Is The Old Testament Credible

[SLN445]

Depends on the story and the person reading it. I take most of it as literal, but I also believe there is some allegory in there as well, with the creation account and such.

Fair enough

[motiv-8]

Oh ok cheers

So other then the laws, are the stories told in the old testament to be taken as literal or otherwise?

That's a matter of perspective.

Are the stories in the OT literally the way in which a group of tribes living in the Near East over a span of centuries perceived their history and the world around them? Yes, quite so. Are those stories literally true? Not necessarily.

[SLN445]

That's a matter of perspective.

Are the stories in the OT literally the way in which a group of tribes living in the Near East over a span of centuries perceived their history and the world around them? Yes, quite so. Are those stories literally true? Not necessarily.

I was meaning the latter part in my question Especially the stories that seem far more difficult to believe and don't follow a historic sense.

[Lord Rahl]

If you're talking about credibility as far as schools of academia like history and archaeology then I'd say the Old Testament can be considered generally credible, but when you get down to specifics it becomes less and less credible. Same goes for the New Testament.

[classical_hero]

If you had read the old testament and did NOT cherry pick it, you'll notice how terrible it is. For example "You must kill those who worship another god." Exodus 22:20, "if a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT, "You should not let a sorceress live." Exodus 22:17 NAB, and so on. Yes, I'm aware that the New Testament has similar passages, however the Old Testament is filled with them. This issue has divided Christians into three camps, the ones who say the bible isn't meant to be taken literally (the best defense they got), with the birth of Jebus Christ the old testament is nullified (that must mean the ten commandments are canceled out), or they just cherry pick. Whats your taken on this?

The whole point of the OT was to show us how sinful we are. The New Testament shows us that God sent his Son to pay the penalty for our sins. Jesus fulfilled the law.

The whole point of the law about rape is that once someone was it meant that if you could not show a family line, the family line would die out and since the rapist would be put to death for what he did, meaning his family line is wiped out and the young woman would have no family to belong to and thus she would be an outcast, since she can no longer prove her virginity and thus have no future, since no one would be able to take her in as a wife due to that. They did not have DNA testing to show genetics, so virginity was the best way to show that. Violating virginity was taken very seriously in that culture

[sumskilz]

The whole point of the OT was to show us how sinful we are.

Who was making that point?

[Himster]

As a historical book it is roughly equal to the Iliad: most places mentioned existed and the legendary figures in the plot probably existed, but are obviously mythified and exaggerated. In much the same way that the Iliad is a comprehensive (one-sided) cross-section of the Aegean peoples, the old testament is the ultimate source (if rather one-sided) for the Hebrew people. Both these books are an accurate representation of how these people percieved their world.

[The Unknown General]

As a historical book it is roughly equal to the Iliad: most places mentioned existed and the legendary figures in the plot probably existed, but are obviously mythified and exaggerated. In much the same way that the Iliad is a comprehensive (one-sided) cross-section of the Aegean peoples, the old testament is the ultimate source (if rather one-sided) for the Hebrew people. Both these books are an accurate representation of how these people percieved their world.

In other words, its a poorly written history book with some fiction in it

[MathiasOfAthens]

As a historical book it is roughly equal to the Iliad: most places mentioned existed and the legendary figures in the plot probably existed, but are obviously mythified and exaggerated. In much the same way that the Iliad is a comprehensive (one-sided) cross-section of the Aegean peoples, the old testament is the ultimate source (if rather one-sided) for the Hebrew people. Both these books are an accurate representation of how these people percieved their world.

The old Testament lists a LOT of characters (Kings, princes, etc) that dont exist or have never been identified. Specifically in Israel and Canaan.

[The Kybrothilian]

Excuse me for having a lack of information on the subject, but isn't Christianity more about following what the new testament says, rather than what the old testament tells?

[sumskilz]

Certain nations destroyed not all nations Mathias, silly billy, it was very selective genocide of women and children. Now I bet you feel quite the fool not realising that they only massacred certain innocent people, silly silly you.

If you think the conquest of Canaan happened as in the Book of Joshua, then who’s being silly? Why get self-righteous about quasi-historical myths and the ethics of a God you don’t believe in? Obviously it was the ethics of the author, and taken in the context of the time, the values in the OT are much closer to our modern values then a lot of what was happening during that period of history. I see other atheists getting outraged about slavery being condoned in the Bible, but that only matters if you are a believer. My point is that it’s the underlying premise of theism we have an issue with, making an effort to attack the particulars of any brand of theism won’t convince anyone anyway. Best to focus on the potential negative aspects of belief systems that might actually affect us today, like violent extremism.

As a historical book it is roughly equal to the Iliad: most places mentioned existed and the legendary figures in the plot probably existed, but are obviously mythified and exaggerated. In much the same way that the Iliad is a comprehensive (one-sided) cross-section of the Aegean peoples, the old testament is the ultimate source (if rather one-sided) for the Hebrew people. Both these books are an accurate representation of how these people percieved their world.

The old Testament lists a LOT of characters (Kings, princes, etc) that dont exist or have never been identified. Specifically in Israel and Canaan.

I think you guys are both right, though it’s hard to say that particular characters didn’t exist because our knowledge is so fragmentary that we can usually only say no corroborating evidence exists.

Here’s a bit on the conquest of Canaan by Yair Hoffman from A Historical Atlas of the Jewish People...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The historical validity of this account of the conquest is highly dubious. Analysis of other biblical texts reveals many discrepancies. The Book of Judges recounts separate campaigns by individual tribes; and, although it places the events after Joshua's death, they constitute in fact a different version of the story of the conquest. The Book of Joshua describes a well‑organized campaign of a people united by a common national goal, while the Book of Judges reports many separate battles against Canaanite peoples waged by individual tribes or by temporary alliances of several tribes, enlarging their territories at the expense of their neighbors.

Furthermore, according to the Book of Joshua, the entire country was taken by the Israelites, while the Book of Judges reveals that one of the severe problems of the tribes was the constant struggle with Canaanite enclaves which successfully retained their independence.

Finally, in the period covered by the Book of Judges, the tribes were headed by local commanders (the "judges"), and there was no single national leader. The editor of the Book of Judges regarded this as a sign of social disintegra­tion following the death of Joshua--divine punishment for lapses of idolatry. Modern scholars, however, believe that the state of anarchy reflected in the Book of Judges is closer to the true historical process of the colonization of Canaan.

Finally, archeological research has found no traces of any sudden violent destruction of the major Canaanite towns. Jericho, for example, was clearly not destroyed in the time of Joshua. On the other hand, excavations reveal that many small settlements began emerging on the outskirts of the existing Canaanite towns, not in place of them. Dwelling structures and pottery typical of semi‑nomadic people indicate a long process of colonization rather than a short war of total conquest.

On the basis of such evidence, modern scholarship offers three basic theories concerning the conquest and settlement of the land. The first two accept in essence the historical truth of the Exodus story; one suggests two major waves of emigration from Egypt, reaching Canaan separately within several decades and occupying the land; the second theory proposes a continuous flow of migration from nomadic tribes from Egypt through Sinai, and also from Mesopotamia, which gathered around common religious centers, forged alliances in times of crisis, and eventually consolidated into one nation.

The third model is far more "Canaanite" and underplays the importance of foreign ethnic elements. According to this view, the nucleus of the nation of Israel was comprised of slaves and oppressed people in Canaan who abandoned their masters and settled outside the towns. They were perhaps joined over the years by nomadic tribes from the Sinai desert, but these could not have been many. In any event, all of the oppressed elements combined to rise against their former lords and took over the land. In the process they evolved into a national society which invented for itself the tradition of a common past.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Well, off the top of my head any story about the Tower of babel and anyone descended from those folks is a work of fiction.

[Himster]

The old Testament lists a LOT of characters (Kings, princes, etc) that dont exist or have never been identified. .

Just like................ oh yeah..... the Iliad. What a coincidence.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Yeah... but specifically I was referring to the Tower of Babel story, Noahs Ark, Moses, etc. And pretty much all of Genesis. Joseph, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Sarah, Lot, Hagar and Ishmael. I could go on.

With the Iliad its obvious all the Gods dont exist, at least to us, but figures like Achilles and Patroclus were secondary actors, not kings or rulers and were just additions to the larger story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_in_the_Iliad

Lot to go through and not really worth my time in the end... I would agree that had Hellenism succeeded the Iliad would be their "Old Testament".

[sumskilz]

Yeah... but specifically I was referring to the Tower of Babel story, Noahs Ark, Moses, etc. And pretty much all of Genesis. Joseph, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Sarah, Lot, Hagar and Ishmael. I could go on.

Sometimes I think their life spans weren't typical of the age either. Genesis is tremendously fictional of course, but its interesting to try to find the bits and pieces of possible history in it.

From P. Kyle McCarter’s Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple...

The claim that Abraham came to Canaan from Mesopotamia is not historically implausible. Such a journey could have taken place in more than one historical period. As we have seen, however, the insistence that the Israelites were not Canaanites in origin was so persuasive that the belief that the first patriarch came from a foreign land could have arisen as part of an ethnic boundary-marking that characterized the development of the tradition.

Still, the connections between the family of Abraham and the city of Haran in northern Mesopotamia (Eski Harran or "Old Haran" in modern Turkey) are very precise in our earliest narrative source (J. or the Yahwist). Terah, Nahor and Serug--Abraham's father, grandfather and great grandfather (Genesis 11:22-26)--seem to be the eponymous ancestors of towns in the basin of the Balikh River, near Haran.

All three names appear in Assyrian texts from the first half of the first millennium B.C.E. as the name of towns or ruined towns in the regions of Haran, namely Til-(sha)-Turakhi (the ruin of Turakh), Ti-Nakhiri (the ruin of Nakhir) and Sarugi. Earlier, in the second millennium B.C.E., il-Nakhiri had been an important administrative center, called Nakhuru. The patriarchal connection with this region may be rooted in historical memories of Amorite culture of the second millennium B.C.E.

[Himster]

I would agree that had Hellenism succeeded the Iliad would be their "Old Testament".

That is exactly my point.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Yeah I know Himster, I was agreeing with you mate, alls good.

@sumskilz

Most of the bible is pure metaphor, as I am sure you know well enough, no argument here. The Tower of Babel was prob the Ziggurate in Babylon. Babel = Babylon. Anyway, the story is morphed and transformed and whatever and no surprise the story of babel is similar to the Sumerian myth story featured in Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta.

Everything in the bible was taken from some other religion or culture, I am sure of it. Same with the Christian NT.

[hellas1]

Certain nations destroyed not all nations Mathias, silly billy, it was very selective genocide of women and children. Now I bet you feel quite the fool not realising that they only massacred certain innocent people, silly silly you.

There we go: another incident of assumption rather than research.......

First, "innocent" by WHOSE standard, Yours?
What do you know about the people & their society?

Second, research more....emote less

If one reads the Old Testament as a base and researches the people to see if "Hey, Is this so?"
perhaps we would ALL get somewhere.

hellas1

[hellas1]

Yeah I know Himster, I was agreeing with you mate, alls good.

@sumskilz

Most of the bible is pure metaphor, as I am sure you know well enough, no argument here. The Tower of Babel was prob the Ziggurate in Babylon. Babel = Babylon. Anyway, the story is morphed and transformed and whatever and no surprise the story of babel is similar to the Sumerian myth story featured in Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta.

Everything in the bible was taken from some other religion or culture, I am sure of it. Same with the Christian NT.

You need to examine what the Hebrew word for "Tower" was man.......
Then find out if other incidences in Hebrew usage of the term in the Tanakh occur.

Check out what the Jewish commentaries & archaeologists say about this also.

Don't speculate, research and post.

hellas1

[Denny Crane!]

There we go: another incident of assumption rather than research.......

First, "innocent" by WHOSE standard, Yours?
What do you know about the people & their society?

Second, research more....emote less

If one reads the Old Testament as a base and researches the people to see if "Hey, Is this so?"
perhaps we would ALL get somewhere.

hellas1

Emote less? Here we have a man defending the butchery of infants telling me to emote less? We think thou doth protest to much.

Research more...emote less

Unless you are ok with baby killing?

Because by any moral modern standard (given that we are amoral by christian standards) we view killing babies as wrong.

I think we are clear here that you are OK with murdering babies if suspected of being immoral.

Just to be clear that puts a person below the level of a paedophile because at least he leaves his victims alive. I might be wrong and I'm very hesitant to say it because it seems so extreme but are you telling me that you back the idea that killing babies is OK and yes you are on a lower moral level than a paedophile by moral standards? This isn't an insult I ask out of confusion because I'm sure it can't be true because its crazy but I have to ask.

Christian morality is supposedly objective but here we have an adherent defending that even by an apologists words is slaughter and bloodshed of children.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

'Go and strike the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the little ones,'" (Judges 21:10).
As with so many difficult issues concerning the word of God, context is hugely important. In Judges 19:22-30, the wicked men of Gibeah (a city in Israel of the tribe of Benjamin, 1 Sam 13:15) demanded sexual relations with the Levites who were staying at a house in that city. The owner of the house, to his utter shame, offered his virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine. Both the man and the Levite should have defended the women even to their deaths, but they both failed miserably in their moral duty. Nevertheless, the men of the city took the concubine, sexually abused her all night, and then released her. She died at the door of the house in which the Levite rested.

In the morning when the Levite discovered his concubine's body, he put her on his donkey, went home, took a knife, cut her into 12 pieces, and sent the body parts throughout all of Israel. "While this is difficult for modern readers to understand (as well as for the Levite’s contemporaries; Judges 19:30; cf. Hosea 9:9), he meant to arouse the nation to action by calling for a national judicial hearing. Perhaps he was charging them with the responsibility of removing the bloodguiltiness that rested on the entire nation for his concubine’s death."1 The response of Israel to this incredibly horrible act was to gather at Mizpah "as one man."

The Levite explained the circumstances of his concubine's death and asked the people of Israel what to do. They then decided to go against Gibeah in retribution.

The people of Israel asked those of Gibeah to deliver into their hands those who had performed this wickedness so that they might remove the evil from the land of Israel. Gibeah, which was of the tribe of Benjamin, refused (Judges 20:13). Civil war ensued and Benjamin was defeated. Then, "in researching their secondary problem (cf. v20:5), the Israelites discovered that no one from the town of Jabesh Gilead (located about nine miles southeast of Beth Shan and two miles east of the Jordan River) had responded to the call to Mizpah."2 Therefore, Israel wiped out the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead, all of them except for 400 virgins and 600 men -- so that their name might not be utterly destroyed. Like it or not, that was the battle and the reality of war in ancient Israel.

Whats that a government wouldn't hand over the people who did something you don't like so you kill everyone including non military personell. Totally moral honest guv.