of Br'er Rabbit, it's just a story and we can choose to pour some meaning into it or not. If we read the story of Noah, we can pour some meaning into it or not. If we read the story where God allows people to kill families and take home the virgin daughters and force them into a marriage, we can pour meaning into the story or not.

We ALL do this. Does that latter story mean, for instance, that THIS MODEL is the ONE TRUE WAY of doing marriage? OR, does it mean something else? You don't read that story and then tell your son, "Okay boy, it's time for you to get married. I want you to go to the village of your enemy, kill their families and bring home the most beautiful woman you can find, let her mourn 30 days and then marry her!" No, none of us do that. WE USE OUR REASON to make sense of this story.

Can we agree on that specific point?

Craig...

For example, you have suggested that the passover story fits into your category of epic/mythical/non factual stories. So what meaning do you pour into that story?


I've answered this before. We ALL look at this story and pour meaning into it or not. It can be viewed as a model for how to deal with an oppressive nation (wait for years for God to send a deliverer and a death angel) and say, "THIS AND ONLY THIS is the proper way of dealing with oppressive nations. If you do anthing else, you are acting contrary to God's will!!"

That is ONE way (a fairly literal way) of interpreting/pouring meaning into that passage. You don't do that, nor do I, because we pour OTHER meaning into it.

I tend to think of it as a powerful reminder of how God is right here with us, concerned especially about the least of these, the oppressed and enslaved, and that God wants to see us delivered to freedom. I tend to think that it shows one non-violent approach to dealing with oppressive gov'ts. I tend to think it teaches us to wait upon God (but not to the exclusion of our taking action, as well). I think of it as demonstrating how dangerous it can be to engage in oppressive behavior because such sin has serious consequences.

There are MANY meanings we can interpret from/pour into that story. Just as you, no doubt, pour some meaning/interpret that story in a way that makes the most biblical sense to you, this is what I do, what we ALL do.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

We can see how the Jewish people have treated passover for thousands of years, we can see how Jesus/the early Church treated passover. So how do you treat passover?

As a symbological reminder: Trust God for our deliverance. Don't oppress.

Craig...

Let's take your example of Jonah. Before I could even begin to address your point I'd need some clarification.

What parts (if any) of the story of Jonah do you consider factual?


I sincerely have NO OPINIONS about what parts of the story are literally factual history and what parts aren't. That is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT to me. To engage in wondering if THIS part is literally true and THAT part is not, but THIS part is... that would miss the POINT OF THE STORY...

What "truth(s)" do you take from the story of Jonah?

The POINTS OF THE STORY being, as I have already said, would include...

1. WE can't run from God
2. God loves us all
3. God wants to include us all in an invitation to walk in God's lovely ways
4. Repentance is a good and powerful thing

These ARE the points of the story. The point of the story MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT, "Jonah was a real guy and this real guy got swallowed by a 'great fish,' and by 'great fish,' that could mean whale or possibly an alligator or maybe a shark, but not likely a hammerhead shark, but perhaps a great white shark or maybe ..."

The "facts" of that story are not relevant to the point of the story, Craig.

Can we agree on this? That the (at least) four points of the story that I listed above are TRUTHS whether or not the story is factual??

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

your are still left with the problem of assigning meaning to the "non factual, epic/mythic" stories.

Yes, Craig, We ALL have to assign meanings to stories (or not), prayerfully seeking the best/right meaning(s). This is true for Bible study, as well as just any reading. WE assign meaning to the text, or not, and get what meaning there is from the text by using our own reasoning to assign that meaning, with varying degrees of success.

Craig...

While you say that you have no problem with doing that, your position allows anyone to draw any point they wish from these, stories.

Amazing, isn't it?!

Craig...

Because you haven't suggested any coherent consistent way to interpret these stories. So while you have obviously come up with a hunch or series of hunches that satisfy your sense of logic and Reason, there is no reason for anyone else to accept your hunches on the matter.

If it seems a rational and right interpretation to them, then they ought to agree with me. If not, they ought to disagree with me. I've outlined how I strive to interpret passages...

1. Interpret the individual through the whole
2. Interpret the whole through the teachings of Jesus
3. Strive to understand the meaning, context and original languages of the text

etc, etc, all wrapped in prayerful contemplation seeking God's will. Having done that, using your own God-given reasoning, you need to decide what interpretation(s) makes the most sense/is most likely. It's called the priesthood of the believer or just being grown up.

What coherent consistent way have YOU suggested for interpreting these stories, Craig?

Craig...

Does that not seem problematic to you?

Yes. No.

Yes, when people are free to strive to follow God and/or what they think is most right, good and beautiful themselves, we run the risk of them making mistakes and "getting it wrong." Sometimes very wrong. That's not good, that's problematic.

But NO, it's not problematic because, what other choice do we have? TELLING PEOPLE what they must believe? An inquisition for those who believe "wrongly?"

No, it's not problematic, it's a beautiful imperfect gracious way of dealing with the freedom and responsibility of being a human being on this earth.

What choice do we have?

Craig said...

"Can we agree on that specific point?"

1. In a broad sense yes. Although to go down your road you have to believe that the author did not have a specific meaning in mind when he wrote the story. Further you seem fine with anyone pouring any meaning to any story, or at least that is the logical conclusion to what appears to be your point.

"It can be viewed as a model for how to deal with an oppressive nation"

Or it could be viewed as s singular event that happened at a certain point in history.

"I tend to think that it shows one non-violent approach to dealing with oppressive gov'ts."

So killing thousands of Egyptians (including the "innocent" children, becomes a non-violent approach. OK, if you say so.

"Just as you, no doubt, pour some meaning/interpret that story in a way that makes the most biblical sense to you,"

Yes, I use the radical approach (along with a few other folks) that this is a report of a series of events that happened at a certain point in history. I believe this story is repeated/celebrated/included in the scriptures is that it demonstrates the mighty power of a sovereign God.

"As a symbological reminder: Trust God for our deliverance. Don't oppress."

Yes, a symbolic reminder of a real event.

"1. WE can't run from God
2. God loves us all
3. God wants to include us all in an invitation to walk in God's lovely ways
4. Repentance is a good and powerful thing"

So YOU have come up with these points from a story that didn't happen.

How do you know you can't run from God? Because someone told you what this story meant? Why would you worry about running from God when there are no (based on your hunch) consequences to running?

What in this fairy tale would provide any shred of evidence to your statement that God loves us all? Would you say this had God destroyed Nineveh?

And if we refuse this made up invitation then what, made up destruction? Or would it be more accurate to say that in your version God threatens us (or threatened them) with destruction if they didn't walk in His ways?

Why is repentance a good thing based in this story? So we don't get destroyed? Why is that necessarily good? Is "repentance" based on a threat really repentance? Is repentance good and powerful or is God good and powerful?

Craig said...

"Can we agree on this?"

In theory, but since it's not a real story I could come up with 4 other equally legitimate points and you'd pretty much have to agree to those.

"That the (at least) four points of the story that I listed above are TRUTHS whether or not the story is factual??"

I can agree that they are 4 points that can be drawn from the story, but the story itself does not (if it's not factual) mandate that those four items are "TRUTHS".

"Amazing, isn't it?!"

Yes it is, because I suspect if I drew the conclusion that God's MO is to threaten random cities with destruction and they they'd better repent or else, you'd be pretty confident that I'd reached a wrong conclusion.

Obviously, you have no concern for coherence or consistency beyond your own Reasoning ability. Yet this doesn't concern you.

Given this how can you assert that false teachers exist?

"What coherent consistent way have YOU suggested for interpreting these stories, Craig?"

I've answered this numerous times. I start with taking the text a face value, look at the context and background, try to determine what the original intent was, pray, look at how the text has been dealt with historically or by others, then try to line up my interpretation with God's. I also try to determine what God is trying to communicate through the passage. In short I rely on the text, the context, the historical context, and the Holy Spirit. (not necessarily in that order.

"...we run the risk of them making mistakes and "getting it wrong." Sometimes very wrong. That's not good, that's problematic."

Yet, using your technique, you have no real grounds to determine right or wrong. In fact, your technique almost guarantees a number of wildly inconsistent interpretations of a given passage.

"No, it's not problematic, it's a beautiful imperfect gracious way of dealing with the freedom and responsibility of being a human being on this earth."

So how much harm are you willing to accept to insure this "beautiful, imperfect etc.". Are you willing to see some one lose their salvation over a wrong interpretation.

Craig said...

"2. Interpret the whole through the teachings of Jesus"

I don't know that you've ever answered this definitively so I'll ask again.

Is this a suggestion that Jesus is not speaking in the OT? Or that all of the "thus saith the Lords" are all non factual?

Dan Trabue said...

I asked if we could agree that we use our reason to make sense of a story, figure out how to interpret it, that we ALL do this. You responded...

In a broad sense yes.

I'm not sure in what other sense one can answer the question, Craig. We DO all of us use our reason to sort out the meaning of these stories. What else? You continue...

Although to go down your road you have to believe that the author did not have a specific meaning in mind when he wrote the story.,,

What road are you speaking of? The road that says we all use our reason to interpret these stories? And why do we have to believe that the author did not have a specific meaning in mind? I'm not sure of your point here.

Continuing...

Further you seem fine with anyone pouring any meaning to any story, or at least that is the logical conclusion to what appears to be your point.

? What would make you think that? Clearly, SOME meanings might make more sense and be more rational than others. Still looking at the Jonah story, it's one thing to conclude that ONE point of the story is that you can't run from God. It would be something else altogether to conclude that the story teaches us to hate our enemies.

HOW could one draw such a conclusion? One couldn't, not reasonably.

Not all conclusions are created equally and I, for one, have NEVER suggested that one can find any meaning at all in any story and it be a rational conclusion.

Dan Trabue said...

Speaking of the Passover, I had said one possible conclusion I might draw from it was I tend to think that it shows one non-violent approach to dealing with oppressive gov'ts.

You responded...

So killing thousands of Egyptians (including the "innocent" children, becomes a non-violent approach. OK, if you say so.

I'm speaking of a people's actions. In the story, the Israelis did not resort to physical violence to escape oppression, they relied upon the circumstances at hand. YOU are the one who concludes that the story is to be taken literally and that God killed thousands of innocent (not "innocent," but INNOCENT, using the standard English definition) children. I don't read it that way so I can easily see that ONE point of the story was to trust in God for deliverance, not one's own military violence.

But all that is an aside. I was just answering your question as to what meaning I find in the story. Clearly, I can find a great deal of meaning, without needing to take it literally.

I had said...

"Just as you, no doubt, pour some meaning/interpret that story in a way that makes the most biblical sense to you,"

To which you responded...

Yes, I use the radical approach (along with a few other folks) that this is a report of a series of events that happened at a certain point in history. I believe this story is repeated/celebrated/included in the scriptures is that it demonstrates the mighty power of a sovereign God.

But on what basis do you take the story literally? Because it is in your tradition to do so? Okay, but recognize that "my tradition" is a very limited way of studying something and making a case for something. People have traditionally done all sorts of things that aren't good so tradition alone is not a very solid foundation on which to build a rational case for a position.

I believe the story demonstrates God's mighty power, too, but I don't have to take it literally to draw that conclusion.

Dan Trabue said...

About what I believe the Jonah story teaches, you respond...

So YOU have come up with these points from a story that didn't happen.

How do you know you can't run from God? Because someone told you what this story meant?


Yes, I have come up with these points. As has nearly everyone else who is familiar with the story, Craig. YOU AGREE, do you not, that these are legitimate points one can draw from the Jonah story? If so, then we can see that we can read the same story and draw the same conclusions because the story successfully passed on its lessons.

I don't know why I have to repeat this obvious truth, Craig: A story need not be literally factual to pass on great truth.

YOU AGREE WITH THIS, Craig. Everyone does! Parables pass on great truths and they are not literally factual. A story need not be factual to pass on truths. What is hard to grasp about that?

Craig, do you REALLY want me to explain how I can read this story and "get" that one of its truths is that you can't run from God? It's because, in the story, Jonah COULD NOT RUN FROM GOD! God found Jonah even in the belly of the great fish. That is a point from the story, one with which you agree.

And Jonah or the fish's literality is NOT needed to get that point.

Where's the disconnect here, Craig?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig asked a bunch of obvious questions...

What in this fairy tale would provide any shred of evidence to your statement that God loves us all? Would you say this had God destroyed Nineveh?

And if we refuse this made up invitation then what, made up destruction? Or would it be more accurate to say that in your version God threatens us (or threatened them) with destruction if they didn't walk in His ways?

Why is repentance a good thing based in this story? So we don't get destroyed? Why is that necessarily good? Is "repentance" based on a threat really repentance? Is repentance good and powerful or is God good and powerful?


Is it possible you don't understand symbolism? That you don't understand the nature of Truth, Craig?

JESUS TOLD FICTIONAL STORIES. Do you think that no one can draw True conclusions from his stories?

Of course you don't. This is just a weird line of questions, Craig.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

Is this a suggestion that Jesus is not speaking in the OT? Or that all of the "thus saith the Lords" are all non factual?

Not every line in the Bible is created equal, Craig. I'm sure we can agree that Leviticus' "don't cut the hair on the side of your head," in any way compares to Jesus' authoritative: "I have come to proclaim good news to the poor, release for the captive, sight for the blind, the day of God's good favor!"

Not every teaching is equally valid. Jesus' direct teachings found in the gospels and echoed in the epistles are more informative for how we are to live our daily lives than OT teachings such as "when you kill off the family of the enemy, you can take the virgin daughter home and make her be your wife" or "don't have sex during your menstrual period."

Jesus' teachings DO tend to need to be taken fairly literally and as the Way to live. OT teachings, not so much. Which is not to say that I don't think the OT is inspired, it's just not the same set of texts as the NT, nor with the same import.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

you have no concern for coherence or consistency beyond your own Reasoning ability.

And you base this rather goofy comment upon what?

As a matter of fact, I have GREAT concern for consistency and that is EXACTLY why (one reason why) taking these passages literally is extremely problematic: EXACTLY BECAUSE it creates inconsistencies in biblical interpretation. That has been the point of these posts.

So, I have no idea on what you would base such an incredible statement.

I had asked...

"What coherent consistent way have YOU suggested for interpreting these stories, Craig?"

To which you responded...

I start with taking the text a face value...

"At face value," and yet you are jumping to the presumption out of hand that this is a literally factual historic story told in a more modern style that didn't exist. "At face value" in this case is subjective. "At face value," TO ME, would recognize that the factually literal style did not exist at this time period from any evidence we've seen thus far and thus, "at face value," it was probably written in the manner that was common to the day: As epic or mythic storytelling.

You are thinking "at face value" means "told in a manner that makes sense to me in this modern age," and thus, have begun right off with a non-face value presumption.

continuing...

look at the context and background, try to determine what the original intent was, pray, look at how the text has been dealt with historically or by others, then try to line up my interpretation with God's.

And this is what I do as well. And while I may look at how it's traditionally been read, that is not the beginning and end of interpretation. There is the original intent, there is understanding context and background (the context/background being a pre-modern history-telling people) and I certainly strive to line my interpretation with God's.

And yet, we disagree.

Marshall Art said...

Actually, Dan, it is not taking the Bible literally that causes inconsistencies. It is YOUR interpretations that causes them. You MUST have a God that is all bunnies and rainbows, and to accept his more wrathful side becomes inconsistent as a result. But, if one accepts the totality of His nature as the Bible describes and illustrates it, from start to finish, no inconsistencies are possible.

But I really wanted to comment on this:

""I have this hunch that this passage was written in a modernistic historically factual style. I have NO evidence to support that anything LIKE that style existed, so until I have evidence that it NEVER existed, I'll hold to my hunch, even though I have no support for it.""

Who does this? Who reads a book of history and asks these questions? The Bible, without labeling itself as such, is a historical record and presents events in that fashion. Why would anyone pick it up, read it and then ask if it was written in a modern historical style, as if there is such a thing? The only possible question would be, "is this supposed to be fiction or non-fiction?" Who thinks to himself, "I MUST engage in research in order to determine how many ancient cultures wrote their histories as if they actually happened or embellished the hell out of them for reasons even a liberal can't describe."?

The point again is that one must take it as historical record until proof can be had to show otherwise. Showing that some cultures used a mythic style (and really, is that style meant to show an actual history in the first place for those cultures?) does not in the least indicate or suggest that the same was done by ALL cultures of the time, regardless of whether or not you've stumbled upon or even taken the time to find evidence either way. You have to make that case that it IS the case with the OT stories. You are only guessing and hoping. You can't even honestly suggest a high possibility of it being true for the Bible for reasons I've offered many times:

1. The Bible indicates that the Chosen People were to live, act and even eat in a manner that was distinctively different from the rest of the ancient world, but YOU expect that with regards to how they record their history, they went with a style supposedly employed by every(?) other culture in the world.

2. This Book is dealing with a presentation of who God is and nothing can be more inconsistent with His character than to assume He would allow for a false rendering of His commands, actions and behaviors, even for the sake of "style". "Well, that's not really something I'd do, but I'll allow it. Dan will figure it out later."

3. Much of what you dismiss as out of character for God are examples of the very wrath from which we need to be saved. Talk about inconsistency! No wrath, no reason to fear sinning, no reason to worry about an eternity outside of His presence, for what possible problem would it bring about? The TVs aren't HD?

4. The worst inconsistency is the suffering Christ endured on our behalf. Your view makes Jesus an incredible masochist for going through that needlessly. What's more, His suffering and death is what WE deserve. But apparently, a God of perfect love wouldn't put us through that, so why did He die by crucifixion?

Craig said...

"What road are you speaking of?"

The road where human Reaason is the final arbiter of what is true and false.

"And why do we have to believe that the author did not have a specific meaning in mind?"

If modern Reason is the final arbiter then any "meaning" meaning the author might have had in mind becomes pointless.

"?What would make you think that?"

"it's a beautiful imperfect gracious way of dealing with the freedom and responsibility of being a human being on this earth"

Sounds like approval to me.

"Because it is in your tradition to do so?"

Yes, thousands of years of Jewish and Christian tradition of taking things literally seems like a reasonable place to start. How about because I have seen no compelling reason presented to take it as anything but history. Maybe, because Jesus seems to take it pretty literally so if I sift it through Jesus teachings/actions I can reasonably make that conclusion.

"Where's the disconnect here, Craig?"

The disconnect is that you can make up a non-factual story to make any point you want. The disconnect is that God did NOT pursue Jonah, so why would one conclude that he would pursue anyone. In your construct God actually did not do anything.

So yes your "meanings" are meanings that can be reasonably be drawn from the story if one desires. It's just that the meanings really have no meaning other than what you imagine it to be.

"Is it possible you don't understand symbolism? That you don't understand the nature of Truth, Craig?"

Is it possible that you refuse to see the logical conclusion of your hunch?

Is it possible that you can't answer the questions without undermining your position? The problem is I do understand the nature of Truth, and I don't see how any of your points rise to the level of "Truth"

Craig said...

"JESUS TOLD FICTIONAL STORIES."

Yes, they were called parables and always identified as parables. Further the meaning is usually provided. He never told a parable as anything but a parable.

Further, while it might be possible to take the "truth" "learn first aid" from the Good Samaritan parable, it is demonstrably not the correct lesson.

Craig said...

"Not every line in the Bible is created equal,..."

At last something we can agree on.

But when Moses or Isiah or Micah or whomever says "Thus saith the Lord or The Lord says..." or when God speaks directly to Moses or Joshua or whomever, you cannot separate the 2nd person of the Trinity from the 1st or 3rd. When YHWH speaks it's Jesus speaking. So unless you are suggesting that Jesus wasn't around in the OT or that God changed His nature between testaments or that every instance of "Thus saith the Lord..." is non-factual, you have what seems to be a problem. The historic Orthodox position of the Church has been that God is one essence manifested through 3 persons eternally. So, if you are suggesting a different formulation, lets hear it.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, you're still begging the question.

When YHWH speaks it's Jesus speaking.

By that rationale, when GOD tells Israel it's okay to kill their enemies, including the babies, but bring home the virgin girls and force them to be their wives, then JESUS is endorsing the same thing as a matter of acceptable policy.

By that standard, when GOD commands men not to cut the hair on the side of their heads nor trim their beards, that is equivalent to a command from Jesus and, by God, you BEST not be cutting your hair!

This is my point: THE OT IS NOT A RULE BOOK POINTING OUT LINE BY LINE HOW WE ARE TO LIVE.

We have no biblical nor logical reason to think so. It is NOT as if Jesus is uttering each "GOD SAYS" line and saying "This is how it should be, because my Dad has already said so..."

No! We ALL MUST USE OUR GOD-GIVEN REASONING TO SORT OUT RIGHT AND WRONG IN OUR LIVES.

Each line in the bible does not hold equal weight and each command in the Bible does not hold equal weight. YOU BELIEVE THIS, because YOU don't believe it's wrong to cut your hair or trim your beard. We all believe this and that's because THE OT IS NOT A LINE BY LINE LITERAL RULE BOOK ON HOW WE SHOULD BEHAVE. It is an inspired collection of an ancient people's relationship and understanding of God.

Once again: We have no biblical nor logical reason to think so. Your entire argument thus far (or most of it, anyway) has been, "it's what we've always thought..." but that is not a solid rational or biblical defense.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

Yes, they were called parables and always identified as parables.

Oh, really?

Is it your position then that ANY AND ALL figurative language used in the Bible is identified as such? And any text that isn't identified as figurative (hyperbolic, parabolic, etc), MUST be assumed to ONLY BE taken literally?

So, when Jesus tells stories like this one...

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

“You are the light of the world.


Without identifying it as a parable or as a figure of speech, we are to assume that we ARE LITERALLY SALT OF THE EARTH? LITERALLY LIGHT?

OR, do you agree with me (as I expect you do) that it is not necessary for a text to be outright identified as imagery in order to recognize it isn't a literal text?

For the record, every parable is NOT identified as a parable in the gospels. Or, at the least, not every figurative story is identified as a parable. It IS true that every time Jesus identified a story as a parable, he identified that story as a parable, but I'm not sure that covers every parable. (If you'll look at Luke 15 and 16, you'll see several parables - including the prodigal son - that aren't identified as such, if you doubt me.)

Craig said...

"You are thinking "at face value" means "told in a manner that makes sense to me in this modern age,"

Thank you ever so much for being so kind as to tell me what I am thinking. Were it not for your kindness I would be lost. This kind of stuff ticks you off, yet you do it to others.

To clarify, "taking at face value" means that I first determine what type of literary style is involved, then I adjust my interpretation accordingly. I know you have trouble with this but please try to understand.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

If modern Reason is the final arbiter then any "meaning" meaning the author might have had in mind becomes pointless.

I don't think this is a valid conclusion. Any writer who writes a story may have many points in mind. The readers may all get all or some of those points. They may even find additional meaning that was not intended by the author. Most authors I know usually do not have a problem with that circumstance, saying, "If that's meaningful to you in that way, then very good!" It's one of the good things about art and literature.

Having said that, not every point that someone gets from literature is valid. If someone reads the text, "I want you to love each other" and they get out of that, "We AREN'T REALLY to love each other!" they're getting the OPPOSITE MEANING out of the text and that's not a valid conclusion.

Just because one affirms that we must use our reason to derive meaning out of text does not mean that every meaning thus derived is valid.

In our Jonah story, on your blog (Craig), you allowed that one could certainly get my four points out of the story, as indeed, obviously they can. You went further and said that one could ALSO get out of that story that God will go around to every nation and threaten to wipe them out if they don't repent, and you suggested that I might have a problem with that conclusion.

But you are mistaken: I DON'T have a problem with that conclusion. INDEED, one could find that meaning in that story, the text would certainly allow that conclusion reasonably.

It is for this reason that when we study the Bible, we must need take each text into context and read it through the specific teachings of Jesus our Lord in the gospels and NT. But that is certainly a valid conclusion that can be reached from reading only the Jonah story.

Also, for what it's worth, "modern reason" (or, simply "reason") ISN'T the final arbiter in questions of morality, but it IS the final arbiter in how we make sense of the text of the Bible. We pray, we seek God's will, we meditate and ponder, but in the end, it IS our reason that we use to make sense of the text.

Again, what else is there?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig..

To clarify, "taking at face value" means that I first determine what type of literary style is involved

Thank you for the clarification. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

And so, HOW do you determine the literary style? Do you look, "Hmm, in my circles, we have ALWAYS considered it to be literally factual, therefore it is..." (ie, an appeal to tradition) or do you do something else?

Craig said...

"And you base this rather goofy comment upon what?"

Comments like this seem to point that way.

"Just as you, no doubt, pour some meaning/interpret that story in a way that makes the most biblical sense to you, this is what I do, what we ALL do."

"While you say that you have no problem with doing that, your position allows anyone to draw any point they wish from these, stories.

Amazing, isn't it?!"

"No, it's not problematic, it's a beautiful imperfect gracious way of dealing with the freedom and responsibility of being a human being on this earth."


"WE assign meaning to the text, or not, and get what meaning there is from the text by using our own reasoning to assign that meaning,"

Craig said...

"And while I may look at how it's traditionally been read, that is not the beginning and end of interpretation."

I didn't say that it was, yet I can't help but not think I have somehow come up with the right interpretation ofter thousands of years and millions of people have reached some degree of consensus. Again, I'm not saying that makes it 100% correct, but it certainly takes a fair degree of hubris to suggest that everyone from the apostles to the early church fathers through the reformers etc got this whole OT thing wrong.

"And yet, we disagree."

Yeah we do. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that you refuse to admit (based on what I am sure is exhaustive and substantive high level study) that it is virtually impossible that the OT contains any significant amount of fact based history. Please don't repeat the tired old "I've never found blah, blah blah.", I understand that there is nothing out there that meets the high standards set by your Reason. I get it, we're staring in two different places.

I'm starting with God. Who chose to reveal His nature, and plan primarily through scripture. I have a difficult time with a God who needs to lie about Himself in order to communicate "truths".

One has to wonder how you reconcile archeological finds that support the historical accuracy of the OT.

Craig said...

"By that rationale, when GOD tells Israel it's okay to kill their enemies, including the babies, but bring home the virgin girls and force them to be their wives, then JESUS is endorsing the same thing as a matter of acceptable policy."

Du'h.

When Jesus said "I and the Father are one" is that now some mythical metaphorical non factual epic story.

Read John 1.

It sounds as if you are saying one of the following.

1. Jesus and God are not twp persons of the trinity.

2. Jesus was not in existence during the OT

3. God and Jesus are operating on two different agendas.

Duse, this is Christianity 101.

"By that standard, when GOD commands men not to cut the hair on the side of their heads nor trim their beards, that is equivalent to a command from Jesus and, by God, you BEST not be cutting your hair!"

Seriously, I've actually seen you argue that there are certain laws that are not universal, but it's handy to throw this time waster out there anyway.

It's junk like this that causes me to continue to wonder if you understand what we mean when we take the OT literally.

"THE OT IS NOT A RULE BOOK POINTING OUT LINE BY LINE HOW WE ARE TO LIVE."

Of course you are right, how stupid we would be to follow those silly 10 commandments what a waste that would be.

However a more serious answer than your question deserves is. Yes, parts of the OT are exactly a rule book telling Gods people how to live both personally and communally so that they are set apart from the other nations. The statement makes me question whether you've ever read Leviticus or Deuteronomy.

The stupidest part of that last statement is that "THE OT IS NOT A RULE BOOK POINTING OUT LINE BY LINE HOW WE ARE TO LIVE." is not something anyone is saying. So, how about you don't misrepresent the people you are talking to.

Craig said...

"We have no biblical nor logical reason to think so. It is NOT as if Jesus is uttering each "GOD SAYS"

Jesus and God are ONE. There is no separation between their natures. Perhaps some remedial study about the triune nature of God might be helpful.

"No! We ALL MUST USE OUR GOD-GIVEN REASONING TO SORT OUT RIGHT AND WRONG IN OUR LIVES."

If by "GOD-GIVEN REASONING" you are suggesting that our ability to reason is not corrupted by our sinful nature, I'd love to see some support for that beyond your hunch or "I've not seen...".

Please read that again and tell me that our "GOD-GIVEN REASONING" is all we have to "SORT OUT RIGHT AND WRONG".

If you seriously mean that then you've made my point and I'm done.

"Reason" brought us the French Revolution, how'd it do there?

"It is an inspired collection of an ancient people's relationship and understanding of God."

I'd like to think I hold the OT in a little higher esteem than that, but if I grant your point the question remains. "Why didn't God inspire them to get the story right? Are you saying that the real story (if there was a real story) wasn't good enough? God went to the local Hebrew PR guy and said "Hey, that whole Jonah thing's a little flat, how 'bout you punch it up a little".

I'm weird, I want to know the Truth about God. I want to know the stuff I'll like (grace, wisdom) and the stuff I don't like (wrath, consequences). I don't want the mythic fake version, I want the real thing.

It beggars credulity that people would say "Oh, of course God created everything.". Then follow it with, "But of course it couldn't have happened in 6 days, that's just not possible". Oh, God can create everything, He can provide the means (grace through the death of Jesus) to redeem all creation, He can love everybody; but He couldn't have communicated this story accurately because folks back then just didn't do things that way. Does your God really abide by the literary rules and customs of the Canaanites, the Hittites, Phoenicians maybe, or is He big enough to operate under His own literary rules when it comes to inspiring His people to tell His story. Not according to Dan's Reasoning. ("Well, He could have done anything, but I've seen no evidence that he did.")

Craig said...

"Is it your position then that ANY AND ALL figurative language used in the Bible is identified as such?"

As I've answered this question for you numerous times before, I'll not waste time answering it again. This is why I continue to question your understanding of what it means to look at the OT literally.

"...do you agree with me (as I expect you do) that it is not necessary for a text to be outright identified as imagery in order to recognize it isn't a literal text?"

Asked and answered. Once again you don't seem to understand what literal interpretation means.

But let's look just a couple of verses further.

"17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Is Jesus still speaking using what any speaker of the language would recognize as figurative speech?

Was he referring to the "non-factual" OT?

If the OT isn't a rule book, then what law could he possibly be speaking to a bunch of Jews about?

"For the record, every parable is NOT identified as a parable in the gospels."

A more careful reading of my comment would have saved you from having to write, and me from having to respond to, this comment.

"Or, at the least, not every figurative story is identified as a parable."

This assumes facts not in evidence. Specifically that every use of figurative language in the gospels is a parable.

"Again, what else is there?"

The Holy Spirit

"HOW do you determine the literary style?"

Despite the incredible condescension implied in the question I will answer it.

Simply each literary style has certain conventions that are observed by those using the style.

The easiest to explain is poetry. Which usually has meter, and rhyme. For most who speak a language the ability to identify literary genres comes with the territory. For the most part after a while it's pretty automatic. Now on occasion, someone throws a curve ball that combines genres or is not readily identifiable, in that case we do research to figure it out. Again to use poetry as an example there are poems that also contain accurate (though not exhaustive) history. I know your looking for "Reason" but for the most part it doesn't take that much effort.

Craig said...

This is silly, I know, but I don't think I've ever been 100 before.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

it is not taking the Bible literally that causes inconsistencies. It is YOUR interpretations that causes them. You MUST have a God that is all bunnies and rainbows, and to accept his more wrathful side becomes inconsistent as a result.

If you ever would like to discuss my actual positions, Marshall, let me know. If you want to beat up on a strawman of your own making, have at it.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, sort of on-topic, albeit missing the point and begging the question, said...

Who does this? Who reads a book of history and asks these questions? The Bible, without labeling itself as such, is a historical record and presents events in that fashion. Why would anyone pick it up, read it and then ask if it was written in a modern historical style, as if there is such a thing?

A serious student of the Bible? Anyone interested in discerning meaning in text? Folk like that...

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, begging the question, said...

The point again is that one must take it as historical record until proof can be had to show otherwise.

Why?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

I didn't say that it was, yet I can't help but not think I have somehow come up with the right interpretation ofter thousands of years and millions of people have reached some degree of consensus. Again, I'm not saying that makes it 100% correct, but it certainly takes a fair degree of hubris to suggest that everyone from the apostles to the early church fathers through the reformers etc got this whole OT thing wrong.

1. I'm not convinced that all folk throughout church history agree with this modern conclusion.

2. We DO have the advantage of things we have learned over the years, Craig. Christians 1,000 years ago no doubt thought the world was flat, that bleeding and leeches were good medical treatments, that the sun revolved around the earth, that slavery, polygamy, concubines, sexism were all okay and all manner of things that they traditionally believed, just based on a lack of knowledge.

Tradition, as you agree, is not the be all/end all of knowledge and it's not a solid point to make a case on.

3. So far, your case on this point seems to be based predominantly on an appeal to tradition. If one's entire case on any point is built entirely upon tradition and one can't support it significantly otherwise, that is cause to reconsider one's position, seems to me.

4. Do you have any solid support beyond this appeal to tradition?

Dan Trabue said...

None of which is to say that I ignore tradition. We anabaptists have a huge amount of respect for tradition if you look to our positions on war and peace, on simple living, on materialism/consumerism, on respect for marriage, for living responsibly and within our means, etc, etc.

It's just when it comes to any argument, if we can ONLY support it with appeals to tradition, that is not enough on its own.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

I suspect it has something to do with the fact that you refuse to admit... that it is virtually impossible that the OT contains any significant amount of fact based history.

Strawman. I have not "refused to admit" anything of that sort. I've just pointed out the fact that you have no support for demanding that these texts must only be interpreted as literally factual history.

Craig...

Please don't repeat the tired old "I've never found blah, blah blah.", I understand that there is nothing out there that meets the high standards set by your Reason.

High standards for Bible study are a good thing. IF YOU were to meet someone who suggested the Bible teaches that it's good to rape women based upon what the Bible teaches in the OT, this would offend your sense of moral teaching based on WHAT YOU reason to be biblically and morally obvious.

You are trying to make human Reason out to be a bad guy here, Craig, but it's what we ALL USE to understand things.

Is it perfect (as you seem to suggest I'm suggesting in a strawman argument here somewhere)? Of course not. Never said it was.

What I said is that IT'S WHAT WE HAVE. It's either prayerfully using our reason to understand and reason out things OR we mindlessly accept what others teach us.

Which is your preference?

Craig...

I get it, we're staring in two different places.

I'm starting with God. Who chose to reveal His nature, and plan primarily through scripture.


Craig, I'll be blunt with you here: it's this sort of verbal vomit that makes folk sickened by your sort of Christian. This repeated arrogant and sanctimonious excrement that you spew from your mouth sometimes is not becoming an adult Christian or adult human.

To fall back to, "Well, I'm relying upon God while YOU are relying on your own pitiful reason," is just bullshit of the most rotten and diabolical sort.

Continue that sort of "reasoning" and I'll end this conversation. I'm open to respectful, adult conversation between brothers, but that sort of arrogance will turn the conversation right off.

It is not worthy of those called by God.

It isn't even worthy of just a normal adult.

Seriously.

As noted repeatedly: We ALL use our reason to sort these things out. You and I, as Christians, are using our reason prayerfully, carefully, contemplatively, seriously seeking God's will, but we use our reason, nonetheless.

Trying to suggest otherwise is a sign of mental diarrhea and you are better than that, Craig. Stop it.

Craig...

I have a difficult time with a God who needs to lie about Himself in order to communicate "truths".

Strawman and/or begging the question.

Come brother, let's reason like adults.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

One has to wonder how you reconcile archeological finds that support the historical accuracy of the OT.

No, one doesn't.

A rational and respectful adult would recognize that I am not claiming that all the historical narrative in the Bible is not fictional. I've not claimed it, don't think it.

That would be a childish strawman revision of what I believe and there is no serious reason for me to respond to strawmen arguments, especially one as goofy as this.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig said...

Was he referring to the "non-factual" OT?

Speaking of Jesus' "not a letter will disappear..." text, and Craig said it following this...

Once again you don't seem to understand what literal interpretation means.

Indeed, I DO understand what you mean by literal interpretation, as I grew up with it, you'll recall. But by all means, if you think you can make some sort of valid point there about my actual positions, do so, with some real support rather than just a vague charge.

And that you would suggest I'm not understanding it, and then follow that by asking, "Was Jesus referring to the non-factual OT?" makes me wonder if you understand irony at all.

I have NEVER referred to a "non-factual" OT. I've referred to texts that by all appearances, ought not be interpreted as literally factual history, but rather as mythic or epic or figurative narrative representations of actual history.

Let's stick to actual arguments rather than strawman stuff, Craig. It takes too long to go back and keep pointing out the repeated strawman, ad hom and question-begging fallacies to make this a meaningful conversation.

Dan Trabue said...

I had said...

"For the record, every parable is NOT identified as a parable in the gospels."

You responded...

A more careful reading of my comment would have saved you from having to write, and me from having to respond to, this comment.

I'm not really seeing you respond to this comment...?

YOU HAD SAID, and I quote,

Yes, they were called parables and always identified as parables. Further the meaning is usually provided. He never told a parable as anything but a parable.

I merely pointed out that this is not the case, factually. Do you think that each parable normally identified as a parable is NOT a parable?

I had said...

"Or, at the least, not every figurative story is identified as a parable."

To which Craig responded...

This assumes facts not in evidence. Specifically that every use of figurative language in the gospels is a parable.

Perhaps it does. I googled "Jesus parables" and found sites listing parables, including the ones I cited. Indeed, some of them could be called "merely" figurative language, although I think the Prodigal son is fairly universally considered a parable, along with others, as indeed, they are usually identified as such in most bibles I've seen.

Regardless, you APPEAR to be suggesting that figurative language is always clearly identified as such (which raises the question, "clearly identified to WHOM?" after all, I think the Creation story clearly identifies itself, by its style, as a story told in mythic - not scientific - language) and that figurative language NOT identified as such ought NOT be taken as figurative.

Now, here's an important question:

Are we in agreement, then, that not each figurative text is identified as such and that we MUST use our own poor flawed reason to sort out which is which?

Dan Trabue said...

I had asked...

"HOW do you determine the literary style?"

Craig answered...

Despite the incredible condescension implied in the question I will answer it.

Brother Craig, I would hope that you would take a bit of time to relax and more carefully respond rationally to my comments, rather than with knee-jerk antagonism.

There simply WAS NO condescension (incredible or otherwise) in the question. It is a logical question to the point in hand and I asked it.

Not every thing you assume is so.

Continuing, you answered...

Simply each literary style has certain conventions that are observed by those using the style.

Yes, that is a starting point - keeping in mind, though, that we are speaking of an ancient peoples with differing conventions than our own.

In ancient times, for instance, there simply was not the concern for literally factual history telling that we have today. One of my detractors recently emailed me with a link that HE offered to try to make a point. HIS CONSERVATIVE link said...

We assume that people throughout human history always studied history, but that’s not true. As a matter of fact, if you go back more than a couple of thousand years you’ll find people had no interest in history...

don’t make the mistake of thinking the Bible is a history book... The Bible is not concerned with giving us all the details of Abraham’s life. It is interested only in history as a means of teaching us the important lessons of life—it’s a book of theology in Jewish worldview first and foremost.

Dan Trabue said...

I had asked (about us using our reason to prayerfully sort things out)...

"Again, what else is there?"

Craig responded...

The Holy Spirit

This is more of the arrogant mouth shit that some less mature (or just vainly arrogant) Christians spew instead of actual responses. Just to reiterate: I'm not at all interested in dealing this sort of spiritual and mental diarrhea-of-the-mouth-and-mind, Craig. Leave it behind.

We are Christians. We ALL pray, seeking God's will, the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is a given (or at least I'm giving you the grace and respect to assume that this is your starting point, as it is mine). The point was, GIVEN THAT we are starting from the point of prayerfully seeking God's will, what else do we have beyond OUR REASON to sort these things out?

Would you like to answer the real question or do you prefer your vomitous crud approach?

I'll continue in Christian conversation respectfully IF that is the level on which you wish to correspond. But I must insist no more of this brain rot.

Craig said...

"1. I'm not convinced that all folk throughout church history agree with this modern conclusion."

This fails on two levels.

First it mis states what I actually said.

Second, the historicity of the OT is not by any stretch of the imagination a "modern" conclusion. If you are going to make unfounded statements please provide some support for your hunch.

"Tradition, as you agree, is not the be all/end all of knowledge and it's not a solid point to make a case on."

Had you read my comment, you would know that it was but one point of several. Having said that, if I had to choose your hunch over the collective wisdom and scholarship of both the Jewish and Christian branches, I'll take my chances with the heavy hitters. Interestingly enough I keep hearing that "consensus" is how we "know" that global whatever is occurring. So, if it's good enough for scientists, it's good enough for me.

"3. So far, your case on this point seems to be based predominantly on an appeal to tradition. If one's entire case on any point is built entirely upon tradition and one can't support it significantly otherwise, that is cause to reconsider one's position, seems to me."

I've suggested other basis as well, you you simply reject anything that doesn't agree with your Reason out of hand, so why continue. When I consider that your "case" is based solely on YOUR Reason, it seems as though thousands of years of study and the conclusions thereof might not be such a bad place to be. Shoot, you can't even cite any "tradition" that backs up your hunch, just YOUR Reason. Seems like this ice to me.

"4. Do you have any solid support beyond this appeal to tradition?"

I could spend the time to provide you with links that cover the historical scholarship, archeological support etc, but you'll just dismiss them as "tradition" or "more of the same conservative stuff with which I am much more familiar than you because I've been in the unenlightened state where you are now, blah blah, blah". Or I can suggest that you do your own research and provide some support for your hunch, but since neither of those two will be fruitful, or even happen, I'll pass.

Craig said...

For grins here's what I found ( I know I said I wouldn't do this, but it could be amusing) when I googled Anabaptist view on the historicity of the OT.

I found the following.

"The Anabaptists and early Mennonites believed that both the Old and New Testaments were God's infallible and Holy Word."

"Early Christians and the Old Testament
Christ's example. Jesus frequently quoted from the Old Testament as the Word of God, even to the detail of every "jot or...tittle," every letter or stroke (Matt. 5:18). Jesus never disagreed with any part of the Holy Scripture, although He did take issue with some men's incorrect interpretations of it and additions to it. He always treated the Scripture word for word, never doubting, for example, that there was truly an Adam and an Eve or that God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone.

The first Christians followed Christ's example and used the Old Testament with reverence. The multiplying Christian churches continued to read and study the Scriptures just as the Jews in the synagogues did. The earliest Christians, of course, were Jews who had accepted Jesus' claim to be the Savior of whom the Old Testament spoke."

Not From Anabaptists but still interesting.

"World-renowned archaeologist William F. Albright states, "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition (Albright, Archaeology and Religion of Israel, p. 176). Nelson Glueck adds that, "As a matter of fact... it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail statements in the Bible (Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, p. 31). The biblical authors told the truth, and biblical archaeology has confirmed this without error."

"http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/node/536"

Oh, and a few of what are called "key teachings of the Anabaptists". I wonder how Dan will score.

"Key teachings

"# Scripture alone as final authority." For Dan, Reason wins this one.
"# Need for a pure church of believers, entered through baptism" Not sure, but Dan seems pretty clear that it's not good to identify some as "pure" and some as "impure"
"# Pacifism the Word is the Christian's sword in a different Kingdom" Dan is all over this one 100$
"# Universal atonement (in response to infant baptism for removing original sin)" Lord knows where Dan stands on this.

"# Free-will and experiential understanding of salvation" Probably pretty high here, although Dan does believe salvation can be lost.

"# Imminent coming of Christ" I suspect this might be one Dan isn't too big on, but who knows.

Sorry for the digression.

Craig said...

"...on respect for marriage,..."

Please don't make me go get the quotes that make clear that marriage in Anabaptist tradition means one man and one woman.

Craig said...

"I've just pointed out the fact that you have no support for demanding that these texts must only be interpreted as literally factual history."

This fails on several levels.

First, I don't believe I have ever demanded "that these texts must only be interpreted as literally factual history.". I have said that I believe this to be the most correct way to read them, but have never demanded that they could never be read any other way.

Second, I've given you support, you just choose to reject it.

Third, you have still provide no support (I know it's so unreasonable that I don't consider "because I've never seen anything. and "my Reason tells me..." to be support) for your contention that accurate reporting of facts never, ever, not once, ever happened prior to the arbitrary date of 500BC.

"IF YOU were to meet someone who suggested the Bible teaches that it's good to rape women based upon what the Bible teaches in the OT,..."

Straw man alert. Unless you can demonstrate that anyone in real life is actually advocating this, please stop trotting out this same tired straw man crap.

You are trying to make human Reason out to be a bad guy here, Craig, but it's what we ALL USE to understand things."

Once again, stop misrepresenting my position. If you aren't sure ask and I'll repeat it, but stop the misrepresentation.

"It's either prayerfully using our reason to understand and reason out things OR we mindlessly accept what others teach us."

Again, since no one is suggesting mindlessly accepting anything I fail to see your point. Or perhaps these two options are the only ones you can come up with.

"Which is your preference?"

To follow God as revealed through His Holy Spirit, revealed through some truly amazing folks that God has used throughout history to communicate His story.

Craig said...

"Craig, I'll be blunt with you here: it's this sort of verbal vomit that makes folk sickened by your sort of Christian. This repeated arrogant and sanctimonious excrement that you spew from your mouth sometimes is not becoming an adult Christian or adult human."

First, and this sort of gentle loving response is the most Christian and adult way to handle this.

Second, the last thing I am being is arrogant. I know that the only way I will begin to get things right is to rely on God. I know that on my own I don't bring much to the table. So, if humble reliance on God makes me arrogant in your mind, I'm sorry. But seriously who else is there to rely on?

"To fall back to, "Well, I'm relying upon God while YOU are relying on your own pitiful reason," is just bullshit of the most rotten and diabolical sort"

No, this is worse bullshit. I can speak for who I rely on and I can read your own words and make determinations about what you rely on. I quote.

"...it IS our reason that we use to make sense of the text.

Again, what else is there?"

How else would one interpret your comment (and we both know this is not an isolated comment on your part) other than; There is nothing else but reason.

If my taking your clear words and restating them bothers you, maybe you should think of a better way to express your thoughts.

Craig said...

"I have a difficult time with a God who needs to lie about Himself in order to communicate "truths"."

then perhaps you could clarify how God inspired non factual epic fiction is any thing but God allowing lies to be told on His behalf. Or is He inspiring the lies? Either way, I'll settle for what really happened, it should be plenty.

"A rational and respectful adult would recognize that I am not claiming that all the historical narrative in the Bible is not fictional. I've not claimed it, don't think it."

So when you've said that fact based history DID NOT EXIST prior to 500 BC, you're really saying that some fact based history did exist and that's what archeology supports. But the rest is all non factual and epic fiction.

Dude, you've completely lost me.

I'll try to make this simple. Is there accurate fact based history anywhere in the OT, and if so Where?

Craig said...

"Indeed, I DO understand what you mean by literal interpretation, as I grew up with it, you'll recall."

False. you quite obviously do not understand what it means or you wouldn't keep up with the misrepresentations of the position. I have no possible way to (or desire to) fathom what you grew up with that you consider the same as my position.

"I have NEVER referred to a "non-factual" OT."

So when you keep saying that "fact based" history DID NOT exist until 500 BC, that I should interpret that as a "fact based" OT. Perhaps a little clarity about what parts of the OT are or aren't "fact-based" might have been helpful earlier in this exchange. I can't keep up.

I beg your forgiveness I had intended to say the the parables were almost always identified as parables, not always. My bad I should have caught that.

As to the parable ID issue.

I am suggesting that simple use of figurative language does not automatically make such language a parable. It could be argued that for the most part Jesus parables did not use figurative language as such, but rather used simple ordinary language and descriptions of events to illuminate something that cannot be adequately described otherwise.

"Are we in agreement, then, that not each figurative text is identified as such..." Yes, with the stipulation that figurative text does not equal parable or vice versa. "and that we MUST use our own poor flawed reason to sort out which is which?"

I'm pretty sure I dealt with this earlier, and this has already taken up way too much time for me to repeat myself.

"Brother Craig, I would hope that you would take a bit of time to relax and more carefully respond rationally to my comments, rather than with knee-jerk antagonism."

You really wrote this condescending crap after all the "verbal vomit" and "bullshit" bullshit you wrote earlier. Perhaps a dose of your own advice is in order.

"Yes, that is a starting point - keeping in mind, though, that we are speaking of an ancient peoples with differing conventions than our own."

Which would be more applicable if we were reading the texts in the language and cultural context of the original writers. There is a process called translation that (among other things) seeks to as much as possible mitigate the differences. So any English speaker should be able to recognize poetry that has been reasonably well translated from Urdu. So while your point is technically correct, it really has little bearing on how we interact with the text we have.

I'll check the link after I'm done, but it seems like you missed the point of the snippet you posted. Which (since he uses almost these exact words) the Bible is not exhaustive history, but when history is presented it is not necessarily inaccurate.

Craig said...

"This is more of the arrogant mouth shit that some less mature (or just vainly arrogant) Christians spew instead of actual responses."

Perhaps you should see your comment above regarding knee jerk vulgar condescending reactions to what others write.

Fortunately I dealt with this kind of verbal assault earlier, and even to copy/paste my earlier response would be a most horrible waste of time.

"We ALL pray, seeking God's will, the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is a given (or at least I'm giving you the grace and respect to assume that this is your starting point, as it is mine). The point was, GIVEN THAT we are starting from the point of prayerfully seeking God's will, what else do we have beyond OUR REASON to sort these things out?"

Please don't take offense, but I have absolutely no idea what role the Holy Spirit plays for you in these kinds of things. Therefore I can only speak for myself in how I approach things.

If you think that humble reliance on the Holy Spirit is arrogant, then I can only apologize. I have no other answer to give you, and I won't be bullied or insulted into saying so.

If you want respectful Christian conversation, perhaps bullying insulting attacks are a poor way to go about it.

You can disagree with my approach to letting the Holy Spirit guide me, but to assault me for honestly and humbly sharing such is neither Christian, adult, or conducive to respectful conversation. Your choice, I'll close with this.

Craig said...

“God, I want to know what is true. I know I have cravings that sway and distort my ability to reason. You promise that Your Holy Spirit will guide me into all truth. I pray that He will now. I don’t want to be wrong. I don’t want to be deceived by others or myself. You alone possess all truth, and I want to be on Your side. Give me eyes to see and ears to hear. Give me the courage to live and speak what is right no matter what the cost. I don’t want to believe anything about you that is not true. Amen.

Like it, don't like it I don't really care.

Marshall Art said...

I said:

"it is not taking the Bible literally that causes inconsistencies. It is YOUR interpretations that causes them. You MUST have a God that is all bunnies and rainbows, and to accept his more wrathful side becomes inconsistent as a result."

To which Dan replied:

"If you ever would like to discuss my actual positions, Marshall, let me know. If you want to beat up on a strawman of your own making, have at it."

I see. If only I could think of a story demonstrating God's wrath that you DIDN'T reject as "Jews' impression of whatever the hell you like to call it". I can't recall any. Thus, my conclusion is entirely rational based on what you HAVE said.

Marshall Art said...

I also said,

"Who does this? Who reads a book of history and asks these questions? The Bible, without labeling itself as such, is a historical record and presents events in that fashion. Why would anyone pick it up, read it and then ask if it was written in a modern historical style, as if there is such a thing?"

To which Dan answered:

"A serious student of the Bible? Anyone interested in discerning meaning in text? Folk like that..."

There's that word again..."serious". I'm not only "riff-raff", I'm also a not so serious student of the Bible because I don't come up with irrational questions about it.

A far more likely scenario for "serious" students of all kinds is perhaps to resolve the Biblical stories with what we think we know of the natural world, how to also resolve one Testament with what superficially seems to be contradictory versions in the other. But to suppose that the stories of the one True God are so loosely told as to denigrate His character? That they wrote in a style that permits this without leading the reader astray about His character and nature? Uh, uh. NObody does this, except those who NEED it to be so for reasons not wholly in tune with His Will.

Marshall Art said...

Finally,

"The point again is that one must take it as historical record until proof can be had to show otherwise."

To which Dan asks:

"Why?"

Because it is presented that way. And regardless of your link, which really doesn't make the case that your quote implies, the Bible is indeed a history book which teaches us lessons, as all history does, whether it intends to or not. I believe this History Book DOES intend to teach us as well as record history, because the history of man is part of the story of God.

But, so much of it troubles people who feel they are too sophisticated to accept the history as told (the Creation story), or too sanctimonious to accept hard truths about God Himself (that he WILL kick butt in a manner no man can bear). But it is so because it says so, hasn't been shown to be otherwise (particularly by you) and cannot be held together if read any other way.

What's more, Dan, I've done nothing BUT question you on your positions in a serious way, and you have ignored so many of my points. (But I'll leave that for now.)

The link you offered does not help your case in the least. What can history tell us of what George Washington did in his free time while a student? Not much, if anything. So telling us about Abraham starting with his life at 70 years old does not indicate that we're not getting a history lesson. The historian ALWAYS takes license to record what HE thinks is important and the type of detail the link suggests is lacking does not mitigate that fact. I can live with THAT type of difference in how histories were recorded, because it's really not that great a difference, nor are we left with any truly important questions left unanswered, with the possible exception of why God DID allow some things that were not within the scope of His intent.

Craig said...

"First, not only were Jews recording history well before Herodotus,..."

From your link.

"That is as far as the early books of the Bible are concerned, but once we get to later books, like the Book of Kings, for example, there is excellent direct evidence, written records of other emperors, etc"

"Lack of evidence is no evidence of lack"

Also from your link.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall:

"The point again is that one must take it as historical record until proof can be had to show otherwise."

To which Dan asks:

"Why?"

To which Marshall replied:

Because it is presented that way.

To which Dan asks:

SAYS WHO?

The point that you all appear to be wholly missing is that just because you presume something is a literal history does not make it so. Just because we all agree that the Jews recorded history does not mean that they thought it best to write it in the modern style that DIDN'T EXIST THEN, as far as the record shows thus far.

"Recording history" and "recording history in a literally factual way as we started doing sometime around the time of Christ" are two different things.

You all appear to miss this entirely.

Perhaps if you'd both stop with the ad homs, the strawmen and question begging fallacies in your rush to make a point, and look at what has actually been presented, you'd be further along the road to adult communication.

As it is, I'm beginning to wonder if it's just beyond your skill set.

Dan Trabue said...

I'm trying to figure out how to deal with you two, who don't seem to be operating with normal adult conversational assumptions, moving straight to a series of ad homs, strawmen and question begging fallacies. Let me give this a try, although I think I'm just repeating previous efforts.

I had stated the obvious...

"THE OT IS NOT A RULE BOOK POINTING OUT LINE BY LINE HOW WE ARE TO LIVE."

To which Craig responded...

Of course you are right, how stupid we would be to follow those silly 10 commandments what a waste that would be.

However a more serious answer than your question deserves is. Yes, parts of the OT are exactly a rule book telling Gods people how to live both personally and communally so that they are set apart from the other nations. The statement makes me question whether you've ever read Leviticus or Deuteronomy.


1. Craig, you seem to be responding to something I have not stated. If you'll read my ACTUAL comment, I did NOT state, "Leviticus and Deut. don't contain rules that were set out specifically for ancient Israel..." Can you see that? I no where made that comment.

2. What I DID say was just the obviously true/factual "The OT is not a rule book pointing out how we are to live...(Clarification: THE OT AS A WHOLE is not a line by line rule book for how WE ought to live today)."

3. Obviously, there are lines in the OT that represent eternal truths (love your enemies, do not shed innocent blood, don't murder, etc...). That we can agree to that does not mean that the OT as a whole is a point-by-point rule book, NOR does it mean even the very real rules that are found in the OT are universal in nature.

4. In fact, none of the rules in the OT are universal in nature merely by virtue of the fact that they appear in the OT. Even in the Ten Commandments, we do not think that the Sabbath (ie, Saturday) is itself holy or set apart, rather, WE HAVE re-interpreted what it means to keep the Sabbath holy (and promptly, not really done much to do just that, but that's another issue). A rule's presence in the OT (even a rule preceded by "Thus saith the Lord") is not evidence that it is a universal rule for all people and all times, nor is it Jesus speaking to us saying, "Obey this rule in YOUR life".

5. We ALL DO and MUST prayerfully (ie, seeking God's will, relying upon the Holy Spirit, etc) evaluate each line of OT writing using our reason to sort out what useful teachings we might glean out of it ("love your neighbor," for instance) and which teachings/texts are merely applicable/relevant to the people who recorded them, at the time and place they recorded them. We ALL do this: We ALL use our reason to sort these things out.

6. Each time that someone suggests "well, I (hoity toity, wonderful ME) rely upon the Holy Spirit, NOT my reason, while YOU merely rely upon your flawed reason..." each time someone suggests that sort of verbal vomit, they are exposing their arrogance and hypocrisy and all-around plain goofiness, not to mention a bit of diabolical divisiveness. Stop it.

7. The point is, we use our reason to sort these things out. The OT is NOT a rule book with each line applicable to us, but a story of God's people, stumbling through trying to reason THEIR way following God. It is, I believe, generally based upon real people and roughly real events, but it is not recorded in a literally factual modern historical manner. We have no evidence to make us think that and plenty of real evidence to think otherwise.

Dan Trabue said...

The biggest problem you all appear to be having can be seen here...

I don't want the mythic fake version, I want the real thing.

It is your modern and cultural prejudice against Other ways of doing things. And this was my point that you both appeared to miss entirely with my English analogy, which I'll restate here:

Saying, "Sure, God COULD relate a story effectively using myth or epic storytelling - God is God and can do anything; but why WOULDN'T God inspire these stories to be told in a way that I LIKE BEST...?"

is comparable to saying, "Sure, God COULD have related a story to an ancient people in their own language, but WHY WOULDN'T God inspire these stories to be told in English, the language I UNDERSTAND...?"

It's a modernistic, arrogant supposition that these stories would "naturally" be told in the manner that YOU like best and makes most sense to a more modern audience. It's also a modern arrogance against Other ways of telling stories, suggesting that myth is a "fake" (which you appear to think means "bad," or at least, "less valid") way of telling stories. "Fake," says WHO?

Again, it appears that you are illogically holding a prejudice against fiction and fanciful writing, as if Truths could not be expressed that way. Of course they can and you agree with this.

And of course each text need not identify itself as less than literally factual for it to still be valid.

You also said...

It beggars credulity that people would say "Oh, of course God created everything.". Then follow it with, "But of course it couldn't have happened in 6 days, that's just not possible".

I have not said it isn't possible. I have said THERE IS NO EVIDENCE to believe it and no rational reason not to believe what the evidence DOES suggest.

You are still stuck in question begging and strawman fallacies, fellas.

Marshall Art said...

Well, Dan. I guess you'll just have to muddle through with us two ignorant rubes who are lacking the proper skill sets. Sort of how we're muddling through with you.

"
"The point again is that one must take it as historical record until proof can be had to show otherwise."

To which Dan asks:

"Why?"

To which Marshall replied:

Because it is presented that way.

To which Dan asks:

SAYS WHO?"


Says anyone who wishes to study honestly and seriously. Look. It lays out a record of events and expects the reader to understand them as a record of events. There is nothing that suggests any less. That HAS to be the starting point of any serious and honest study. From there, one can ask if it is truly a record of actual events or a fictitious pile of mythology on the order of Greek and Roman gods.

If one chooses the former, and I choose to assume you do as well, the question of "style" never arises on its own because it is illogical to come to such a question without provocation. That is, someone somewhere suggested to you that history was told in some less that truthful style until some subjective date closer to the present. And that's all well and good, but one needs something a bit more concrete that supports the proposition that SCRIPTURE was recorded in this manner before one takes it as even merely likely. You have none. You've provided nothing to that comes close to supporting that proposition. You merely choose to believe that, which in turn provides a convenient out from truly resolving the passages you find so difficult to accept as true records of actual events.

This idea of how the Jewish historians wrote their history does not pass...well...I was going to say "the smell test"...

I can't see how any average person from any age of history not desire some insights into what went before him. A child asking his father about the father's childhood, for example, or that tales of war and heroics weren't passed down from generation to generation...How can anyone suggest that there was a time people didn't care about history? It's not logical and doesn't align with human nature. It is in our nature to wonder, and to wonder about the past is part of that.

Thus, one's desire to know such things can't be content to settle for that which isn't true, should one get the idea that the record isn't as accurate as one first thought. It makes far more sense to question the "skill sets" of one who believes the "style" of one or a few cultures has any bearing on the "style" of another.

And of course, especially regarding the history of God's people and His part in it, I can't imagine anyone hearing the stories told, or reading the historian's version not saying, "Hey! THAT'S not how it happened! I was THERE!" and then corrections being made.

No. The OT is accurate and worthy of literal understanding until one can provide proof that rebuts this position.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

How can anyone suggest that there was a time people didn't care about history? It's not logical and doesn't align with human nature.

And so, we can KNOW THIS ABSOLUTELY HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE because Marshall thinks so? Is that your entire point, Marshall? That YOU are guessing that no one could possibly want to tell stories in a manner that you don't like or that ancient cultures must have told stories in a way that you like and any other guesses are just bad guesses?

Is that because you are the arbiter of all truth for all time or do you have any substantial, supported reason to make this wild guess?

That is, is your ENTIRE CASE boiling down to, "it must be so because I think so!"...?

If so, I hope you can understand my being underwhelmed.

Craig said...

Your point #5, same old same old.

Your point #6 Since I did not suggest anything other than humble reliance of the Holy Spirit and did not speak of how anyone other than I do things, this comment has no value period.

"The OT is NOT a rule book with each line applicable to us, but a story of God's people,..."

Since I DID NOT SAY THIS, I wonder who this is addressed to.

"I believe, generally based upon real people and roughly real events,.."

Who gets to make those decisions? You?

"We have no evidence to make us think that..."

Actually since you've ignored several links that disgree with you I see no reason to take you seriously.

"... and plenty of real evidence to think otherwise."

So far you've produced ONE link to Wiki as the sum total of your "plenty of real evidence". (Oh, and that link that actually argues against your hunch, so I'll be generous and call that TWO.)



Had you actually produced plenty of real evidence, I'd be digging through it, yet that's not the case.

Craig said...

"I don't want the mythic fake version, I want the real thing."

So wanting reality is some bizarre modern prejudice. Oh sorry I'd rather live in "epic myth world rather than reality". Where in the world do you get this stuff.

Your analogy fails on several Levels.

The first and most obvious I God could have had the Bible written in whatever language He chose. He chose to have the writers He inspired, write in their own language, shocking.

Second, your analogy is based on God recording His story based on OUR (humankind's) convenience. This makes no sense.

If the story (as you now say) was "inspired by real events" why not some truth in advertising? Or better yet, why not just the simple unadorned real events?

"It's a modernistic, arrogant supposition that these stories would "naturally" be told in the manner that YOU like best and makes most sense to a more modern audience."

First, please don't put words in my mouth!

Second, since I have never indicated this in any way shape or form, who the hell are you talking to.

There's plenty in the Bible OT and NT that I don't like. BFD, it's not about what I like and for me to assume it is would be the most incredible hubris imaginable.

Quit the psychobabble and stick to what's really being said.

"It's also a modern arrogance against Other ways of telling stories, suggesting that myth is a "fake" (which you appear to think means "bad," or at least, "less valid") way of telling stories. "Fake," says WHO?"

If you want to just take over both sides of the discussion please do so, but let me know so I don't interrupt.

"Again, it appears that you are illogically holding a prejudice against fiction and fanciful writing, as if Truths could not be expressed that way."

Good lord, if this is what you've made up after all this time then why the hell do I bother. This is more of your condescending arrogant psychobabble crap. Or a straw man or and ad-hom or slander or libel, whatever.

"I have not said it isn't possible. I have said THERE IS NO EVIDENCE to believe it and no rational reason not to believe what the evidence DOES suggest."

Once again, I never said YOU did this. Please not the difference between the word Dan and the word people.

"You are still stuck in question begging and strawman fallacies, fellas."

And that's worse than the condescending bullying crap you've thrown down. You are really testing my resolve not to accuse you of slander.

Craig said...

"That is, is your ENTIRE CASE boiling down to, "it must be so because I think so!"...?

If so, I hope you can understand my being underwhelmed."

As opposed to

"My entire case is that my hunch is correct based on MY God given (yet flawed) human Reason"

"If so, I hope you can understand my being underwhelmed."

Yeah, me too. Maybe if you'd throw out some of the "plenty of evidence" or not reject evidence that disagrees with you out of hand, you'd have a more solid foundation from which to Reason out your hunches.

Craig said...

"You ARE the same blinded-by-your-culture, brainless demonizing sort of grade school Christian..."

Crap, I forgot to apologize for this strawmanadhomimmatureunchristion verbal spewing.

Craig said...

Crap,

That was Dan's again.

Dan Trabue said...

One of the problems with these internets conversations is that they can sprawl and spiral way out of control. Instead of responding to a series of misstatements and misunderstandings, let me just restate my ACTUAL positions, hopefully with a few clarifications to try to avoid the same thing happening again.

Yeah, I know, a pipe dream. Nonetheless, my ACTUAL positions...

GIVEN: That I am a Christian, striving by God's grace to follow in God's ways; striving to understand God's ways as taught in the Bible; prayerfully looking to the Spirit of Wisdom from God's Holy Spirit...

1. It is important to biblical exegesis to understand the style of writing being employed, as much as one is able to;

2. Some texts in the OT seem to contradict other teachings throughout the Bible - included in these are the texts that suggest God was okay with what appear to be forced marriages and God commanded killing the children of the enemy;

3. It does not seem rational to conclude that God would contradict God; IF there are some OT passages ("go in and kill them all, including the children" conflicting with "shed no innocent blood," for instance);

4. This is a problem IF the texts in question reflect a literally factual rendering of God's will;

5. This reasonably raises the question: MUST these texts be considered literally factual - told in a similar style that we try to tell historic stories today?

6. Interestingly (but not surprisingly), the way of telling history has not always been told the way we tell it now;

Dan Trabue said...

7. The era of "Modern history-telling" began around 500 BC - 500 AD, with Herodotus often being called the "father of history," or "father of modern history..."

8. Human societies, in pre-literate times, invariably pass down in an oral tradition the group's memory of what has happened in the past. This involves much legend and a certain amount of fact...

Two such collections form the western world's greatest shared store of anecdotes, cautionary tales, heroes and villains. They are the Bible and the poems of Homer.

But these are not history in the full sense. The first deliberate attempt to discover, record and analyze the past is made in Greece in the 5th century BC.

Herodotus is the first writer to make a conscious attempt to discover and explain past events. He is rightly known as the 'father of history'.


historyworld.net

"Herodotus is important for at least one other reason as well. He is, as far as we can tell, the first person to have written something we can recognize as an attempt to write real history."

languages.siuc.edu

"By applying skeptical inquiry with a shift from poem to prose, an ancient Greek writer becomes Herodotus, the first historian.
Prior to the 5th century BCE, written history as we know it today did not exist. It was the Greek writer Herodotus who first made the transition from collecting and recounting traditional stories to skeptically searching for historical truth."


suite101.com

Of course, I could go on. I could also point to Thucydides, also sometimes considered the "father of history."

The point is, I see much to support the notion that history has not always been told the way we do it now and little (ie, ZERO) HARD EVIDENCE to support the claim that prior to roughly the time of Christ, our Lord, that anyone was interested in telling history in this modern style which BEGAN around 500 BC...

Dan Trabue said...

9. Point of clarification: Just because stories were not known to be told in a wholly literally historic fashion does not mean that stories told before the era of modern history began were fictional. Often, the hard evidence would support that these were based upon real people, places and events;

10. For instance, the epic story the Iliad tells the story of the Trojan War; the hard evidence would suggest that there likely WAS a Trojan war and a real place called Troy; That the Iliad is an epic story is not to say it is wholly fictional - this is not the definition of Epic;

11. A support for the notion that some of these stories in the OT were told in a non-literally wholly factual historic in the modern manner is the STYLE of the stories;

12. Mythic stories, for instance, often include talking animals and "origin" stories (ie, "and THAT is why the camel has humps," "and THIS is how the bird learned to fly," and "and THIS is why the snake crawls on its belly." Myths also often explain - in non-scientific terms - "How the World began," as we see in the Genesis stories;

13. That stories are told using fictional, fantastical elements (as in parables, myths and epics) IN NO WAY means that the stories are "bad," "wrong," or "misleading;" Such stories are simply told in that style and can and do contain GREAT TRUTH AND WISDOM;

14. But, the question would be: ARE some of these OT stories told in such a manner? Yes, some of the hard evidence would support that this is likely the case and as far as I know, there is no evidence to demand that it is NOT the case, but does it demand such an understanding? Why?

Dan Trabue said...

15. Returning to the apparent conflict of values in some passages in the OT...

We have an apparent contradiction with some OT passages - whatever you may conclude on the matter, a God that BOTH commands us NOT to shed innocent blood and sometimes commands us TO shed innocent blood, IS an apparent conflict, IF the passages reflect a 100% literally factual representation of God's will;

16. Acknowledging that the hard evidence seems to lean against any need whatsoever to take these passages literally is one way to deal with this apparent contradiction;

17. What are other arguments to try to explain the apparent conflict?

One approach is to suggest that if GOD commands something, it is not a sin, even if normally it WOULD be a sin, even an atrocity.

18. The problem with this from my/our point of view is that it leaves you with a God who MIGHT command just about anything, and for those of us who don't believe that God will either tempt or command or coax us to sin, this is problematic. The proponents of this argument say, "but it's not a sin if God commands it," and it becomes a circular argument as to whether or not God would actually command someone to do something that, in any other circumstances, would be a sin. Unprovable on either side;

19. The other question one can reasonably ask is: Is there any reason to think that these stories must NOT be supposed to be told using even partially figurative language?

Dan Trabue said...

More later...

If you want to respond to any of my ACTUAL comments, please do, but limit it to my ACTUAL comments and leave all question begging, strawmen and ad homs at home.

Craig said...

Dan,

Somehow my copy/pasting your actual words and responding to them has become confused in your mind with something else.

Since you refuse to do what you ask of me, why should I bother?

If you want to respond to my responses to your quoted words, and to answer my questions in some sort of conversation that would be nice. However, I'm not going to go through your points again. I've responded to all of them in one form or another already with not much in the way of refutation. I've provided links that contradict your positions, and you ignore them, yet you expect me to jump at you FINALLY (after 100+ comments) get all worked up that you've finally provided "evidence". I've already provided you with studies that dispute your contention that oral histories are somehow not factual, yet you blow it off. Why should I waste my time doing research you've already dismissed.

So, how about this, if one uncritically accepts your 17 or so propositions as accurate, as well as you being the one who gets to define what sources are worth accepting, then of course you are correct.

You have found "evidence" that buttresses your hunch and you really aren't interested in giving serious consideration to anything else. It's much easier to dismiss with "I was once as unenlightened s you are and I know this material better than you ever will, so why should I consider anything that has been written since I've become enlightened as it's just a re-hash of the same old tired conservative junk that I already know backwards and forwards."

I'll give you one thing, this is definitely too sprawling.

Dan Trabue said...

Copying and pasting my words is a good starting point, but that alone does not/has not stopped you from doing ad hom and strawman arguments in the past.

Just two examples of what I'm speaking of, although indeed, a good majority of your arguments fall into this category:

Dan said:

We pray, we seek God's will, we meditate and ponder, but in the end, it IS our reason that we use to make sense of the text.

Again, what else is there?


Craig responded by quoting my words ("What else is there?") and saying:

The Holy Spirit.

I pointed out quite clearly - and HAVE DONE SO many times over the years - that we are BEGINNING with prayerfully seeking God's will (which I suspect most Christians would acknowledge is equivalent to "relying upon the Spirit of God," or words to that effect) and instead of AGREEING that we're starting from the same place, you give a bullshit answer that implies YOU begin with the Spirit of God, but I/we only rely upon our reason.

That is NOT of grace, it is NOT respectful. It is slimy and diabolical and excrement-filled. It is not the sort of behavior that becomes Christians.

[And, for the record and as an aside: Strongly correcting bullshit graceless answers is NOT wrong or lacking in Christian grace, especially in face of repeated bullshit graceless comments.]

THAT is how you can copy and paste and STILL give a strawman argument, which you do an awfully lot, Craig. Here's a hint: IF I HAVEN'T SAID IT, perhaps you better not suggest it is my view.

Marshall, on the other hand, refers to my words, but then draws a question begging fallacy-sort of answer. In answer to the question: Are these texts in question an example of literally factual history of the sort that denotes more modern historical patterns or not?

His answer, " one must take it as historical record until proof can be had to show otherwise." is simply question-begging. You can't answer the question "Is it literally factual history?" with the "proof" being the questioned premise (yes, it IS literally factual history because one must assume it is).

That's just poor reasoning/arguing.

I imagine at least you and I could agree upon that much, Craig - Yes? No?

Craig said...

"I pointed out quite clearly - and HAVE DONE SO many times over the years - that we are BEGINNING with prayerfully seeking God's will (which I suspect most Christians would acknowledge is equivalent to "relying upon the Spirit of God," or words to that effect) and instead of AGREEING that we're starting from the same place, you give a bullshit answer that implies YOU begin with the Spirit of God, but I/we only rely upon our reason."

What you choose to infer in none on my business.

You asked me a direct question, "What do YOU (Craig) do" I answered clearly succinctly and humbly. NOWHERE did I say, imply, suggest, or anything else what you do. Frankly the fact that you continue to misrepresent this blows my mind. Once again, YOU asked ME a question about what I do. I answered based on how I do things. Get it through your head and stop the madness.

"That is NOT of grace, it is NOT respectful. It is slimy and diabolical and excrement-filled. It is not the sort of behavior that becomes Christians."

And this is.

I don;t know how much simpler I can make it. IT"S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU!. If you're afraid of the answer don't ask the question.


"IF I HAVEN'T SAID IT, perhaps you better not suggest it is my view."

So, when I quote you, I am somehow saying something you haven't said. I know it's hard, but you're now arguing against your own words.

While at the same time you bitch about me quoting you, you blatantly lie about my positions and have the gall to lecture me because I use YOUR OWN WORDS.

Dan, read what you are saying, you stopped making sense a few comments ago.

Dan, "Here's a hint: IF I HAVEN'T SAID IT, perhaps you better not suggest it is my view."

"2. Some texts in the OT seem to contradict other teachings throughout the Bible..."

I know this might surprise you but, your not the first one to figure this out. There a whole bunch of scholars who study this kind of thing and have actually come up with answers for these supposed contradictions. It's true, you can look it up. Perhaps a little study of both sides might be in order before you declare "your side" the winner. (I put "your side" in quotes because I have never actually heard anyone else express these same hunches. So it's quite possible that you are all alone on this one, maybe not, but it's possible.

"You can't answer the question "Is it literally factual history?" with the "proof" being the questioned premise (yes, it IS literally factual history because one must assume it is)."

Yet you answer the question "Is it not literally factual history?' with the proof being "Yes, because I (Dan) haven't seen any evidence that convinces ME (Dan) that fact based history existed before 500BC."

All you are doing is making the same argument, except you substitute your Reason for thousands of years of scholarship.

So, if you won't accurately represent my views, please stop.

If you want to point out where I mis quote you feel free. The problem is almost all of your original quotes are in this thread for anyone to check for accuracy and context.

Craig said...

Finally, despite the sprawl, there are a crap load of comments, questions and links you've blown right past. Again how about the courtesy to actually engage.

Oh, why bother, I know where this is going.

Craig said...

"Craig responded by quoting my words ("What else is there?") and saying:

The Holy Spirit."

I'm sorry, I can't resist. You're pissed because I quoted the question you wanted me to answer, then I answered it. Seriously. I quoted the actual question, in your very own exact words and your pissed.

Craig said...

Dan,

My week or so with a lot of free time is over as I go back to work (both jobs) tomorrow, so instead of spending a bunch of my dwindling free time repeating "I did not say that", I think It's time for me to dial this one back. If I have a few minutes and there is something new to comment on, maybe, but for the most part I need to be doing other stuff.

I hope you understand.

Marshall Art said...

I'll bite. But first:

"How can anyone suggest that there was a time people didn't care about history? It's not logical and doesn't align with human nature.

And so, we can KNOW THIS ABSOLUTELY HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE because Marshall thinks so?"


Not at all. Once again, you default to this canard. I don't speak based on what I think alone. What I think is based on what is true, has been shown to be true, or seems (by far) truer than what you've offered. But never simply because I think so. To this question, even your own links speak of history before your imaginary (and theirs) line of demarcation, between 500BC and whatever other date (who cares?). It only speaks of your precious "style" of writing, but history nonetheless.

I would also point to the first link and the massively subjective conjecture regarding the reliability of the OT stories. What Homer did was one thing. What the OT authors were doing was something quite different and to suggest that they are apples to apples is an embarrassing (for the site) thing to suggest. What's more, for a someone claiming to be Christian to think that is good enough for him is equally embarrassing (for him), as it demonstrates the true quality of his faith to suppose there is no difference in the accuracy of the two.

Now for the points....

1. No it isn't. Not as you suggest, anyway. It's important to understand the original language as best as can be translated into ours. There is no way to determine that the OT writers, even of the first stories in Genesis, were not written as accurate depictions of the events as they occurred.

2. This is true only for those whose study wasn't as serious as they'd like others to believe. Serious study shows no contradictions and further, serious study makes no assumptions about God's nature without accounting for every depiction of Him in Scripture. If one ignores the OT descriptions of God acting in one way or another, then there indeed seems to be contradictions. Thus, the contradictions are somewhat self-inflicted, so to speak.

3. It isn't rational to conclude this. It also isn't rational to conflate what God commands as far as how we should live without His constant and direct guidance versus what God commands of us in a specific situation. In other words, you continue to judge God's OT commands based on how WE'RE supposed to act. Unlike muslims, we, nor the Jews, have ever been commanded to kill infidels forever, just because God commanded the Jews to wipe out entire communities. He gave specific orders each time that went no further than what it took to carry out those specific commands.

continuing....

Marshall Art said...

4. Not true. Quite the contrary, in fact. A literal reading cannot bring a rational person to such conclusions or confusions. Note the folks like Craig and myself read these same stories literally and don't believe anything like what you insist we should as a result.

5. Thus such questions never arise because we aren't confused by what is so clearly written.

6. You assume this is true for every culture. Nothing you've offered provides evidence that
it is true for Scripture, OT or otherwise.

7. Says those who would rather not believe what the OT says about the full nature of God.

8. I've actually commented on your links. They do not provide anything that proves the OT stories were not told faithfully and truthfully, accurately and with the necessary detail to be quality history. None of your links do anything more than assume. "As far as we know"??? Yeah. THAT'S definitive! It begins with the position that the OT is akin to things like Homer's stuff. Show me, or copy and paste, the definitive argument for assuming all of the OT, particularly the parts we've constantly been debating, were NOT told as accurate historic recording. You simply go with this incredibly weak argument which is akin to casting aspersions on the OT and who recorded it. (Indeed, it's as weak as your "marriage equity" defense.) This does little to shore up your claim of serious and honest study.

9. Point of clarification: The only stories of any concern here are the OT stories. How gracious of you to concede that the stories are based on real people and places. Too bad you don't believe anything about what they did.

10. We know what "epic" means. But to you, it means "fictitious enough" so that you don't have to resolve what you believe are contradictions about God.

11. The very point we're arguing. I totally disagree and you've done next to nothing (I'm being gracious here) to provide an honest argument in opposition.

12. That mythic stories bear some resemblance to Biblical stories does not mean the Biblical stories are mythic in the style of writing. We're talking about God here. Not Zeus.

13. The stories at the heart of OUR disagreements are told in a very straightforward "this is how it happened" style that is not much different than stories told today.

14. "But, the question would be: ARE some of these OT stories told in such a manner?"

There is no "hard evidence" that supports your contention that the stories at the heart of our disagreements are among the "less than historic" stories of the OT. That is, you've provided absolutely none.

more...

Marshall Art said...

15. You continue with this nonsense. There is a STARK difference in God telling us that as we live out our lives, we are not to murder and stories where God has His Chosen People wipe out an entire community that has long been considered by Him to be a wicked people. It is this type of constant re-framing of the truth that casts doubt on your claim of engaging in "honest" study of the Bible. You seem to believe that God cannot or will not take lives as He sees fit. There's not even "soft" evidence for this position.

16. Again, you've offered no hard evidence that allows you to engage in this forced contradiction, that really doesn't exist.

17. "What are other arguments to try to explain the apparent conflict?"

I've offered the actual argument that dispels the conflict easily. What YOU have to do is resist the urge to bring up bullshit possibilities like "what if God commanded you to rape puppies?" and suggest that should pass as a legitimate argument. You must keep in mind that we can only speak on what the Bible says God did, not on speculations of what you think He might do.

18. See response 17. This is a totally bullshit speculation. I have absolutely no problem feeling confident that God will not command anything of me that is on par with what He commanded the Jews as a nation against nations He judged to be wicked beyond redemption. In fact, it's dishonest to even suppose such a possibility is legitimate. Again, we only defend what the Bible says He did. YOU want to bring up all sorts of childish imaginings and expect us to take it seriously. As I've said, speculation can be fun and an interesting exercise. But unlike yourself, I don't confuse it with reality.

19. You'll have to restate this one. It's very confusing and I won't attempt a response.

One more thing. Earlier, you made another lame-assed remark about agreeing or conceding just because I said it, in a very condescending way. And of course, there's no reason to do so if that was ever the real support I had offered. But at the same time, I cruised over your links and it seems clear that is exactly what you're doing with the authors of those sites. Agreeing just because they said so, without any real "hard evidence" that what they said proves anything about the validity and accuracy of the OT stories at issue.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

You asked me a direct question, "What do YOU (Craig) do" I answered clearly succinctly and humbly. NOWHERE did I say, imply, suggest, or anything else what you do. Frankly the fact that you continue to misrepresent this blows my mind.

Okay, so you're saying I misunderstood? That is fine, we can back up and maybe have some agreement. That would be, if you pardon the language, an epic improvement, wouldn't it?

So then, where I STATED CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY that we are beginning with prayerfully seeking God's will/the Holy Spirit's guidance AND THEN we use our reason and my question to you was WHAT ELSE IS THERE?

THAT was my question. I'm sorry if that was not clear enough, my bad.

NOW THAT YOU KNOW WHAT MY ACTUAL QUESTION WAS, what is your answer to the QUESTION THAT I DID ASK?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

While at the same time you bitch about me quoting you, you blatantly lie about my positions and have the gall to lecture me because I use YOUR OWN WORDS.

I just gave one example of how you, at the least, misunderstood my actual words and SEEMED to imply that you were using God while I was only using my reason. I'm glad that you clarified that was not your intent. Still, it was a real example of you using MY words and answering a question that I didn't ask.

Feel free at any time to answer the question I DID ask.

Dan Trabue said...

And...

You're pissed because I quoted the question you wanted me to answer, then I answered it. Seriously. I quoted the actual question, in your very own exact words and your pissed

No, you answered a question I did not ask (ie, your answer was already provided for in my question). Now that I've clarified your misunderstanding, I'm interested in hearing an answer to the question I DID ask.

Craig said...

Dan,

Given how many flat out misrepresentations of my positions that you choose it ignore, I can't believe that you keep coming back to this. So, lets look at what you said and break it down.

"We pray,..."

OK fine, but no mention of the Holy Spirit

"...we seek God's will,..."
OK, but again no mention of the Holy Spirit.

"... we meditate and ponder,.."

OK, but still no mention of the Holy Spirit.

"...but in the end, it IS our reason that we use to make sense of the text.:"

So, now we bring in Reason, but still no Holy Spirit.

Now so far this is a statement,not a question. With no reference to the Holy Spirit.

So we get to the question.

"Again, what else is there?"

To which I answered with something that WAS NOT INCLUDED in your statement.

If you are going to continue to insist that my quoting YOUR OWN words somehow mis states your position, then I can't help you.

I have absolutely NO CONTROL over what you assumed when you WROTE that, and I have NO WAY to read your mind.

I have clarified this multiple times, and you can either accept mt position that I PERSONALLY humbly start with the Holy Spirit with absolutely NO REFERENCE to what you do, or you can continue to lie. Either way.

If you want me to begin to take you seriously again. Please start with dealing with the unanswered questions, and addressing the unaddressed comments. On the way, you could consider stopping your blatant (and at this point I'm forced to conclude intentional) misrepresenting of my positions.

Craig said...

"Feel free at any time to answer the question I DID ask."

As I just demonstrated, I did answer the question you asked. I'm sorry you don't like me answer, nonetheless it is my answer. It is my only answer, my honest answer, and mu humble answer. It's all there is. No matter how much you whine I will not say what you want me to say just to mollify you.

But feel free to stop misrepresenting my positions, whenever you like.

Dan Trabue said...

Any time that you can DEMONSTRATE that I have misrepresented your comments, I'll be glad to apologize and correct the misunderstanding (as I have fairly consistently done). So far, I've seen mostly empty and unsupported charges, which leave me unimpressed.

So, I'm going to leave you with TWO responses to your fallacious comments, with an explanation as to their problems. You can deal with those, if you'd like, and then we can move on or not...

Dan Trabue said...

Now, since I HAVE clarified the ACTUAL question I ACTUALLY asked (ie, GIVEN THAT WE ARE SEEKING THE HOLY SPIRIT'S GUIDANCE, we use our reason to sort these matters out - what else is there other than our reason, GIVEN THAT WE'RE SEEKING GOD'S LEADERSHIP?)

The question has been asked and the actual question has been clarified. Your answer is analogous to this...

Dan: I'm going to the doctor's to see about a stomach problem I have. I've done some research online to see what might be causing these symptoms. What else is there?

Craig: See the doctor.


That answer was part of the question, not an answer to the question.

I ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT "THE HOLY SPIRIT" WAS PART OF THE EQUATION.

POINT ONE FOR YOU TO ADDRESS: Given THAT, what else do we have but our reason to sort out the Bible and the Spirit's guidance?

Asked and clarified and STILL waiting an answer to THAT question.

======

Here's another example of a "question" from you that I've left hanging - and I've done so because it is a question based upon a strawman fallacy.

You asked/stated, "One has to wonder how you reconcile archeological finds that support the historical accuracy of the OT."

THIS would be a question to ask against the stated position: "The OT has stories that are wholly fictional."

POINT TWO FOR YOU TO ADDRESS: Since this is NOT my position, I didn't answer the question. It's a strawman fallacy.

Now, I will accept an answer to the question that I asked (and clarified several times now) and a simple apology/acknowledgment of the strawman argument you made about the archeological record.

Like those two misunderstandings/fallacies, many (most?) of your comments are in that vain, which is why I dropped back to just restating MY positions, rather than responding to your all's fallacies.

Once you've answered these two points, IF you have an question/comment that you honestly think is NOT fallacious, feel free to point it out.

Craig said...

"Any time that you can DEMONSTRATE that I have misrepresented your comments, I'll be glad to apologize and correct the misunderstanding (as I have fairly consistently done). So far, I've seen mostly empty and unsupported charges, which leave me unimpressed."

I've pointed out numerous instances of your misrepresentation. Since you choose not to actually use quotes to establish what I actually said, perhaps you could be more consistent in substantiating your claims.

OK, now you've changed/clarified your point to say what you didn't say earlier. What part of I've answered the question the best way I know how do you have a problem with. I went through the entire progressiion 30 or so comments ago, will it reallyhelp if I do it again. Even so, the bottom line remains I will primarily rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit as a interpret scripture. Are you suggesting that I am somehow wrong for doing so? Are you suggesting that I am lying? Are you sugesting that you have the best way and that any other way is inadequate? Again, you may not like or even understand my answer, but that's OK because its' my answer.

When you continue to insist that the entire concept of accurately recording historical events did not exist until 500BC, the logical conclusion is that any events prior to that date were not recorded in what your call a modern fact-based history. So, my question was logical given your stated position that fact based history was not recorded prior to 500BC.

So, while it is possible that I misinterpreted your insistance that such fact based history did not exist durng the OT time period, that is hardly the same thing as setting up a straw man argument. So to the extent that I misunderstood your position that fact based historical recording did not exist prior to 500BC, and that you have now modified what apprears what your position seemed to have been (now you seem to be saying that the OT record is "loosely" based on some facts or something similar. Now had you clarified this position earlier in the thread such as when I asked you if you were sure that fact based historical records did not exist prior to 500 BC (you can drop the modern modifier, that not how I or anyone but you have chosen to characterize fact based history), we would'nt be in this particular impasse.

"Now, I will accept an answer to the question that I asked (and clarified several times now) and a simple apology/acknowledgment of the strawman argument you made about the archeological record."

Arrogant much? "I'll accept..."

I've answered your question, I've apologized for my misunderstanding of your position that fact based history did not exist prior to 500BC. Now what other hoops would you like me to jump through. Maybe you'd just like to spew some more vile condescending crap.

As far as me pointing out the questions/comments/links you've ignored, why? If you either didn't pay enough attention the first time or care enough to ask for clarification, why should I hold up your end of the conversation also.

You spend multiple comments on a couple of trivial things while blithely misstating my positions, for me to re post everything would be a waste of time.

Perhaps you should consider giving those you disagree with the same courtesy you expect from them.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

now you've changed/clarified your point to say what you didn't say earlier.

Hold on, Craig. STOP right there. As a matter of fact, I have NOT "changed" my point. I DID clarify it so you could understand what my point was all along.

AGREED?

If we want to try to communicate, maybe we need to take baby-steps. I'm pointing out QUITE SPECIFICALLY AND REPEATEDLY that I HAVE NOT "changed" my point as you just said.

I DID clarify, which you also said. But they are not interchangeable.

AGREED?

Craig said...

OK, so baby steps.

Your original position was that the fact based recording of history did not exist prior to 500 BC, your clarified position is that fact based recording of history kind of existed prior to 500BC?

OK
"1. Modern historic writing, with an emphasis on literally factual history of the style that you're suggesting these passages are written on, DID NOT EXIST at this time." (emphasis added)


This was clearly your position earlier in the thread, now you seem to be saying that parts of the OT that are fact based.

So, how about an answer to a question that has been out there for about 2 days unanswered. (I know you said you'd andwered everything but Q.E.D.)

"I'll try to make this simple. Is there accurate fact based history anywhere in the OT, and if so Where?"

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

Your original position was that the fact based recording of history did not exist prior to 500 BC, your clarified position is that fact based recording of history kind of existed prior to 500BC?

My position has been and remains that there IS NO HARD EVIDENCE (that I've seen and NONE that you've provided) of what is called by many historians "Modern History," - meaning history told with an emphasis on literal facts without any non-literal, figurative parts - happening prior to ~500 BC.

There is NO HARD EVIDENCE for it. That is my position.

I do not have a position on whether or not "modern history" occurred before ~500 BC, or if pink unicorns flew through the skies eating sweet candy dragonflies - I'm just stating that there is no hard evidence to support such claims and no logical reason to think that they existed.

My position has been and remains that historians seem pretty united in holding to this position.

My position has been and remains that IF the cultural norm prior to ~500 BC was telling stories in ways that weren't always literally factually historic, that is not an indication of anything except that this was not the norm.

It's certainly not an indication that a people who did this were lying or making up fiction wholesale or that such mythic or epic types of stories represent "bad" history. It's just a culturally different way of telling stories.

That is my position. Always has been here on this blog.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig quoted me...

"1. Modern historic writing, with an emphasis on literally factual history of the style that you're suggesting these passages are written on, DID NOT EXIST at this time."

Then said...

This was clearly your position earlier in the thread, now you seem to be saying that parts of the OT that are fact based.

1. You left off the rest of my quote and thus changed the meaning slightly. The rest of what I said...

Having no evidence that ANYONE was writing history in the manner you're suggesting, WHY would I think that these stories in the OT are different?

It has been my point that we HAVE NO HARD EVIDENCE to support a literally factual history-telling in the OT and no solid reason to suggest there might be a reason to think that way.

Craig...

now you seem to be saying that parts of the OT that are fact based.

2. No, not "NOW." I've been saying all along that these stories we're looking at appear to be written in an epic form. The epic form is not a WHOLLY FICTIONAL form. Epic stories are often (generally?) based partially on facts. That HAS BEEN MY POSITION ALL ALONG.

It's just that they're not LITERALLY FACTUAL HISTORY, meaning (in case you're still not understanding, which appears to be the case) that they are not WHOLLY LINE-BY-LINE LITERALLY FACTUAL, and it does NOT mean that they are fictional, which seems to be where you keep drifting to. My apologies if I have not been clear enough.

Do you understand now what my position has been all along?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

So, how about an answer to a question that has been out there for about 2 days unanswered.

"I'll try to make this simple. Is there accurate fact based history anywhere in the OT, and if so Where?"


As with the last strawman, I didn't answer this because it was not/is not my position that there are no facts in the OT.

THIS is what I'm speaking about Craig: You've just been offering strawman after strawman version of what my argument is, and I'm short of time to keep trying to address these logical fallacies which are not related to my actual position.

I've said all along that there are facts in the OT. I've said all along that I believe these stories, by and large, to be about actual people in actual situations.

And I've said all along that the FACTS (or not) of most of these stories are IRRELEVANT to the TRUTHS of the stories.

As with Jonah: I have NO OPINION about his actual existence or the existence of a great fish that swallowed him. It is irrelevant to the truths of the story.

The story of Creation with Adam and Eve is told in a fairly consistent mythic style and I might question there exact factual existence, but again, it's irrelevant to the point of the story.

But certainly, there is plenty of evidence that Abraham and Moses and Miriam and David and Bathsheeba, etc, existed. There is plenty of evidence to make me think that Isaiah and the prophets were actual people in those actual situations (or something close to them).

That has always been my position and I've never said otherwise so I ignored the strawman implication laid down by the question.

Beyond that, it would be difficult to "prove" in any sense that all the details of these stories are fact-based or more fanciful epic-story-telling type of events and in most cases, it is irrelevant to me.

Did Isaiah actually walk naked for three years? Did Jonah actually exist? Was there an actual "great fish" that swallowed Jonah? Was Job a parable or an actual person?

The literal factuality of these points in the text are all irrelevant to the story, and the stories stand just fine whether or not the facts are literally down to each jot and tittle factuality.

That is and has been my position, as has always been stated.

Marshall Art said...

"Having no evidence that ANYONE was writing history in the manner you're suggesting, WHY would I think that these stories in the OT are different?"

Because they are written by people who either had direct contact with God, or were handed down from people who had direct contact with God. You do remember, for example, how most of the OT records God either directly acting or through a prophet to whom He spoke directly. And it speaks of a God Who created everything. How you can describe the OT as just another "epic tale" on the order of the works of Homer and not believe it shows a diminished reverence and faith is astounding. That you don't hold it in any higher esteem than that speaks volumes about the quality of your faith and your understanding of Him.

"It has been my point that we HAVE NO HARD EVIDENCE to support a literally factual history-telling in the OT and no solid reason to suggest there might be a reason to think that way."

But the issue to me is how you think you need to prove that first, rather than have it proven to be ONLY epic story telling instead. Again, it speaks volumes about you and not in a flattering way. Like your cohorts whose trust in science is greater than their trust in God's ability to create the universe in six actual days, you defer to what some historians say about ancient writings and do so without any dot connecting that definitively puts the OT in the same category as other writings.

This is all very pertinent to a question of MINE that remains unanswered: How do you align this nonsense with Scripture's description of the Jews being commanded to act in a manner that distinguishes them from all other cultures of the time, and why that wouldn't include how they record their history, particularly that history that involves God Himself? You answer, should you have the courage to put one forth, would risk the integrity of the entirety of Levitical law, including the Big Ten. That is, are they really from God or man?

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, there are at least two problems with your thinking, and I've already pointed them out many times before.

1. Your modern cultural chauvinism - the assumption that YOUR way of telling history is good and ancient ways of telling history are bad;

2. You're still begging the question...

Dan Trabue said...

You ask...

How do you align this nonsense with Scripture's description of the Jews being commanded to act in a manner that distinguishes them from all other cultures of the time, and why that wouldn't include how they record their history, particularly that history that involves God Himself?

COULD God have had them written their history in a modern history style? Sure, God could have. God is God and could have done anything.

God could have had them write their Creation story or any miracles in a modern scientific style, describing what happens to the molecules and atoms at a structural level - THAT would have separated them out from their neighbors.

Why don't you think God did THAT, Marshall?

God could have had them develop and drive cars around for transportation - THAT would have separated them out from the other people, Marshall. Do you REALLY think that God didn't do that, too?

Or write in a modern English language, written down on typewriters that they invented by God's help. THAT would have separated them out from their neighbors...

We could guess at all sorts of things GOD MAY have done to separate the Israelis out from their neighbors. The point is, do we have ANY HARD EVIDENCE to think that God DID do any of this?

The answer to THAT question is No, we don't.

So you are welcome to all the speculation in the world, Marshall - and speculation can be a good thing - but you'll excuse me if I take my Bible study a little more seriously than just falling back on unsupported speculation.

Dan Trabue said...

Just because I really want to answer these and make 100% sure that Craig has heard my answers clearly yet one more time, Craig said...

the bottom line remains I will primarily rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit as a interpret scripture.

And what do you use to sort out the "guidance of the Holy Spirit" from your own internal thoughts, or the voices in your head, or the voices of tradition?

Could it be your reason, or do you blindly follow whatever voices you hear? I'm guessing that you use your reason as I do. I hope so.

Craig...

Are you suggesting that I am somehow wrong for doing so?

No, you can tell that I am not suggesting you're wrong for doing so by the way I NEVER SAID THAT. I'm suggesting, stating, exclaiming, repeating, clarifying and otherwise pointing out that we ALL ARE STARTING FROM THAT POINT, all of us in this conversation, anyway.

And the QUESTION, then, was: What else do we have to sort these things out beyond our reason (GIVEN THAT WE'RE praying for, striving to rely upon God's guidance via the Holy Spirit as we do so)?

Are you suggesting that I am lying?

No, you can tell that I am not suggesting that by the way I NEVER SAID THAT. I'm suggesting, stating, exclaiming, repeating, clarifying and otherwise pointing out that we ALL ARE STARTING FROM THAT POINT, all of us in this conversation, anyway.

And the QUESTION, then, was: What else do we have to sort these things out beyond our reason (GIVEN THAT WE'RE praying for, striving to rely upon God's guidance via the Holy Spirit as we do so)?

Are you sugesting that you have the best way and that any other way is inadequate?

No, you can tell that I am not suggesting that by the way I NEVER SAID THAT. I'm suggesting, stating, exclaiming, repeating, clarifying and otherwise pointing out that we ALL ARE STARTING FROM THAT POINT, all of us in this conversation, anyway.

And the QUESTION, then, was: What else do we have to sort these things out beyond our reason (GIVEN THAT WE'RE praying for, striving to rely upon God's guidance via the Holy Spirit as we do so)?

So, any chance that you will answer the question that I DID ask, now that I hope it is abundantly clear to you what my intent was?

And, while I'm at it, any chance you'll admit to being off on the whole "archeology" series of questions you ask? Of saying, "OH, I didn't understand that you meant epic in a sense that there are some literal facts involved... my bad. I guess I didn't understand the meaning of Epic storytelling. My apologies..."

Anything like that?

If you'd own up to, come clear on your mistakes and answer questions asked, it makes conversations that much more respectful and more communicative. When you pointed out how I had failed to make myself clear to you on the "holy spirit" angle, I apologized for not being clear enough and explained myself further and THEN repeated the actual question intended.

How about a little reciprocity in response?

Marshall Art said...

"1. Your modern cultural chauvinism - the assumption that YOUR way of telling history is good and ancient ways of telling history are bad;"

This has not been my position. Mine has been that YOU assume that because you've found that others, like Homer, have written in a particular style, then it automatically follows that the OT authors did as well. I'm not concerned in the least with how Homer recorded events or that his intention was that it be regarded as an accurate record as opposed to an embellished account. My position is that apart from such people, the OT authors set out to faithfully record their history, with its close relationship with the One True God as accurately as we would tell a story about our own lives.

Out of time. Will respond to the rest later.

Craig said...

"THIS is what I'm speaking about Craig: You've just been offering strawman after strawman version of what my argument is, and I'm short of time to keep trying to address these logical fallacies which are not related to my actual position."

Dan, Just because you call something a strawman does not make it so. In this instance, I asked you a question. A fairly simple and direct question, but a question nonetheless. The point of the question was to try to gain further insight into what you are actually saying. I'm trying to figure out your position by asking, not express your position.

See, you could have just answered the question without feeling the need to assign motive. It's not that hard.

So, would it be accurate to summarize your position as follows.

The OT is to some degree based on actual historical people and acts, but was not necessarily recorded as such. Further, I (Dan) do not care if the events and persons mentioned as actual, or accurately recorded. I (Dan) feel that we are free to take whatever meaning we choose from these stories.

Close?

Craig said...

"COULD God have had them written their history in a modern history style? Sure, God could have. God is God and could have done anything."

Sorry, just to clarify. You clearly state that God is God and Could have done anything. Yet are you saying categorically that He did not inspire that OT to be written in a manner consistent with His covenant with Israel (Namely that they were His chosen people and they were to conduct themselves in ways that would set them apart from the other cultures/nations)?

Or are you saying that it might have happened, but you just don't know?

Or are you saying something else.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, summing up my position...

The OT is to some degree based on actual historical people and acts, but was not necessarily recorded as such...

Close?


Yes! Yes, very close! THAT part was very close. Then you added this...

Further, I (Dan) do not care if the events and persons mentioned as actual, or accurately recorded. I (Dan) feel that we are free to take whatever meaning we choose from these stories.

It's not that I don't CARE, it's that I don't think it's relevant. That is, in the story of Jonah, it is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT if Jonah was or wasn't an actual person who did or didn't live in Joppa who was or wasn't swallowed by a great fish. Those "factual details" are irrelevant to the point of the story.

Have you ever answered that you can agree to that point?

And while clearly any of us are "free" to take whatever lesson out of whatever story we want, I DO NOT THINK that all such lessons are equally valid or true to the lessons ACTUALLY taught in the story.

Thus, one might take Jesus' command to love our enemies to mean that we are to hate our enemies and they are "free" to do so, but it is in no way anything like an accurate or valid interpretation of the teaching.

Craig said...

"So, any chance that you will answer the question that I DID ask, now that I hope it is abundantly clear to you what my intent was?"

Dan, is there any chance that you will understand that I have said repeatedly that I have answered the question in the most accurate, honest, and humble way I know how.

As far as apologizing to for about the archeology thing, since my intent was to ask questions to clarify what your view was, I'm not sure what I am expected to apologize for here. Frankly, until you apologize for (or at least acknowledge that you have slightly stepped over the line) dome of your comments, I'm not inclined to apologize for asking a question to try to clarify (I seem to remember you suggesting that asking questions was a good way to clarify what others were saying, rather than to assume.) what exactly your position is.

As for your list of copy paste points. You might have noticed that I was asking questions not accusing you of anything or suggesting anything about you. Perhaps you just didn't understand the questions, I really don't know. Again, I thought asking questions might be helpful to understand your positions. I do apologize if I was wrong about that.


Finally, as you have referred several times to this "modern cultural chauvinism", I'm having a hard time understanding two things.

1. How is trying to correctly understand how Biblical history was recorded "modern cultural chauvinism"?

2. How is "MCC" different from the attitude that I've seen from your cohorts (and from you to some degree), that these were just a bunch of unsophisticated, ignorant, pre moderns, and we have a much better understanding now than they ever could have?

Again, these are questions designed to elicit information and answers, nothing else.

Craig said...

"Have you ever answered that you can agree to that point?"

Can I agree that you believe that the details are irrelevant, you keep saying so, so why would I doubt you.

Would I agree with your view, no I don't think I would.

"And while clearly any of us are "free" to take whatever lesson out of whatever story we want, I DO NOT THINK that all such lessons are equally valid or true to the lessons ACTUALLY taught in the story."

So, it seems as though you are saying that there are certain "right" lessons to be taken from these stories, correct?

Who decides which lessons are the "right" ones?

"Thus, one might take Jesus' command to love our enemies to mean that we are to hate our enemies and they are "free" to do so, but it is in no way anything like an accurate or valid interpretation of the teaching."

This is a rather poor example for a couple of reasons.

1. I believe you would suggest that it is factually accurate that Jesus actually said "love your enemies". So I would draw a distinction between what is (you seem to be saying) a literal factual command from God which really leaves very little open to interpretation or question, and a story which has some unknown factual basis which has nothing remotely comparable to this sort of direct command.

2. It seems obvious that it would be almost impossible for anyone to draw any thing from the command "love your enemies" than what is intended. So, anyone who does the opposite most likely has chosen to ignore or disobey the command, not misinterpret it.

What might be a better example is if someone tool from the Jonah story that God is a God who will threaten a city with destruction of they don't repent. This interpretation is completely supported by the story as presented and is a reasonable conclusion for someone to draw from the story.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

What might be a better example is if someone tool from the Jonah story that God is a God who will threaten a city with destruction of they don't repent. This interpretation is completely supported by the story as presented and is a reasonable conclusion for someone to draw from the story.

Well, as I have stated, that IS a conclusion one can draw from that story. Now, whether or not one can reasonably draw that conclusion from the Bible as a whole or from reality, that's another question. But certainly, that is ONE possible conclusion one can draw from that story.

AND one can draw that conclusion whether or not the story is factual.

So one question I would have to you, Craig, is what is ANY ONE TRUTH one could draw from this story that REQUIRES all the "facts" in the story to be literally factual?

And, which "facts" of the story MUST be literally factual? If Jonah wasn't actually from Joppa, would that negate all the truths in the story entirely? If so, why?

In other words, can you support your hunch that "no I don't think I would" accept the notion that the story doesn't need to be point by point factual in order to be true with anything?

Dan Trabue said...

I had asked...

"So, any chance that you will answer the question that I DID ask, now that I hope it is abundantly clear to you what my intent was?"

To which Craig responded...

Dan, is there any chance that you will understand that I have said repeatedly that I have answered the question in the most accurate, honest, and humble way I know how.

I still don't think you are getting my question, so let me rephrase it yet again...

OTHER THAN relying upon God's Holy Spirit and our REASON (and prayer, and seeking God's will, and contemplation, and praying in Jesus' name or whatever OTHER ways you might want to say the same thing) to sort these matters out, WHAT ELSE IS THERE to rely upon?

If your answer is still, "Other than the Holy Spirit and Reason, we have the Holy Spirit..." I hope you can see how irrational that sounds.

Or let me ask this separate but related question:

IF you are relying upon the Holy Spirit, HOW DO YOU KNOW if that gentle nudge or "still soft voice" you hear IS the Holy Spirit? Do you use your REASON to decide what stirring within you is of God and what is of yourself?

The point being is that EVEN GIVEN that we are looking to prayerful Bible study and to God's Holy Spirit for guidance, we are RELYING UPON OUR REASON to sort out the various things we "hear," can you agree to that?

Or is the case that each time you have a yearning, you assume that it's the Holy Spirit leading you and you really rely upon emotions and whims to help make those decisions?

These are questions, not accusations.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

As far as apologizing to for about the archeology thing, since my intent was to ask questions to clarify what your view was, I'm not sure what I am expected to apologize for here.

One of your original comments along this line was...

One has to wonder how you reconcile archeological finds that support the historical accuracy of the OT.

The suggestion I'm making is that this question sounds as if you're implying that I would have a problem with the arcehological evidence that exists and yet, nothing in what I've actually said would suggest that I have a problem with the archeological evidence. It SOUNDS as if you're confusing "epic" for "fictional" and suggesting I'm claiming the OT is fictional, which is not a point I've made.

If you're merely saying, "I don't really understand your position, Dan, do you think the OT is wholly fictional?" then that would seem to be the better clarifying question to ask. If you merely made a mistake and "over-asked" out of a lack of understanding of my position, no problem, no harm, no foul.

My fault for over-reacting. The thing is, there is an edge of "have you quit beating your wife yet" implications in your questions. Still I'll work on not over-reacting to questions that indicate a poor understanding of my actual positions.

Dan Trabue said...

We can see this sort of question again in your latest round of comments...

Finally, as you have referred several times to this "modern cultural chauvinism", I'm having a hard time understanding two things.

1. How is trying to correctly understand how Biblical history was recorded "modern cultural chauvinism"?

2. How is "MCC" different from the attitude that I've seen from your cohorts (and from you to some degree), that these were just a bunch of unsophisticated, ignorant, pre moderns, and we have a much better understanding now than they ever could have?

Again, these are questions designed to elicit information and answers, nothing else.


WITHIN YOUR QUESTION, you have the blatant statement that WE think the ancients were "unsophisticated, ignorant, pre-moderns" - which SOUNDS LIKE you're implying that we have a negative view of ancient people. But that is not based upon what we have said.

Were they ignorant of science as we know it? Yes. But you agree on this point, don't you?

Were they ignorant of English and modern culture? Sure, but you agree on that point, too, right?

Were they from a pre-modern culture? Of course they were, but you agree on that point, too, right?

DO we have a better understanding of some things? Of science, medicine, history, for instance? Of course we do, but you don't disagree, do you?

None of this is to say that we think they were "unsophisticated," or in some way "bad." Different cultures have different traditions and norms. I'm not assigning a moral value to the norms of the day, but you all appear to be doing so when you suggest that mythic and epic storytelling is less "right" than modern history telling methods.

To answer your questions...

1. I've not said "trying to correctly understand how Biblical history was recorded 'modern cultural chauvinism...'" haven't said it, don't think it. Glad to clarify the point.

What IS modern cultural chauvinism are attempts that would suggest that mythic or epic history telling is "bad," or "false," or "fake," or other denigrating terms. One can objectively say, "Epic history telling methods are less factually accurate than modern history telling," but not "epic history telling is FALSE and UNTRUE and UNRELIABLE," which is what IT SOUNDS LIKE some of you all are saying.

2. I think I've addressed your second point, but to reiterate: I have not said nor do I think they were "unsophisticated," I guess, depending on what you mean by that. They certainly WERE ignorant of some things, modern medicine, modern science, modern history techniques, but that is not a value judgment, just a statement of facts, right? They were "pre-modern," but I don't think anyone disagrees with this, so I'm not sure of the point.

I've not said that we have a "better understanding" generally than they did. We can probably all agree that we have a better understanding of some things, though. Bicycles, cars, photography, brain surgery, rocket science, molecules, modern history-telling with an emphasis on wholly literal, wholly factual history telling, etc. But I don't know that there's any great disagreement there, so I'm not sure of the point.

Dan Trabue said...

Oh, also, another point where you appear to wholly miss my point and position is on God and Jesus. I've never said anything to suggest that God and Jesus are not one in the same. Don't believe it.

I DO believe that we must take Jesus' Gospel/NT teachings as the best clarification of God's will, even to the point of interpreting the whole Bible through the lens of Jesus' specific teachings. You might check out my pastor's latest sermon over on my church blog which speaks some to this point.

Also, you asked...

just to clarify. You clearly state that God is God and Could have done anything. Yet are you saying categorically that He did not inspire that OT to be written in a manner consistent with His covenant with Israel (Namely that they were His chosen people and they were to conduct themselves in ways that would set them apart from the other cultures/nations)?

What I have said and my actual point is: God is God and can do anything (with the given that God won't do anything not in God's nature); God COULD have written the Bible in a modern style that did not appear to exist at the time from all evidence, God COULD have written the Bible in English in purple ink, God COULD have explained all the molecular science involved in creating the world.

What I am saying categorically is we have NO EVIDENCE or SOUND REASON to hold to the hunch that God DID write the Bible in a more modern history-telling style, nor do we have ANY BIBLICAL INJUNCTION telling us to do so.

We do not have any hard evidence or logical or biblical reason to believe that telling the ancient stories in a modern style IS "a manner consistent with God's covenant with Israel." That is question-begging.

Do you think that God wanted God's chosen people to conduct themselves in ways that set them apart and that included writing in English or on a typewriter or any other of an endless number of ways that God's people COULD have set themselves apart?

Do you see the problem of this position? You are selecting ONE POSSIBLE way that God's people COULD have set themselves apart - by telling history in a literally factual on every point sort of way - and saying that this is a required conclusion, it's not. It's question-begging.

YES, YES, 1000 times, YES, God COULD have done that, but where is the EVIDENCE to make us even beging to think even for a second that God DID do that?

Craig said...

"If your answer is still, "Other than the Holy Spirit and Reason, we have the Holy Spirit..." I hope you can see how irrational that sounds."

There is nothing else to rely on but the Holy Spirit. You may choose to rely on other things I try not too.

Perhaps now I've phrased my answer to better fit your question.

"IF you are relying upon the Holy Spirit, HOW DO YOU KNOW if that gentle nudge or "still soft voice" you hear IS the Holy Spirit? Do you use your REASON to decide what stirring within you is of God and what is of yourself?"

I know that it is the HS when His leading aligns with what God has revealed in scripture.

Now, your next question is "don't you use your reason, blah blah blah." The answer is while I probably do on occasion, no I don't hold fallible human reason in terribly high esteem. God's ways are much higher than my ways, reason isn't going to get me any closer. I know you don't like my answer, you may not even believe it, but it's mine, it's honest, and it's what it is. You can keep trying to herd me to f=give the answer you want, but then it would be your answer not mine. How about you just live and let live on this?

"Or is the case that each time you have a yearning, you assume that it's the Holy Spirit leading you and you really rely upon emotions and whims to help make those decisions?"

This is a great example of your question assuming facts not in evidence. No where did I indicate that I relied on "emotions or whims" and for you to intimate that to rely on the Holy Spirit is equivalent to "emotions and whims" demeans both the Holy Spirit and me.


Maybe if you just read the actual question, instead of reading meaning into it that isn't there, we could drop this too.

It's simple, I wonder how you handle instances where archeology confirms historical facts in the OT, nothing more nothing less.

You can keep up with this all you want, but I'm not apologizing for a legitimate question, especially after your "emotion and whimsy" "question".

"WE think the ancients were "unsophisticated, ignorant, pre-moderns" - "

Since I've heard your cronies, and others of your theological persuasion (and possibly yourself, I think I have but I don't remember so I'm being careful not to accuse you of something you haven't done), use terms such as those, it seems a logical conclusion that there are folks who think this. Perhaps you choose to ascribe certain meanings to these terms that make you think I am being provocative, I'm not I've heard folks in your orbit use the terms or something very close.

"I've not said "trying to correctly understand how Biblical history was recorded 'modern cultural chauvinism...'" haven't said it, don't think it. Glad to clarify the point."

I never said you did, I asked if that's what you WERE saying, so that I would know.

"...which is what IT SOUNDS LIKE some of you all are saying."

then perhaps you could have asked a question to clarify this point rather than to make an assumption.

Craig said...

"...modern history-telling with an emphasis on wholly literal, wholly factual history telling, etc."

I was pretty much with you up to here (provided you weren't suggesting that those other things some how make us better, which I don't think you were). The problems I have are two.

1. It sounds like you are assuming that unless history is "wholly factual" then it is not factual at all, is this the case?

2. It seems as though there is some need for "wholly factual" history no matter when you lived. For example, if Jethro said to his father, "Dad, our people used to live in Ur generations ago, could we go visit", that Jethro would be SOL with out some "wholly factual" history relating to where Ur was/is and how to get there. So, I still don't see any compelling evidence that pre-moderns did not need "wholly factual" history.

"I've never said anything to suggest that God and Jesus are not one in the same."

You comments suggesting that the God of the OT and the Jesus of the NT would contradict each other raise the question. Therefor I asked for clarification instead of assuming.

"Do you think that God wanted God's chosen people to conduct themselves in ways that set them apart and that included writing in English..."

OK the English thing is kind of stupid, but to your point. If everyone else in the world at that time wrote in some sort on "non wholly factual, epic, mythical" style, then it makes total sense that God would want His people to stand apart by the way they lived, and the way they recorded their history. The flip side is why would a God who went to such lengths to separate His people inspire them to record His inspired story using common ordinary techniques?

"What I am saying categorically is we have NO EVIDENCE or SOUND REASON to hold to the hunch that God DID write the Bible in a more modern history-telling style,..."

It might be more accurate to say that you either haven't looked at a significant amount of the evidence out there or that you choose not to accept it, rather than saying that it doesn't exist.
It seems strange to write off what seems to be the predominant strain of thought in both Jewish and Christian circles for quite some time, by saying that it doesn't exist.

"You are selecting ONE POSSIBLE way that God's people COULD have set themselves apart - by telling history in a literally factual on every point sort of way - and saying that this is a required conclusion,..."

No I'm not. I'm saying that it is a logical, reasonable, conclusion that millions of people over thousands of years have come to. But I have no desire (nor the clout or ability) to require anything of the sort, therefore I just don't. It's much less frustrating.

"...but where is the EVIDENCE..."

After you scroll back up and show where the links I have provided for you are factually incorrect, then you can ask this question. But if all you're going to do is skip dealing with the links and quotes provided it's really hard to take this question seriously.

I know I didn't respond to one comment. The reason is I liked the question and need some time to think about how to frame my answer that I just don't have right now. I'll try to get to it soon.

Craig said...

"And, which "facts" of the story MUST be literally factual? If Jonah wasn't actually from Joppa, would that negate all the truths in the story entirely? If so, why?"

I believe that there are a few facts that, if they are not true, would make drawing any worthwhile conclusions to this text worthless.

I'll address them as I have time.

1. I would suggest that there must be a real person as Jonah. I further believe that this person would have needed to be Jewish.

2. God must have commanded him to preach to Nineveh.

3. Jonah must have tried to "escape".

4. Jonah must have actually gone and preached in Nineveh.

5. Nineveh, must have repented.

It seems that unless these are true, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that some guy "heard voices" and went out and made a fool of himself.

Marshall Art said...

The point Dan has failed to address is this:

Whatever one reads, one takes what is read at face value. In the case of OT stories, they are told in a very plain, straightforward manner. They are told as if what is being presented happened in the manner presented.

For the absolute atheist, obviously there is much that is outrageous and extraordinary and such a person might either dismiss it outright, or seek to disprove it.

For one who claims to believe, it doesn't make sense that one would question what is read. Not at the start. At some point, it is legitimate for even a believer to wonder about what was read and to question the legitimacy of the events recorded. This, too, seems to me to be quite natural and pretty much to be expected. Indeed, it is especially true for those believers who are into science and physics.

Where this discussion gets weird for me is this notion that one would somehow decide to investigate "styles" of writing, opinions about how history was recorded at different points in, uh, history, and then suppose that what has been said about some ancient cultures gives one license to suppose it must then be true for the ancient Jewish culture. I don't see the connection aside from the "ancient" angle.

The mere fact that this weird position is in regards to "cultures" is part of the problem. One culture is, almost by definition, different and distinct from another. The degree of distinction between cultures A and B might be more or less than that of A and C, or F and G, but they are all different or they'd be the same culture. That makes sense, doesn't it? If so, how can one apply what is said about "some" cultures and assume it must be the case with the Jewish culture? Doing so makes Dan guilty of the same accusation he makes of us, that we apply modern cultural behaviors regarding the recording of history to the ancient Jewish culture.

More later.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

It seems that unless these are true, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that some guy "heard voices" and went out and made a fool of himself.

? I don't see it. Could you just take ONE Truth from the story of Jonah ("you can't run from God," "God loves us all," "God wants us to love everyone..." a truth of your choice) and demonstrate that, "IF Jonah wasn't REALLY from Joppa, then God can't actually love everyone..." or something like that. I just can't see at all what you're driving at here.

I'm not saying you don't have a point, I'm saying I can't see what you're getting at.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, as to your whole Holy Spirit theme...

I know that it is the HS when His leading aligns with what God has revealed in scripture.

I am wondering if you can at least see how this SEEMS to be an instance of circular reasoning?

Craig, how do you know how to interpret the Bible?

"I rely upon the HS."

And how do you know it's the HS speaking (leading? nudging? teaching? moving? inspiring?- what term would you use?)?

"I rely upon the Bible."

So, IF you have a question about a proper interpretation of a point in the Bible...?

I rely upon the HS?

And how do you know it's the HS?

If it aligns with what the Bible teaches...

Do you see the apparent problem there? IF you have a question about, for instance, "Does the Bible teach that it's sometimes okay to kill innocent babies?", you DON'T rely upon your reasoning, but primarily the HS leading you. But HOW do you know the HS is leading you in the right interpretation on this interpretation question? If you say "I rely upon the Bible's teaching," the problem is, you are trying to DISCERN a Biblical teaching's best meaning...

What does that look like, Craig?

Do you see that at some point you HAVE to be relying upon your reasoning to discern IS this a good biblical teaching? IS this what the HS wants me to believe?

Aren't you ultimately relying upon your reasoning?

Also, along these lines, what does it mean to you that you are relying upon the HS? You read this passage and pray and wait for, what? A feeling of "this is right"? A sense of "assurance?" What does that look like in your studies?

Thanks.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, you're still question-begging.

Craig said...

"I'm not saying you don't have a point, I'm saying I can't see what you're getting at."

I already did that. I provided you with a list of things that in my opinion must be true if one is to learn any lessons of value from the story of Jonah. My point is that if those things are not factual, then I fail to see how you can draw any meaningful conclusions from the story. Because, what real meaning is there to a crazy street preacher wandering around Nineveh.

"I am wondering if you can at least see how this SEEMS to be an instance of circular reasoning?"

GIVEN that this is MY personal answer to your question, and that this is one where there is no black and white, right or wrong answer, can you understand that I don't care how my answer seems to you. It is MY answer. If all you want is for me to jump through the hoop and lie, I guess I can if it will get you off of this time wasting digression which I have answered over and over. Can you really not understand that?

"What does that look like, Craig?"

It looks like I'm not giving you the answer you want, and you're going to keep gnawing on this bone until you wear me out and I lie just to shut you up. It looks like you are unable or unwilling to allow your self to accept that there might be some other way to do thing rather than to subject everything to Reason. It also looks like you have chosen to ignore the entire process I laid out earlier in order to make it appear as if I am engaging in a circular process. When, in fact, I already laid out the process I go through. The fact that you choose to ignore the bulk of what I said in order to make a point isn't my problem.

I'll add that one of my spiritual gifts is discernment, I guess you could stretch the definition of spiritual gift to try to force it to make your point.

Having said that, I've answered this multiple times, I will not engage in any further discussion on this topic. I get it, you don't like my answer, so let it go.

Dan Trabue said...

I've let it go, Craig. As well as the notion that you have the ability to explain to me what you mean.

Peace.

Craig said...

So, what's your point. Are you really giong to get all petulant because I won't give you the answer you want?

Does this mean your not going to deal with anything else aa well?

It's not that I can't explain my position, it's that I obvioulsy can't explaint it to your satisfaction. Given this, I won't waste my time trying to say the same thing in a different way in the hopes that you'll finally approve.

The good news is now you'll have time to repudiate the links I posted earlier.

Marshall Art said...

"Marshall, you're still question-begging."

It would be helpful if you'd state the question I'm supposedly begging. Say I'm "question-begging" is a dodge. Besides, I wasn't done with my comment (as "More later should have indicated), but if you saw something in what I've said that you dispute, saying I'm "question-begging" gives me nothing to which I can respond or offer elaboration.

Dan Trabue said...

It's the same question begging you two have been doing all along, Marshall, just more of it.

I'll play Craig's game and just say, "Go back and look where I've already pointed it out..."

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, you keep referring to "links" that you have offered...

Actually since you've ignored several links that disgree with you I see no reason to take you seriously.

I've just spent a good bit of time crawling through this sprawl and the ONE "link" you refer me to is a book. You offered several quotes from that same book on your blog which I read and the author was offering the same sort of question-begging and strawman arguments that make up your and Marshall's arsenal of reasoning.

If I've missed any other links, feel free to point them out (or if you know how to do a search specifically for links, that would work, too). As it is, I'm not seeing any beyond your book.

As noted and pointed out, you tend to offer strawman-ish/question begging sorts of questions and "proof." If you have any questions that you DON'T think are logical fallacies, feel free to point those out to me.

I'm not seeing anything that has not been addressed.

Dan Trabue said...

I have a little time, to address some false/bad assumptions on your part, you say...

The fact that you are attempting to reduce something that contains as many styles as the OT to one style says plenty.

I have not attempted to say there is only one style in the OT. You can tell by the way I've never said that. Point clarified. Move on.

If by "GOD-GIVEN REASONING" you are suggesting that our ability to reason is not corrupted by our sinful nature

I have not suggested that our reason is perfect or uncorrupted. You can tell by the way I've never said that. Point clarified. Move on.

the question remains. "Why didn't God inspire them to get the story right? Are you saying that the real story (if there was a real story) wasn't good enough?

Answered multiple times now. You are begging the question, presuming that God would inspire only a story that you deem factual and good enough. The "real story" of Jonah IS the one that is told, WHETHER OR NOT Jonah was born in Joppa and traveled via great fish (or whale, or coconut-laden swallows) to Ninevah. Point clarified. Move on.

I've suggested other basis as well, you you simply reject anything that doesn't agree with your Reason out of hand, so why continue.

I'm looking for it and still not seeing it...

I DO reject any biblical exegesis that is poorly done from a biblical and rational point of view. What would you suggest I do?

I could spend the time to provide you with links that cover the historical scholarship, archeological support etc

So you keep saying, and yet, I have not seen it. Craig, I'm not a fool. I want to know God's Will, I want to rightly understand God's Word. If you have good solid biblical and rational points to make, make them. But this repeated "I COULD if I really wanted to..." stuff is beneath us, my brother.

More...

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

Unless you can demonstrate that anyone in real life is actually advocating this, please stop trotting out this same tired straw man crap.

I offered an analogy saying "what you're saying IS LIKE this other thing..." I don't need to demonstrate that someone is actually saying that to make an analogy. Move on.

then perhaps you could clarify how God inspired non factual epic fiction is any thing but God allowing lies to be told on His behalf. Or is He inspiring the lies?

Inspired fiction is NOT "lies." Strawman. You agree, since you don't think that parables are lies. This is a strawman argument. Drop it. Move on.

...Okay, for the second time today I've re-read through this sprawl and found NO links (other than your book reference) that you have offered that I have ignored, and I see no questions that remain un-addressed, even ones that are based on nothing I've said (as in asking about what I would do with the archeological evidence, etc).

So, if you have something you think I've missed that you think is not a blatant logical fallacy, ask away. I just can't see anything.

Craig said...

http://www.meredithkline.com/files/articles/is_the_history_of_the_old_testament_accurate.pdf
http://www.free-online.org/free-thinking/lifes-big-questions/bible/is-the-old-testament-historically-reliable.htm
http://cheekytour.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-old-testament-historically-reliable.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557124/Tiny-tablet-provides-proof-for-Old-Testament.html
http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=8448.0.136.0
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1347
http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture4b.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/nicole.html
‘ … On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.

‘These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed.
Quote from the Smithsonian regarding the accuracy of the Hebrew Bible.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_2/j20_2_20-23.pdf

http://www.users.ms11.net/~dejnarde/archa.htm

he individual books of the Old Testament were written with a different objective in mind, which does not mean that the narratives in the Old Testament have no historical value at all. They are recognized, even by secular historians, as one of the most reliable sources available for reconstructing the history of the Hebrew people. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/id-103.html
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/jonah_historicity.htm
ACCORDING TO WIKI AT LEAST MAPS WERE ACCURATE BEFORE 500 BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cartography
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
Apparently Math was accurate before 500 BC http://ualr.edu/lasmoller/pythag.html
It seems the Chinese were recording accurate history prior to 500 BC also http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/china/ch01.html
As was astronomy. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec02.html

Dan Trabue said...

Thanks for the actual links, Craig. I'll check them out. But I'll point out something right away, where you quoted them...

On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity

...and, as I've noted, "any that we have" from antiquity is not especially literally accurate in the more modern sense, since all of the stories from antiquity appear to be from different styles of history-telling than the type that began, according to historians, becoming developed around 500 BC.

For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed.

As I have said, I generally accept that most of these stories are based on real places, people and events. Just not wholly literally so.

They are recognized, even by secular historians, as one of the most reliable sources available for reconstructing the history of the Hebrew people.

Indeed. No argument here.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding my actual position?

Marshall Art said...

"I DO reject any biblical exegesis that is poorly done from a biblical and rational point of view."

Except your own. There is little that is rational in suggesting that we view the OT as we would other ancient writings, as if nothing would be different as regards the manner in which the followers of the REAL God would record their history.

You take issue with the concept that the Chosen People, while described as mandated to eat, dress and behave in a manner that clearly distinguishes them from other cultures, wouldn't also record their history in a manner different from the rest. What is rational about such a position? It clearly isn't Biblical in it's perspective as the Bible clearly states that they WERE to be distinctively different.

And regardless of how you might want to view the "style" of writing, what you cannot dismiss is that the result is that a lie is being told that, by your own standards, describes God in a manner that is not quite the loving god you worship. This isn't just a people trying to make sense of their lives and God's part in it. It is a people making up crap and claiming it to be true. There is no other way to deal with passages of God expressing His wrath and judgement except to say that He can be a very dangerous Being with which to deal. Yet, you don't want any part of that aspect of His actual nature. I know I don't. But I accept that it is true because it is so described so very often. What's more, as Stan has just presented, is far more accurate a portrayal of Him than what you're willing to accept, judging by his post on just what kind of "nice guy" Jesus was.

Our position is most definitely Biblical, because we are considering what the Bible says about God and His nature. And it is rational given the narrative of the Bible in its entirety.

What is irrational is judging the Bible based on what you think you know about ancient cultures and the way they recorded their histories. To put this another way, your position equates the faith of the Jews in God to the belief of the Greeks in Zeus. Because the Greeks wrote wild stories about their gods, then the Jews could not have written about an ACTUAL god without also making up crap about him.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, I've begun poring through these links and I have a question for you that may save me some time...

1. You DO understand that I believe in the factual (or likely factual) existence of the nation of Israel, of people such as King David, King Saul, David's advisors, his many wives, King Solomon, the queen of Sheba... of Abraham and his wife Sarah, of Moses and Moses' wife and brother and sister, of many of the people and places that are mentioned in the Bible and for which there is archeological evidence?

None of that is really in question for me - you DO understand this, yes?

2. And so, if these many links are merely links that support what I already believe, it merely means that you and I are in agreement on those points. You understand this, too, yes?

3. What seems to me to be at question here is NOT the actual, factual existence of these people and places, but of some of the conversations/commands/teachings that happened between God and these people, are we agreeing on that?

4. And so, my question (and what strikes me as epic, or mythic or otherwise imagery) would be: What of these teachings/commands such as "wipe them all out - destroy them all, even the children and infants..." Or, "God said to Adam, 'go out and name all the animals...'" - are they literally factual as many have traditionally believed, or are those parts of the story more mythic/epic, as they appear to be? Do we have any reason to think THESE PARTS of the story OUGHT to be/MUST be taken as literal history?

5. As I'm reading through these links, it appears to me that the answer to THAT question is, "No. We have no 'proof' that these parts of these stories are literal - there is no archeological record of these conversations, no recordings, no "original manuscript" directly from God..."

Could you save me some time and affirm for me that this is, in fact, the case?

6. Another question these links MIGHT still try to answer is, "No, there is no archeological or hard evidence that demands that interpretation, but there is biblical evidence that the biblical characters demanded that we must interpret these parts of these stories in a literal manner..." Is THAT more the case happening here?

7. If so, do they really have anything more to say to the point than you have already said?

I'm guessing not. If you could save me some time and clarify that, it would be appreciated. If not and I read through these only to find the same bad biblical and logical reasoning offered already, that will only serve to diminish your credibility, for what it's worth.

Marshall Art said...

I must go back to two things:

1. Dan. You ever really responded to my list of points from my comment of 9/10/11 @ 4:24AM. I believe these are valid points in response to your position and I've brought them up before. You've never really offered anyting in the way of resolving the issues they imply.

2. This statement from you link:

"Prior to the 5th century BCE, written history as we know it today did not exist. It was the Greek writer Herodotus who first made the transition from collecting and recounting traditional stories to skeptically searching for historical truth."

This is a premise stated as a fact. This is not on par with the notion of "hard evidence". It is no stronger than anything I myself have offered but for the fact that it came from site you think qualifies it as more worthy of one's trust and faith. Nothing you've offered makes the connection, connects the dots, between such a contention and the reliability of the OT passages that trouble you. The connection is asssumed at best, based on what you've presented to defend your position. There is nothing akin to "hard evidence" to be found.

Thus, when I say that one must take those passages at face value until something "harder" than such a subjective conclusion can be found, it is giving the benefit of the doubt to the God-inspired text which informs us of who God is and what He wants of us. YOu are denying it that by your greater faith in the opinions of so-called historians you don't even know.

Frankly, if it didn't so twist your understanding of who God is and what He expects of us, it wouldn't be so problematic. But, if you are going to rely on such sources to inform your understanding, it is incumbent upon you to show a little more in the way of that "hard evidence" you demand from those with opposing positions.

Even more frankly, it appears that your methods are in the grand tradition of so many who begin with a premise and seek whatever supports that premise, rather than those who look at what is and seek to understand. You say, God is perfect love and justice and the total annihilation of entire populations are inconsistent with that, so how can I explain the stories of His Wrath? I say, God is described as a no-nonsense, sovereign, creator of all things Supreme Being and this understanding is totally consistent with the need for a Savior in order to avoid suffering that wrath.

OT Scripture provides examples of His nature that makes sense of the whole salvation issue. You remove those aspects that make the need apparent. OT Scripture provides examples of a God with incredible miraculous capabilites, but you think human science is greater and if science says one thing, the other thing claimed by the Bible must be some kind of mythical representation.

You do a whole lot more explaining away than you do explaining.

Craig said...

Dan,

This is the elusive comment you "couldn't" find. Just thought I help you out.


For grins here's what I found ( I know I said I wouldn't do this, but it could be amusing) when I googled Anabaptist view on the historicity of the OT.

I found the following.

"The Anabaptists and early Mennonites believed that both the Old and New Testaments were God's infallible and Holy Word."

"Early Christians and the Old Testament
Christ's example. Jesus frequently quoted from the Old Testament as the Word of God, even to the detail of every "jot or...tittle," every letter or stroke (Matt. 5:18). Jesus never disagreed with any part of the Holy Scripture, although He did take issue with some men's incorrect interpretations of it and additions to it. He always treated the Scripture word for word, never doubting, for example, that there was truly an Adam and an Eve or that God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone.

The first Christians followed Christ's example and used the Old Testament with reverence. The multiplying Christian churches continued to read and study the Scriptures just as the Jews in the synagogues did. The earliest Christians, of course, were Jews who had accepted Jesus' claim to be the Savior of whom the Old Testament spoke."

Not From Anabaptists but still interesting.

"World-renowned archaeologist William F. Albright states, "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition (Albright, Archaeology and Religion of Israel, p. 176). Nelson Glueck adds that, "As a matter of fact... it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail statements in the Bible (Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, p. 31). The biblical authors told the truth, and biblical archaeology has confirmed this without error."

"http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/node/536"

Oh, and a few of what are called "key teachings of the Anabaptists". I wonder how Dan will score.

"Key teachings

"# Scripture alone as final authority." For Dan, Reason wins this one.
"# Need for a pure church of believers, entered through baptism" Not sure, but Dan seems pretty clear that it's not good to identify some as "pure" and some as "impure"
"# Pacifism the Word is the Christian's sword in a different Kingdom" Dan is all over this one 100$
"# Universal atonement (in response to infant baptism for removing original sin)" Lord knows where Dan stands on this.

"# Free-will and experiential understanding of salvation" Probably pretty high here, although Dan does believe salvation can be lost.

"# Imminent coming of Christ" I suspect this might be one Dan isn't too big on, but who knows.

Sorry for the digression.
9/11/11 2:49 PM

Craig said...

"..and, as I've noted, "any that we have" from antiquity is not especially literally accurate in the more modern sense, since all of the stories from antiquity appear to be from different styles of history-telling than the type that began, according to historians, becoming developed around 500 BC."

Reading your own hunch into the Smithsonian quote a little bit are we?

The fact remains that the Smithsonian considers the OT histories to be among the more accurate texts of antiquity.

RE your questions. You have consistently stated that there is no evidence of the factual relating of history, yet we see plenty of evidence that a number of folks disagree with you.

I quote you.

"1. Modern historic writing, with an emphasis on literally factual history of the style that you're suggesting these passages are written on, did not exist at this time."

Again you.

"1. You DO understand that I believe in the factual (or likely factual) existence of the nation of Israel, of people such as King David, King Saul, David's advisors, his many wives, King Solomon, the queen of Sheba... of Abraham and his wife Sarah, of Moses and Moses' wife and brother and sister, of many of the people and places that are mentioned in the Bible and for which there is archeological evidence?"

So we start with "no literally factual history" to "I believe in the factual (or likely factual) existence of the...for which there is archeological evidence"

So you've now clarified that you do believe that those parts of the OT for which there is archeological support are literally factual. Perhaps you could have clarified this earlier.

"3. What seems to me to be at question here is NOT the actual, factual existence of these people and places, but of some of the conversations/commands/teachings that happened between God and these people, are we agreeing on that?"

I think so, it seems the parts you don't like are the parts where God speaks.

"Do we have any reason to think THESE PARTS of the story OUGHT to be/MUST be taken as literal history?"

Sure, for starters as " "many have traditionally believed," they are"literally factual. While you dismiss thousands of years of Jewish and Christian scholarship on these issues as simply "tradition" as though there is no basis for the view traditionally held within both the Church and Judaism.

Also, if the "structure" of the story (people, places, actions etc) is factual, then why would anyone not treat the entire story as such.

As to your remaining questions, you continue to assert that there is nothing out there to support my position, I have provided what should be a sufficient amount of documentation to demonstrate that there is support for the position.

Further, you might note the fact that prior to 500BC there was "factually literal" reporting of scientific discovery. Are you suggesting that this is incorrect or that folks recorded the literal facts about science, but nothing else. Interesting hunch.

Now, perhaps you could provide some evidence for your position.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

you've now clarified that you do believe that those parts of the OT for which there is archeological support are literally factual. Perhaps you could have clarified this earlier.

!!???

Brother Craig, it has not been without some effort to TRY to clarify this point on my part. I'm glad now that we understand one another on this point.

So, all your links are just "proofs" of something we agree upon - that there is hard evidence that many of the biblical characters were real? Okay. Then there was never any disagreement on that point, just a failure to communicate and understand.

So, what remains is, is there any hard evidence compelling us to believe that the WHOLE stories are true on every point?

Marshall Art said...

You have no hard evidence that there is reason it shouldn't be taken as totally true as written. What you've offered is OPINION and not evidence. What's more, you demand more than that from our side. To repeat, one must start with the text itself and, at the very least, assume it is meant to be taken as a totally truthful, factual rendering of events UNTIL ANY evidence can specifically suggest that rendering is not quite accurate. You've provided only the opinion of someone else who assumes the stories are akin to those of Homer and the like.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 354   Newer› Newest»