05-30-2008, 03:44 PM | #71 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
|
Quote:
|
|
05-30-2008, 03:50 PM | #72 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
05-30-2008, 03:52 PM | #73 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,371
|
Quote:
Since I don't believe a current prophet resides in Israel, I don't believe violent means are justified in exercising their Divine claim on the land. Does that answer your question? I am, indeed, bothered by violence in the name of religion. At the same time, as a Mormon, I accept the God of Israel is my God. Further, I believe that He did indeed give the Holy Land to Israel, and I therefore believe Israel does indeed have a "more correct" claim to the land. Still, I recognize that to the Palestinians, their claim is "more correct", and I don't believe violence is the way to resolve the dispute. Am I conflicted on this issue? You bet.
__________________
"My days of not respecting you are certainly coming to a middle." -Malcolm Reynolds "It doesn't mean that if we lose a game or when we lose a game people won't then jump on and say the quest is over. Because they will. But they've missed the point." -Bronco Mendenhall on "The Quest" |
|
05-30-2008, 04:00 PM | #74 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 69
|
If by "literalist" you mean
"believes every point in the Biblical narrative to be an accurate technical recounting of every thing that happened" - then no.
If you mean "accepts that the general Biblical narrative reflects a historical sequence of events which did, in fact, occur and characters which did, for the most part, exist" - then absolutely. That position is as defensible as any other. |
05-30-2008, 04:18 PM | #75 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
05-30-2008, 04:22 PM | #76 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 69
|
Mate - did I say that?
I explicitly said that I do not accept that it is an "accurate technical recounting" in the details.
The creation narrative is the easiest to poke technical holes in. But do I accept that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and Jonathan were real historical figures? Absolutely. Give me any defensible reason not to. |
05-30-2008, 05:00 PM | #77 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
The only thing the external evidence corroborates is the general sweep of the Jews' history, not the individual OT characters doings or even their existence (as I read even Nibley ackowledge at one time). The Iliad is a very precise analogy.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
05-30-2008, 05:14 PM | #78 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 69
|
Not entirely accurate - Frank Moore Cross of Harvard
dates written Hebrew to the time of David - i.e. the 10th century B.C.
Meaning that at least two of the figures I mentioned (David and Solomon) would have lived inside of known written tradition. That aside - Moses is far more credible as a historical figure than Achilles. His narrative reveals an utterly human portrait that can exist independent of a mythology. Achilles' narrative is mostly battle-fed quasi-divine mythology. Very different. That said -I have zero reason to believe that a figure, a warrior leader, like Achilles didn't exist. In fact, given that Troy itself has been validated there is good reason to assume (unless proven otherwise) that there is some basis as well for the principal characters mentioned in the legend. |
05-30-2008, 05:33 PM | #79 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
05-30-2008, 06:48 PM | #80 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 69
|
I'd say Solomon ........ Abraham
constitutes a continuum.
At one end you have Solomon and David - pretty high on the historicity scale. On the other you have Abe and his immediate progeny - high on the visibility but low on the clear footprint. In the middle is Moses who is too close to written history, in my estimation, to be a pure invention - but far enough from it that there are almost certain to be abundant embellishments and exaggerations and convenient adaptations. But the tradition for all of them is far too rooted, far too strong to be pure national imagination. And do not underestimate the ability of verbally transmitted traditions to stay relatively true to their original form. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|