Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who was there when Adam and Eve were in the garden? How about when God created the world? No, these stories were written to tell about concepts.
1. Haven't read about Onan. Skip.
2. Abraham is the story about how the Jews became the chosen people.
3. Job is about the nature and reason behind suffering.
4. The Bible is written in third person omniscient. Almost the entire thing is written as a character-based story from POV that could not happen outside of fiction. It is not intended as a literal history but a religious metaphor to teach life lessons.
As I say, if you look at the Bible as fact, you'll have trouble once they get to miracles.
Quote:
Most Bible stories are not metaphors, they are literal events. I look at the "Bible as fact but I have no trouble with miracles. A god who can create a universe can do miracles also. If He couldn't, He would not be omnipotent, He would not be a God at all.
Of course the Bible does contain metaphors, allegories and all other literary devices, but most of the
bible is literal truth. How can you say creating the universe is a metaphor, when we are living in it?
A metaphor is a brief and more pungent form of expression. "A lions whelp is is Judah" is a metaphor. When we see this expression we see immediately that it is not to be taken literally but denotes a notable characteristic.
What you are calling a metaphor would be an allegory. However all allegories have the basis in what was literal.
The only story said to be an allegory is the story about Sarah and Hagar(Gal 4:24). Now we know that both women are literal people mentioned in the Bible. Allegories teach a spiritual truth using literal events.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
[QUOTESure they is but you don't have the ability to understand them
Oh great. Another low post count contributor who understands the nature of these discussions. Your opinion counts, but you need to be here for a while before you start judging people. What, you think you are some kind of a god who knows everything?
Exactly! It even suggests that Yahweh the Divine Warrior, along with "the Hornet" (24:12), drove out the peoples of the land through Divine Combat, without the assistance of the human tribes. This creates problems for late passages in Joshua and of course, for Judges.
The passage in Joshua seems to be prior to a full-blown state-sanctioned Yahweh-Alone ideology, as it clearly shows the belief in the existence of other gods and the normative and accepted worship of these gods by the "Fathers" in both Canaan and Egypt. It also shows that these gods were still with the Israelites in their travels! There are still Patriarchal gods hanging around, and the centralization of worship was still taking place. The entire document assumes not strict Monotheism, but an institution of a Covenant relationship between the people and YHWH alone. There are still other gods, but Joshua is the new "prophet" who institutes a new Covenant at Shechem. Additionally, vv. 19-20 show the clear hand of the Deuteronomist in trying to "explain" the Exile.
Yehoshua [Joshua] gathered all the tribes of Israel at Shekhem;
he called together all the elders of Israel, their heads, their judges, and their officials,
and they stationed themselves in the presence of God.
And Yehoshua said to all the people:
Thus says YHWH, the God of Israel:
Across the River were your fathers settled in former ages
- Terah father of Avraham and father of Nahor -
and they served other gods.... (1-2)
....So-now,
hold YHWH in awe and serve him in integrity and trust;
remove the gods whom your fathers had served across the River and in Egypt
and serve YHWH!
But if it be evil in your eyes to serve YHWH,
choose yourselves today whom you wish to serve -
whether the gods whom your fathers who were Across the River served
or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are settled.
But as for me and my household, we will serve YHWH! (14-15)
The people answered and said:
[Heaven] forbid for us, from abandoning YHWH
to serve other gods!
Rather, YHWH our God, he is the one who brought up us and our fathers from the land of Egypt, from a house of serfs,
and who performed before our eyes these great signs
and kept-us-safe on all the way that we went
and among all the people through whose midst we crossed -
YHWH has driven out all the peoples, the Amorites, the settled-folk of the land, before us.
We too will serve YHWH,
indeed, he is our God! (16-18)
And Yehoshua said to the people:
You will not be able to serve YHWH,
for he is a holy godhead;
he is a zealous God,
and will not bear your transgression and your sins!
When you abandon YHWH and serve foreign gods,
he will turn and do evil to you and will finish you off,
after having done good to you. (19-20)
But the people said to Yehoshua:
No, rather, it is YHWH we will serve!
So Yehoshua said to the people:
You are witnesses against yourselves
that you on your part have chosen YHWH for yourselves, to serve him.
They said:
Witnesses! -
So-now, remove the foreign gods that are in your midst,
and incline your heart to YHWH, the God of Israel!
The people said to Yehoshua:
It is YHWH our God we will serve;
to his voice we will hearken! (21-24)
(Joshua 24:1-2; 14-24 SB Fox)
That Shechem had been used previously to renew religious faith can be seen in Genesis, where Jacob performs a similar action to Joshua's, but with one of those pesky "gods of the fathers":
Now God said to Yaahov [Jacob]:
Arise,
go up to Bet-El and stay there,
and construct a slaughter-site there
to the God/El who was seen by you when you fled from Esav your brother.
Yaakov said to his household and to all who were with him:
Put away your foreign gods that are in your midst!
Purify yourselves! Change your garments!
Let us arise and go up to Bet-El,
there I will construct a slaughter-site
to the God who answered me on the day of my distress
- he was with me on the way that I went!
So they gave Yaakov all the foreign gods that were in their hand,
along with the sacred-rings that were in their ears,
and Yaakov concealed them under the oak/ela that is near Shekhem.
(Genesis 34:1-4 SB Fox)
Such a holy site would be outlawed by the Deuteronomist, of course. Even Joshua makes sacrifice at the wrong altar a breach of Covenant:
God of gods is YHWH!
God of gods is YHWH!
He knows, and Israel itself will know:
if [it was] in revolting or in committing sacrilege against YHWH
- do not deliver us on this day! -
by building ourselves an altar to turn from [following] after YHWH,
or if by offering up offerings-up and grain-gifts,
or if by performing on it sacrifices of shalom,
may YHWH himself examine it!
(Joshua 22:22-23)
So you do have a picture of a disparate group of tribes, in Canaan, all worshiping different gods but being brought under the collective of "Israel" - how historical some of these documents are is open to debate and continues to be. The Covenant seems to deal with the "problem" of tribes not practicing strictly Yahwist worship and shows that at one time the people DID accept Yahweh alone, and thus everything that happened to them in the Exile was a direct result of breach of Covenant. The vassal failed to live up to its part of the treaty and thus the treaty was broken and all the lovely curses dropped down from above.
It's a very important passage, this new Covenant institution, and you're exactly right - many Christians take it in a manner which removes the very problem that the text should alert us to. Even the redactor of the passage appears to have clumsily inserted the name of Terah (24:2) - rather than Abraham, Isaac or Jacob - when referring to "foreign gods", perhaps in an attempt to absolve these Patriarchs of the charge of worshiping other gods. It seems that the redactors were not quite sure what to do with the various Els and their relationship to Yahweh yet.
Yes, it appears the writers/editors/redactors confused themselves at times or it just showed that too many hands were in the post. I think it was Ehrman who pointed out that many Christians are told to read the bible like a single book which has a theme (thread) in the same way we read a normal book. As a result, they read it like a book with a beginning, a plot-theme and an end. The fact is, the Hebrew scriptures are 39 individual books where, for the most part, there is a theme - Ywh is our god/ywh is the only god - but, in constructing or reconstructing the story further down the road, it sometimes became a sloppy mess in parts. Old bits and pieces of the old polytheistic/henotheistic order bleeds through here and there throwing monkey wrenches into the mix and one of these passages can be found in the book of Judges.
Once the Israelites settled in the land, a border dispute arose with the Ammonites-Moabites. To offset war, the Israelite leader (a godly man), sent a delegation to Ammon to negotiate. These were the words to the king:
"Will you not possess whatever Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever the Lord our God takes possession of before us, we will possess."
Here, we see a classic example of henotheism where the Israelites believed other gods existed, but THEY were sworn to ywh. Ywh was NOT believed to be or seen as the ONLY god. He was just Israel's god.
"Will you not possess whatever Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever the Lord our God takes possession of before us, we will possess."
Here, we see a classic example of henotheism where the Israelites believed other gods existed, but THEY were sworn to ywh. Ywh was NOT believed to be or seen as the ONLY god. He was just Israel's god.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
"There are others, but I'm the big doo-doo in this litter-box and you'd best not forget it, puny mortal."
I was extremely disappointed at the recent Smite video game for not having some of my favorite deities to kick butt with! 78 deities and they couldn't even get a few for me! List of gods - Smite Wiki
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
Yes, it appears the writers/editors/redactors confused themselves at times or it just showed that too many hands were in the post.
It must have been quite confusing to try to edit some overall sense into the many disparate cultural traditions these indigenous Canaanites brought to the table!
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
I think it was Ehrman who pointed out that many Christians are told to read the bible like a single book which has a theme (thread) in the same way we read a normal book. As a result, they read it like a book with a beginning, a plot-theme and an end. The fact is, the Hebrew scriptures are 39 individual books where, for the most part, there is a theme - Ywh is our god/ywh is the only god - but, in constructing or reconstructing the story further down the road, it sometimes became a sloppy mess in parts. Old bits and pieces of the old polytheistic/henotheistic order bleeds through here and there throwing monkey wrenches into the mix and one of these passages can be found in the book of Judges.
Yes, I think the technical term for that is "Canonical Criticism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_criticism), where the finished product is what is interpreted, usually by a believing community. It does tend to produce some monstrous interpretations, that's for sure! You know me - I like my "Form Criticism", though recently it has spawned some interesting offshoots in the form of Cultural Memory studies, especially the work of the Biblicist Ron Hendel and the Egyptologist Jan Assmann.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
Once the Israelites settled in the land, a border dispute arose with the Ammonites-Moabites. To offset war, the Israelite leader (a godly man), sent a delegation to Ammon to negotiate. These were the words to the king:
"Will you not possess whatever Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever the Lord our God takes possession of before us, we will possess."
Here, we see a classic example of henotheism where the Israelites believed other gods existed, but THEY were sworn to ywh. Ywh was NOT believed to be or seen as the ONLY god. He was just Israel's god.
What's funny about the Judges account is that either Jephthah or the author of the story listed the wrong god! The god of the Moabites was Chemosh and the god of the Ammonites was the dreaded Moloch.
P.S.Technically Chemosh is KamiÅ¡ - pronounced kah-mish; the Masoretic vocalization of kĕmôš - pronounced keh-mōsh - is to remind the listener of the word for "stench" which has the same vowel pattern. A similar practice occurs with various deities and personal names). The god of the Ammonites was the dreaded Moloch (a perfect example of a name vowelized by the Masoretes to obscur the meaning).
It is odd that this mistake was made, yet it is an acknowledged problem with the text.
Then Yiftah [Jephtah] sent messengers to the king of the Children of Ammon, saying:
What is there [between] me and you,
that you come to me, to wage battle against my land?
The king of the Children of Ammon said to Yiftah's messengers:
Because Israel took away my land when they came up from Egypt,
from the Arnon as far as the Yabbok, as far as the Jordan.
So-now, return it peaceably! (12-13)
...They took possession of the entire territory of the Amorites,
from the Arnon as far as the Yabbok and from the wilderness as far as the Jordan.
So-now,
YHWH the God of Israel dispossessed the Amorites before his people Israel -
and you [Ammon], you would take possession of it?
Is it not: what Kemosh your god dispossesses, of that you take possession,
and whatever YHWH our God dispossesses before us, of that we may take possession?
(Judges 11:12-13, 22-24 SB Fox)
Despite the problem of the wrong god, it is clear that the idea of a deity presiding only over his/her territory was one shared by the Biblical authors of this text. And it is not as if this is the only example. Another famous example (I think you have cited this in previous threads on this forum, if memory serves), once again involving Kemosh/Kamiš, is where Kemosh's might prevails over Yahweh. Israel and Edom has been fighting Moab, and the losing Moabite King turns to desperate messures:
And the king of Moav saw that the battle was too strong for him,
so he took with him seven hundred men drawing the sword,
to break through to the king of Edom,
but they could not prevail.
So he took his firstborn son, who was to become king in his place,
and offered him up as an offering-up on the wall.
And a great wrath was upon Israel,
so that they had to march away from him and return to the land.
(II Kings 3:26-27 SB Fox)
An interesting turn of events, enough to drive the Israelites back to their land - where YHWH had more power. The ambiguous language "a great wrath" may have been a result of trying to harmonize the prophecy of Elisha (that Moab would fall) with the actual historical outcome (Moab did not fall).
The Mesha Stele has some interesting information on Kemosh and King Mesha - whose name's meaning is directly cognate to the Hebrew word for "Messiah".
In the end, Kemosh was a chthonic deity well-known throughout the Semitic world. He was equated with the Ugaritic Ashtar (Athtar) (the male counterpart to the warring Ishtar/Astarte) and later to the Hellenic god Ares. He did not receive the same negative diatribes as the Ammonites' Moloch did.
A metaphor is a brief and more pungent form of expression. "A lions whelp is is Judah" is a metaphor. When we see this expression we see immediately that it is not to be taken literally but denotes a notable characteristic.
What you are calling a metaphor would be an allegory. However all allegories have the basis in what was literal.
The only story said to be an allegory is the story about Sarah and Hagar(Gal 4:24). Now we know that both women are literal people mentioned in the Bible. Allegories teach a spiritual truth using literal events.
Yeah, that. I'm rusty on the difference, lit classes being almost ten years ago and half paid attention.
Not so.
Read carefully the Genesis account of the garden. Does it make sense as a literal story? Sorta, but...
There is a tree with abstract, almost magical qualities.
There is a place with impossible geography, as it is between rivers that do not join, and in fact are very far from each other.
There is a snake behaving not only as an intelligent talking creature, but as a rules lawyer.
This is how I know this and other sections are allegory.
Here's how it reads with no fluff. God made humans in the image of God. That is to say, there was originally no difference from God and man. We have one human (named Adam, or Man) splitting off bones to make anatomically different female human, which is named Life (Eve is Chawwah, close to 'to live'). That is, Man and Life were created in a land without good and evil, and without death. Yeah uhhh, this is the Spirit World. This story is actually about why we live in the Material plane.
Samuel is also an allegory. From the very first the "here I am" thing. Samuel means 'listen the voice of god'. Not a coincidence.
I was extremely disappointed at the recent Smite video game for not having some of my favorite deities to kick butt with! 78 deities and they couldn't even get a few for me! List of gods - Smite Wiki
It must have been quite confusing to try to edit some overall sense into the many disparate cultural traditions these indigenous Canaanites brought to the table!
Yes, I think the technical term for that is "Canonical Criticism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_criticism), where the finished product is what is interpreted, usually by a believing community. It does tend to produce some monstrous interpretations, that's for sure! You know me - I like my "Form Criticism", though recently it has spawned some interesting offshoots in the form of Cultural Memory studies, especially the work of the Biblicist Ron Hendel and the Egyptologist Jan Assmann.
What's funny about the Judges account is that either Jephthah or the author of the story listed the wrong god! The god of the Moabites was Chemosh and the god of the Ammonites was the dreaded Moloch.
P.S.Technically Chemosh is KamiÅ¡ - pronounced kah-mish; the Masoretic vocalization of kĕmôš - pronounced keh-mōsh - is to remind the listener of the word for "stench" which has the same vowel pattern. A similar practice occurs with various deities and personal names). The god of the Ammonites was the dreaded Moloch (a perfect example of a name vowelized by the Masoretes to obscur the meaning).
It is odd that this mistake was made, yet it is an acknowledged problem with the text.
Then Yiftah [Jephtah] sent messengers to the king of the Children of Ammon, saying:
What is there [between] me and you,
that you come to me, to wage battle against my land?
The king of the Children of Ammon said to Yiftah's messengers:
Because Israel took away my land when they came up from Egypt,
from the Arnon as far as the Yabbok, as far as the Jordan.
So-now, return it peaceably! (12-13)
...They took possession of the entire territory of the Amorites,
from the Arnon as far as the Yabbok and from the wilderness as far as the Jordan.
So-now,
YHWH the God of Israel dispossessed the Amorites before his people Israel -
and you [Ammon], you would take possession of it?
Is it not: what Kemosh your god dispossesses, of that you take possession,
and whatever YHWH our God dispossesses before us, of that we may take possession?
(Judges 11:12-13, 22-24 SB Fox)
Despite the problem of the wrong god, it is clear that the idea of a deity presiding only over his/her territory was one shared by the Biblical authors of this text. And it is not as if this is the only example. Another famous example (I think you have cited this in previous threads on this forum, if memory serves), once again involving Kemosh/Kamiš, is where Kemosh's might prevails over Yahweh. Israel and Edom has been fighting Moab, and the losing Moabite King turns to desperate messures:
And the king of Moav saw that the battle was too strong for him,
so he took with him seven hundred men drawing the sword,
to break through to the king of Edom,
but they could not prevail.
So he took his firstborn son, who was to become king in his place,
and offered him up as an offering-up on the wall.
And a great wrath was upon Israel,
so that they had to march away from him and return to the land.
(II Kings 3:26-27 SB Fox)
An interesting turn of events, enough to drive the Israelites back to their land - where YHWH had more power. The ambiguous language "a great wrath" may have been a result of trying to harmonize the prophecy of Elisha (that Moab would fall) with the actual historical outcome (Moab did not fall).
The Mesha Stele has some interesting information on Kemosh and King Mesha - whose name's meaning is directly cognate to the Hebrew word for "Messiah".
In the end, Kemosh was a chthonic deity well-known throughout the Semitic world. He was equated with the Ugaritic Ashtar (Athtar) (the male counterpart to the warring Ishtar/Astarte) and later to the Hellenic god Ares. He did not receive the same negative diatribes as the Ammonites' Moloch did.
And this is why I find the bible interesting. When understood correctly (and I do not mean "with the guidance of your local pastor...um, I mean, the holy spirit thing either), you learn so much and learn in a way to help you understand the religious world today.
As for that mix up, I've always noticed that. While the Moabites and Ammonites were cousins, descending from two brothers, each tribe had their own god and yes, Molech was the god of the Ammonites, yet the god mentioned is Chemosh the god of the Moabites. If we went with the idea that the bible is the PERFECT word of god and thus, without error, as some Christians claim, this would be an example that it isn't.
This passage then confirms the narrative found in Deuteronomy 32:7-9 where we are told how Ywh BECAME the god of the Israelites, as Israel was given to him (Ywh) as his inheritance when the Most High was dividing the nations to his 70 sons - Ywh being one them. Interestingly, while another subject, yet linked to this, in the later writings, these "sons of God," become "princes" to apparently remove the polytheistic implication that others wanted to hide or remove in an attempt to show Ywh's supremacy from creation. In the book of Daniel, we read about "The Prince of Persia" who apparently held dominion over that nation and Michael being the prince over Israel.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
