Gary wrote: I think Moses probably picked up some local lore and wrote it down.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 2:53 pm
Fine if you think so. As I say, I see no reason now to contest it with you, because I don't think it really determines anything for you. At least, I don't think it ought to.
Does it discredit the rest of the Bible? It would be hard to see why we should imagine it did. In fact, if Moses were to have misspoken on one occasion, does that remotely imply he could not speak truth on another? Again, it's impossible to see that as reasonable.
But again Immanuel's only effort here, his entire purpose, is missionary and apologetic. His objective is to convert someone/anyone and, within that project, any
specific element in the Bible has no relevance.
When one begins to read those who examine the biblical narrative (starting in the OT) with a critical and analytical eye the Bible stories open up in remarkable ways. Certainly the Hebrews in Egypt borrowed a great deal from existing lore. Of that (among scholars who are not religious activists I should say) this has been made clear. So it is not so much a question of what a person chooses to think and belief, but rather what is true and real.
As I say, I see no reason now to contest it with you, because I don't think it really determines anything for you.
This phrasing is weird. It does not matter what this means or doesn't mean to Gary, what matters is the truth. It
matters that the early Hebrews incorporated stories, myths and tales from other peoples and, often, altered them and retold them with different inflections. It certainly
could determine a great deal in relation to the issue of 'faith' to arrive at the understanding that faith is quite independent of the veracity of a religious or mythological story. Faith is one sense does not require a sound story or a sound mythology. It is really another animal.
So it could happen that Gary or someone like him, even after reasonably arguing against the veracity of some specific story-element could still (irrationally, and faithfully) take the leap and *believe*. Thus 'belief' is really an internal affair, an event that occurs within the psyche and psychology of a given person.
There are some people -- take Atto as an example -- who have almost no grounding in the Bible or a foundation in orthodox Christianity who yet who have an active faith. One of the things that is interesting about Immanuel is simply that he comes from an extremely defined and doctrinaire Evangelical position. But many people do not come close to such rigid definitions and indeed their *faith* is not so much grounded in the Bible document as in something far more vague.
Does it discredit the rest of the Bible?
Does the loss of the possibility of belief in some
element of the Bible stories undermine the wisdom of Jewish ethics? Let's look at a few Proverbs:
Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life.
Better a dry crust with peace and quiet than a house full of feasting, with strife.
Through patience a ruler can be persuaded, and a gentle tongue can break a bone.
Do any of these observations about life lose their validity is some storified aspect of the Biblical narratives are understood to be stories and as such 'false'? The answer is no.
The Bible is a compendium of all manner of different stories, wisdom sayings, borrowings, reinterpretations, and much more. It is impossible to say it is one specific thing.
Along these lines it is interesting to note that the God the Father, Mary the mother, Jesus the son, and Satan as opponent narrative can be seen as unoriginal. That is, it is a sort of retelling of other stories, other mythologies. Notably that of Osiris/Isis and Horus/Seth. These are mythological stories that go
way back in time.
It is quite possible, as some who take this approach assert, that the Story has a powerful resonance in people because they are responding to something -- what is the word? --
telluric within their own selves.
Yet we must note that Immanuel takes these biblical stories in quite a different way. It is peculiar though because I'd assert that his faith-position does not depend really on the veracity of any story-element. It is more like a choice he made lo the many years. Among other believers I assume he'd talk of the Bible stories as if they were real. But here he is forced to wiggle away from such open declarative statements. But he is still angling for the conversion he hopes for!
In fact, if Moses were to have misspoken on one occasion, does that remotely imply he could not speak truth on another?
You'd need to rewrite this sentence. It is not Moses who spoke or misspoke, it is
the authors who wrote his part. The character *Moses* does not speak truth at any point since he is, and must be seen as, a literary and theological creation.
True, to see in this way *deflates* the declarative intention of the narrative itself by describing it as a concoction.
But in this we have no choice. So then, what is *true* and what is *not true* has to be examined and decided from very different positions.
Again, it's impossible to see that as reasonable.
LOL!
(I think this is the first time in my forum writing career that I have used the LOL. I am unsure if I should be congratulated or condemned).
Immanuel Can you are not 'reasonable' and you do not deal in real reason, you are a religious fanatic and your positions are unreasonable and faith-based. You really need to get clear about this! And I am here to help.
Reason (analytical reasoning, forensic processes) penetrate and disrupt the purposed continuity of the biblical narratives. This is just a fact. It is not really even disputed.
A faith-position or a faithful conversion do not require narrative veracity since the conversion process is irrationality itself!
I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.
I don't get your response, Gary...did you read the verse? It says,