PDA

View Full Version : The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?



divaD
Jul 24th 2011, 02:04 PM
I would think because it was included in the Bible that it then must be based upon historical fact. Apparently many scholars, etc disagree. Some even think it shouldn't have been included in the the Scriptures in the first place. So then, is this even an inspired writing? If yes, can inspired writings be based solely on fiction? Can anyone show how the story connects with other Scriptures in the Bible? Thoughts?

Ta-An
Jul 24th 2011, 02:30 PM
To me, it speaks of Obedience to God... when you are called into a position of service, fulfill the calling
A message of hope :idea:

Even when God is not visible, He is still in Control :yes:

divaD
Jul 24th 2011, 03:20 PM
A scholar I am not. But as I read on, I then come to this passage for instance.

Esther 2:5 Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite;
6 Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away.

The first thing I have to ask myself,,,is this passage based on historical fact, especially verse 6? If it is, and if the book of Esther is allegedly fictitious according to many scholars, then what are historical facts doing in a book of fiction? What would be the point? Especially since we're talking about the Bible here? Like I said, a scholar I'm not. But don't scholars take passages like this into consideration while trying to determine if this book is based on historical facts or not?

And one more thing.

Esther 1:1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces: )

Esther 2:8 So it came to pass, when the king's commandment and his decree was heard, and when many maidens were gathered together unto Shushan the palace, to the custody of Hegai, that Esther was brought also unto the king's house, to the custody of Hegai, keeper of the women.

Esther 5:1 Now it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king's house, over against the king's house: and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the gate of the house.

The point being. Since this is the Bible we are talking about, do fictitious things come to pass in the Bible?

The reason I brought this topic up in the first place is because this topic is a current topic on another board. The majority of them seem to side with scholars who see this book as fictitious and pretty much find my arguments as not being valid.

BroRog
Jul 24th 2011, 04:51 PM
I would think because it was included in the Bible that it then must be based upon historical fact. Apparently many scholars, etc disagree. Some even think it shouldn't have been included in the the Scriptures in the first place. So then, is this even an inspired writing? If yes, can inspired writings be based solely on fiction? Can anyone show how the story connects with other Scriptures in the Bible? Thoughts?Prior to the 19th century, archaeologists and other scientists gave the Bible the benefit of the doubt and used the Bible as source material for places to dig and investigate. However, today, the default position is that the Bible is nothing more than a few moral stories and fables that has no basis in actual fact. I think you will find this a-priori assumption to be the default position in all the most recent scholarly works. Given this assumption, scholars demand that the Bible "prove" itself, (which it has on many occasions lately.) It has been the fashion of modern scholars to doubt the veracity of the Bible for no other reason but as a way to gain intellectual respectability

rejoice44
Jul 24th 2011, 04:52 PM
A scholar I am not. But as I read on, I then come to this passage for instance.

Esther 2:5 Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite;
6 Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away.

The first thing I have to ask myself,,,is this passage based on historical fact, especially verse 6? If it is, and if the book of Esther is allegedly fictitious according to many scholars, then what are historical facts doing in a book of fiction? What would be the point? Especially since we're talking about the Bible here? Like I said, a scholar I'm not. But don't scholars take passages like this into consideration while trying to determine if this book is based on historical facts or not?

And one more thing.

Esther 1:1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces: )

Esther 2:8 So it came to pass, when the king's commandment and his decree was heard, and when many maidens were gathered together unto Shushan the palace, to the custody of Hegai, that Esther was brought also unto the king's house, to the custody of Hegai, keeper of the women.

Esther 5:1 Now it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king's house, over against the king's house: and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the gate of the house.

The point being. Since this is the Bible we are talking about, do fictitious things come to pass in the Bible?

The reason I brought this topic up in the first place is because this topic is a current topic on another board. The majority of them seem to side with scholars who see this book as fictitious and pretty much find my arguments as not being valid.

What it comes down to is, "do you believe the Bible is the Word of God", and if so, "is God a liar"?

BroRog
Jul 24th 2011, 05:07 PM
What it comes down to is, "do you believe the Bible is the Word of God", and if so, "is God a liar"?Yes, it may come down to that. But I also think David is asking another question, which involves how to evaluate the writings of those in our society who purport to teach us?

Ta-An
Jul 24th 2011, 05:25 PM
What it comes down to is, "do you believe the Bible is the Word of God", and if so, "is God a liar"? How do you get to that :hmm:

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, Neither the son of man, that he should repent: Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good?

divaD
Jul 24th 2011, 06:01 PM
What it comes down to is, "do you believe the Bible is the Word of God", and if so, "is God a liar"?



Here's the way I look at it. First of all, if it can be proven the book of Esther is an inspired writing, then to say the book is based on fiction, that in my my mind seems to indicate the Bible is not trustworthy. In my mind, since at least 3 times we're told something came to pass, that should tell us we're dealing with historical facts, since the Bible is not a book of fairy tales. This doesn't have to mean everything written in the Bible has to be based on historical facts for it to be true, but the point is, since when do fictitious things come to pass in the Scriptures? I can't find any place in Scripture, where something was said to have come to pass, and that it wasn't based upon historical fact. Yet these on the other board say my argument is invalid, while in my mind, I feel I'm holding the trump card, so to speak. But of course, that's only if the book of Esther is inspired writing, IOW, the same way rest of the Bible is.

If we're to rely on scholars because they would obviously undertand things we probably wouldn't, then why aren't all scholars on the same page with each other?

Jake
Jul 24th 2011, 06:34 PM
I would think because it was included in the Bible that it then must be based upon historical fact. Apparently many scholars, etc disagree. Some even think it shouldn't have been included in the the Scriptures in the first place. So then, is this even an inspired writing? If yes, can inspired writings be based solely on fiction? Can anyone show how the story connects with other Scriptures in the Bible? Thoughts?

It is not a fictional story, all of the books in the Bible were placed there because it was God's Will. This story connects to the rest of the Bible because it's a type for the church in the end times. Some things are hidden in the old (testament), but revealed in the new testament (like Christ). Esther is a type for the Bride, the church. God's name was never mentioned in the Bible, we can see His providence throughout (protecting His church). All of the people in the book of Esther has a type role for the end times, for instance, Haman was the Beast that was put into power.
People will probably disagree, but this is how I see it.

rejoice44
Jul 24th 2011, 07:13 PM
Yes, it may come down to that. But I also think David is asking another question, which involves how to evaluate the writings of those in our society who purport to teach us?

How can we expect the world to have spiritual discernment without Christ? It becomes the blind leading the blind. God's ways are past finding out. Knowledge will increase, yet they will not come to the truth. Christ is the truth and in him is the answer to life.

If we could come to the truth in our own knowledge then we wouldn't need faith, yet it is not a blind faith because God is light.

rejoice44
Jul 24th 2011, 07:18 PM
How do you get to that :hmm:

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, Neither the son of man, that he should repent: Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good?

Those that challenge the validity of the Bible are unbelievers. Either the Bible is true, or it is not, there is no middle ground. God has told us his Word is his Son. Is God's Word good? Is Jesus good? Let God be true, and all men liars.

rejoice44
Jul 24th 2011, 07:27 PM
Here's the way I look at it. First of all, if it can be proven the book of Esther is an inspired writing, then to say the book is based on fiction, that in my my mind seems to indicate the Bible is not trustworthy. In my mind, since at least 3 times we're told something came to pass, that should tell us we're dealing with historical facts, since the Bible is not a book of fairy tales. This doesn't have to mean everything written in the Bible has to be based on historical facts for it to be true, but the point is, since when do fictitious things come to pass in the Scriptures? I can't find any place in Scripture, where something was said to have come to pass, and that it wasn't based upon historical fact. Yet these on the other board say my argument is invalid, while in my mind, I feel I'm holding the trump card, so to speak. But of course, that's only if the book of Esther is inspired writing, IOW, the same way rest of the Bible is.

We cannot expect to prove the Bible to anyone but ourselves, and that through study and a relationship with Christ. Each individual has to come to a saving knowledge through faith, and it is that faith that gives you strength to hold fast to the Word.


If we're to rely on scholars because they would obviously undertand things we probably wouldn't, then why aren't all scholars on the same page with each other?

Scholars who don't have a saving knowledge of God don't posses truth, only an opinion that comes without knowledge.

Free Indeed
Jul 25th 2011, 01:23 PM
If yes, can inspired writings be based solely on fiction?

Yes, I see no reason why not. Not saying that Esther is fiction, we just don't really know. But it's been suggested that Job is likely fictitious too, along with the Genesis creation account, global flood story, etc.

Regardless, it's not the actual historicity of these stories that is important. Rather, it's the ideas behind them that God wants people to know.

divaD
Jul 25th 2011, 02:39 PM
But it's been suggested that Job is likely fictitious too, along with the Genesis creation account, global flood story, etc.




If that's the case, then that kind of makes God a phony, doesn't it? I mean, He can't actually make real things happen to real people. He can't interract with real people, so He has to resort to fables instead. I just don't buy it. And like I already pointed out, I'm not suggesting that everything written in the Bible has to be based upon historical facts. I'm just saying that where a story is being told, and there are actually people and places with names in the story, I would think that should be understood as historically factual.

Jake
Jul 25th 2011, 02:41 PM
Yes, I see no reason why not. Not saying that Esther is fiction, we just don't really know. But it's been suggested that Job is likely fictitious too, along with the Genesis creation account, global flood story, etc.

Regardless, it's not the actual historicity of these stories that is important. Rather, it's the ideas behind them that God wants people to know.
If we doubt the validity of any story in the Bible, then where does the doubting stop? God did not put these stories in the written Word as fiction, it's satan who is deceiving people into believing these stories are not true or at the very least, questioning the nature of them.

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 03:15 PM
Yes, I see no reason why not. Not saying that Esther is fiction, we just don't really know. But it's been suggested that Job is likely fictitious too, along with the Genesis creation account, global flood story, etc.

Regardless, it's not the actual historicity of these stories that is important. Rather, it's the ideas behind them that God wants people to know.

Yea, hath God said?

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 03:37 PM
Jews consider the Book of Esther to be a historical document.

Rullion Green
Jul 25th 2011, 03:51 PM
Jews consider the Book of Esther to be a historical document.

It reads that way to me too.... for all thats worth. I must be missing the arguments to say it is anything other than what it's thought to be ?

any links to show a case to the contrary ? I'm definitely missing something here.

Free Indeed
Jul 25th 2011, 04:17 PM
If we doubt the validity of any story in the Bible, then where does the doubting stop? God did not put these stories in the written Word as fiction, it's satan who is deceiving people into believing these stories are not true or at the very least, questioning the nature of them.

Validity and historicity are not the same thing. The meanings of the stories are valid in themselves, regardless of whether or not the stories are documented as histories.

Free Indeed
Jul 25th 2011, 04:19 PM
It reads that way to me too.... for all thats worth. I must be missing the arguments to say it is anything other than what it's thought to be ?

any links to show a case to the contrary ? I'm definitely missing something here.

Some of it is listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Esther#Historicity

Jake
Jul 25th 2011, 04:22 PM
Some of it is listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Esther#Historicity

hmm...God or wikipedia? :hmm:

Rullion Green
Jul 25th 2011, 04:53 PM
Some of it is listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Esther#Historicity

Thanks.. There have been many instances where later archaeological digs have proven time and time again the historicity of the Biblical accounts even seemingly minute through away statements have been proven correct. So my view now based on all the archaeological finds (http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php) is, there may not be verifiable evidence at the moment, but based on past experience the Biblical account is trustworthy.

I think it's important to admit when we dont have any evidence for a biblical premise, but at the same time show why we have faith in the Bible as a trustworthy historical document. Thers no point claiming it's a true historical event if there is no evidence to back it up the problem will be as in all cases of this kind, is if or when the evidence does come to light they will never say "OK we were wrong" they will just move on to the next one and say "aha theres no proof of this, therefore the bible is not trustworthy".

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 04:57 PM
Validity and historicity are not the same thing. The meanings of the stories are valid in themselves, regardless of whether or not the stories are documented as histories.

You are sitting on the fence with one foot on each side. Either the stories are true, or they are fiction. Either God is true, or God is fiction.

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 05:01 PM
I'm actually with KT on this. The message of the book is more important than it's historical accuracy. The Book of Esther is about 1)God working behind the scenes, even when He appears hidden; and 2)How Jews can survive in a post-land of Israel and post-temple world.

Having said that, I do believe that the book is a historical document.

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 05:11 PM
I'm actually with KT on this. The message of the book is more important than it's historical accuracy. The Book of Esther is about 1)God working behind the scenes, even when He appears hidden; and 2)How Jews can survive in a post-land of Israel and post-temple world.

Having said that, I do believe that the book is a historical document.

1) If its fiction God isn't working behind the scenes. The book would merely be someone's imagination.

2) It would seem to me that Israel is back in Israel. There is no post-temple world for the Jews, the Messiah is the temple. Just because Israel rejects the temple does not alter the fact that it exists.

Free Indeed
Jul 25th 2011, 05:13 PM
You are sitting on the fence with one foot on each side. Either the stories are true, or they are fiction. Either God is true, or God is fiction.

I don't recall God ever holding a press conference and telling us "Hey guys, the book of Esther describes an actual historic event, I know because I was there, trust Me".

I'm not saying I personally don't think it's historical. I'm just saying it's not really important if it is or if it's not. Esther is not even a religious book. The word "God" isn't even mentioned in it.

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 05:15 PM
1) If its fiction God isn't working behind the scenes. The book would merely be someone's imagination.
And it's lessons are therefore irrelevant?

Plenty of religious Jews believe that the Book of Job is a parable. In other words, it's fiction. So what?


2) It would seem to me that Israel is back in Israel. There is no post-temple world for the Jews, the Messiah is the temple. Just because Israel rejects the temple does not alter the fact that it exists.yeah yeah yeah....

Rullion Green
Jul 25th 2011, 05:20 PM
I'm not saying I personally don't think it's historical. I'm just saying it's not really important if it is or if it's not. Esther is not even a religious book. The word "God" isn't even mentioned in it.

Sounds reasonable, it does read like a historical document though, with the historical references and such. But...point taken.

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 05:21 PM
[QUOTE=Fenris;2719385]And it's lessons are therefore irrelevant?

If its fiction what is the lesson?


Plenty of religious Jews believe that the Book of Job is a parable. In other words, it's fiction. So what?

The Jews cannot perceive of God devoting a book of their Bible to an Edomite.


yeah yeah yeah....

Love you Fenris.

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 05:26 PM
If its fiction what is the lesson?
The same as if it's a true story...



The Jews cannot perceive of God devoting a book of their Bible to an Edomite.Tsk tsk, ascribing racism. There are plenty of non-Jewish heroes in the bible. Read the book of Jonah, for example. All it's heroes are non-Jews.




Love you Fenris.:hug: right back at ya!

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 05:40 PM
The same as if it's a true story...

Well if the book is fiction, and God didn't really help the Jews, what lesson is learned?


Tsk tsk, ascribing racism. There are plenty of non-Jewish heroes in the bible. Read the book of Jonah, for example. All it's heroes are non-Jews.

But the book and its title is still about a Jew. Another reason they don't accept the book of Job is that it parallels Israel. They have a zeal for God but without knowledge. That is a quote from Paul. They do not understand the book, for its about God's mercy, and not man's righteousness.



:

Free Indeed
Jul 25th 2011, 05:41 PM
Well if the book is fiction, and God didn't really help the Jews, what lesson is learned?


Where exactly in the Book of Esther does it say that God helped the Jews?

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 05:45 PM
Well if the book is fiction, and God didn't really help the Jews, what lesson is learned?
That God operates behind the scenes, whether we know it or not.



But the book and its title is still about a Jew. Who is, apparently, the least heroic character in the book.


Another reason they don't accept the book of Job is that it parallels Israel. They have a zeal for God but without knowledge. That is a quote from Paul. They do not understand the book, for its about God's mercy, and not man's righteousness.It's amazing Jews included it in the biblical canon at all :rolleyes: :lol:

Nihil Obstat
Jul 25th 2011, 05:49 PM
Some of it is listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Esther#Historicity

I didn't read anything of substance here.

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 05:50 PM
I don't recall God ever holding a press conference and telling us "Hey guys, the book of Esther describes an actual historic event, I know because I was there, trust Me".

I'm not saying I personally don't think it's historical. I'm just saying it's not really important if it is or if it's not. Esther is not even a religious book. The word "God" isn't even mentioned in it.

I happen to believe that God has preserved his word. The fact that it is part of the Jewish cannon of the Bible is reason enough for me to believe God has given it to us as his word. If you can throw Esther out and Genesis out, then you can throw anything out, and then what do you have? You have a Bible of fiction, and a God of fiction.

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 05:53 PM
That God operates behind the scenes, whether we know it or not.

But if its fiction then he really doesn't work behind the scenes, it just become a figment of one's imagination.



Who is, apparently, the least heroic character in the book.
It's amazing Jews included it in the biblical canon at all :rolleyes: :lol:

You evidently don't believe a great fish swallowed Jonah.

divaD
Jul 25th 2011, 05:54 PM
And it's lessons are therefore irrelevant?

Plenty of religious Jews believe that the Book of Job is a parable. In other words, it's fiction. So what?

.


I don't think anyone is suggesting that the msg wouldn't be what's important. But at the same time, if the Bible tells us there was a man in the land of Uz, and his name was Job, why shouldn't we take that as historically factual?

What about passages like this?

Ezekiel 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

If Job is to be understood as a fictional character, then so should Noah and Daniel, since these 3 were listed together. Notice also that that passage states...these three men..not these two men and a fictional character. IMO, Ezekiel 14:14 easily proves that the book of Job should be understood as historically factual.

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 05:56 PM
But if its fiction then he really doesn't work behind the scenesHow does that follow?





You evidently don't believe a great fish swallowed Jonah.I have zeal but not knowledge, apparently.

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 05:59 PM
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the msg wouldn't be what's important. But at the same time, if the Bible tells us there was a man in the land of Uz, and his name was Job, why shouldn't we take that as historically factual?Shrug. I'm not wedded to the point one way or the other. I'm saying the book is relevant either way.

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 06:01 PM
How does that follow?

If I write a book that says I am God, does that make me God?



I have zeal but not knowledge, apparently.

I don't know, are you going about to establish your own righteousness?

Free Indeed
Jul 25th 2011, 06:02 PM
I happen to believe that God has preserved his word. The fact that it is part of the Jewish cannon of the Bible is reason enough for me to believe God has given it to us as his word. If you can throw Esther out and Genesis out, then you can throw anything out, and then what do you have? You have a Bible of fiction, and a God of fiction.

I didn't say throw it out. Luther threw it out though (along with the Epistle of James and book of Revelation).

My only point is that the historicity of it is irrelevant.

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 06:02 PM
If I write a book that says I am God, does that make me God?Worked for Jesus, apparently :rofl:

No, seriously, who in the book of Job claimed to be God?





I don't know, are you going about to establish your own righteousness?Sure, why not? Noah, Daniel, and Job did it.

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 06:08 PM
I didn't say throw it out. Luther threw it out though (along with the Epistle of James and book of Revelation).

My only point is that the historicity of it is irrelevant.

I don't get it. What part of true or false matters? If I tell you that you can get to heaven by believing in Jesus, and there is no heaven, what is relevant about my statement?

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 06:12 PM
Worked for Jesus, apparently :rofl:

No, seriously, who in the book of Job claimed to be God?

God!




Sure, why not? Noah, Daniel, and Job did it.

You got me there, but there is more to the story then first meets the eye.

Free Indeed
Jul 25th 2011, 06:12 PM
I don't get it. What part of true or false matters? If I tell you that you can get to heaven by believing in Jesus, and there is no heaven, what is relevant about my statement?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. What's that have to do with the historicity question of the Book of Esther?

Let me approach this in a different manner. First, let's assume the book is historical. Second, let's assume it's not historical, but is rather a traditional moral story.

What changes about a person's faith in either instance?

It seems to me the answer is "nothing", so I'm not really sure what this debate is about.

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 06:16 PM
God!
The author doesn't claim to be God.



You got me there, but there is more to the story then first meets the eye.Oh, of course....

divaD
Jul 25th 2011, 06:31 PM
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. What's that have to do with the historicity question of the Book of Esther?

Let me approach this in a different manner. First, let's assume the book is historical. Second, let's assume it's not historical, but is rather a traditional moral story.

What changes about a person's faith in either instance?

It seems to me the answer is "nothing", so I'm not really sure what this debate is about.



To me it's simple. If the book of Esther is indeed based upon historical fact, but some say it's fiction instead, then why believe anything is based on historic fact? The next thing you know, you might find yourself questioning this account, that account, and before it's over, you might conclude hardly anything is based upon on history. As a matter of fact, I see that happening already, since folks are starting to question if Adam was even an actual person. Do genealogies of fictional characters usually get listed in the Bible? And BTW, that doesn't mean metaphors can't also be used to drive a point home, even tho the story is based upon historical fact.

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 06:32 PM
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. What's that have to do with the historicity question of the Book of Esther?

Let me approach this in a different manner. First, let's assume the book is historical. Second, let's assume it's not historical, but is rather a traditional moral story.

What changes about a person's faith in either instance?

It seems to me the answer is "nothing", so I'm not really sure what this debate is about.

It seems pretty clear that the seed of doubt about the Bible that is planted by saying part of it is not true is the problem.

BroRog
Jul 25th 2011, 06:35 PM
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. What's that have to do with the historicity question of the Book of Esther?

Let me approach this in a different manner. First, let's assume the book is historical. Second, let's assume it's not historical, but is rather a traditional moral story.

What changes about a person's faith in either instance?

It seems to me the answer is "nothing", so I'm not really sure what this debate is about.If Esther is historical narrative, it is valuable for faith. If it isn't it has no value as a moral story, since, as David points out, it purports to be true. How can any account that purports to be true, having been shown to be fictional, have any kind of moral credibility? It can't. The fact that you see no affect on a person's faith shows me that you got on the wrong train.

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 06:44 PM
The author doesn't claim to be God.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 06:46 PM
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16Great, that would also apply to fiction and parables.

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 06:48 PM
Great, that would also apply to fiction and parables.

If it is not scripture what is it doing in the Jewish Bible? Fiction and parables are two different equations.

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 06:50 PM
If it is not scripture what is it doing in the Jewish Bible? Jesus never spoke in parables?

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 06:55 PM
Jesus never spoke in parables?

Not sure why you are asking that. A parable is a story that can be fictitious, or it might be true, but it should always be presented as a parable.

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 06:57 PM
Not sure why you are asking that. If Jesus told a parable, and someone wrote it down, would it not be a holy text? Even though it isn't strictly true?

Free Indeed
Jul 25th 2011, 06:58 PM
If Esther is historical narrative, it is valuable for faith. If it isn't it has no value as a moral story, since, as David points out, it purports to be true. How can any account that purports to be true, having been shown to be fictional, have any kind of moral credibility? It can't. The fact that you see no affect on a person's faith shows me that you got on the wrong train.

I disagree. "Faith" is not mentioned in Esther. Neither is God.

Also, it does not expressly purport to be true.

Free Indeed
Jul 25th 2011, 07:00 PM
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16

Nowhere in that verse do I see anything about all scripture having to conform to actual historical occurences though.

Ta-An
Jul 25th 2011, 07:02 PM
I disagree. "Faith" is not mentioned in Esther. Neither is God.

Also, it does not expressly purport to be true.

KT, God does not have to be visible in word to be true.... neither is faith...

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 07:04 PM
If Jesus told a parable, and someone wrote it down, would it not be a holy text? Even though it isn't strictly true?

Perhaps you could present an example of a parable of Jesus that would relate to your thought.

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 07:07 PM
Nowhere in that verse do I see anything about all scripture having to conform to actual historical occurences though.

If the scripture in inspired by God, and God cannot lie, where does that leave you?

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 07:12 PM
Perhaps you could present an example of a parable of Jesus that would relate to your thought.I fail to see how that matters.

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 07:17 PM
I fail to see how that matters.

The complexity of a parable does not lend itself to fiction/non-fiction. It would be better to present the parable so that it could be analyzed.

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 07:19 PM
The complexity of a parable does not lend itself to fiction/non-fiction. It would be better to present the parable so that it could be analyzed.So only you get to decide parable/truth?

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 07:20 PM
So only you get to decide parable/truth?

No, you present the parable and explain it to us.

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 07:23 PM
No, you present the parable and explain it to us.You seem to have missed my point. God sometimes speaks in parables, no?

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 07:32 PM
You seem to have missed my point. God sometimes speaks in parables, no?

Right, and here is one. Hear another parable:There was a certain housholder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son,-- Matthew 21:33-44

The partial parable presented, is it fiction?

Free Indeed
Jul 25th 2011, 07:34 PM
If the scripture in inspired by God, and God cannot lie, where does that leave you?

I'm not sure if I understand you. Are you saying that moral stories are "lies"?

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 07:41 PM
I'm not sure if I understand you. Are you saying that moral stories are "lies"?

No, I am saying if the Bible is only a moral story, and not true, then there is no such thing as morality. Morality would be do what is right in your own eyes, for their is no authority, there is no God

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 07:44 PM
There was a certain housholder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son

The partial parable presented, is it fiction?If a listener wrote it down as I did, above, would it lose it's value?

Free Indeed
Jul 25th 2011, 07:45 PM
No, I am saying if the Bible is only a moral story, and not true, then there is no such thing as morality. Morality would be do what is right in your own eyes, for their is no authority, there is no God

How in the world does it follow, that if the book of Esther does not describe historical events, there is no morality or no God? God isn't even mentioned in the Book of Esther, and I certainly don't base my understanding of morality on the book of Esther. I don't know anybody else who does either.

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 07:54 PM
If a listener wrote it down as I did, above, would it lose it's value?

It is important that a parable be related as a parable, whether prior to telling or afterwards, as in the case of Nathan and David.

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 07:57 PM
It is important that a parable be related as a parableWhy?............

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 07:59 PM
How in the world does it follow, that if the book of Esther does not describe historical events, there is no morality or no God? God isn't even mentioned in the Book of Esther, and I certainly don't base my understanding of morality on the book of Esther. I don't know anybody else who does either.

If the story of Esther is not true, then we would have reason to believe that, perhaps, no part of the scripture is true. If the scripture is not true, then there is no such thing as morality. If the Bible is not true, and only what we have in this life is it, then why waste time serving a God that doesn't exist. Why not get as much gusto out of life as we can. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. There would be no advantage in doing good. Good would only be a relative term.

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 08:02 PM
Why?............

That is the whole purpose of a parable, to relate a story with a different perspective. If I gave you a parable but didn't explain it, that would be a lie. Look at David, he was ready to kill someone over a parable, before he knew it was a parable.

Free Indeed
Jul 25th 2011, 08:09 PM
If the story of Esther is not true, then we would have reason to believe that, perhaps, no part of the scripture is true. If the scripture is not true, then there is no such thing as morality.

That does not follow. People wrote about, talked about, and practiced morality long before the Bible came into being. And the Bible itself is not always very moral. The argument that the book of Esther must be historically valid in order for the Bible to be true is not logical. Even Paul warned against placing too much importance on "Jewish fables" and "endless geneologies".


If the Bible is not true, and only what we have in this life is it, then why waste time serving a God that doesn't exist.

Technically, even that doesn't follow. Plenty of people throughout history have believed in God while rejecting the Bible: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Voltaire, and 50 million Hindus, are just a few examples. Of course I personally believe in the Gospel message, but if my belief in it were false, that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a God. And it certainly wouldn't mean that there isn't a God simply if it was found that the Book of Esther is a fictional account (again, Esther is not even a religious book, it's a secular one, and doesn't even mention God).

divaD
Jul 25th 2011, 08:09 PM
The book of Esther, why would some take that as fiction? What are some points in that book that are hard to believe, if it factually occured? Isn't that what it really boils down to? If some are concluding the book is fictitious, they're implying that none of it actually occured historically, thus implying a literal reading of it renders the story nonsensical. For those that see Esther as fiction, what makes it more believable if it were fiction, opposed to, if it were based on historic fact?

rejoice44
Jul 25th 2011, 08:24 PM
[QUOTE=Knight Templar;2719552]That does not follow. People wrote about, talked about, and practiced morality long before the Bible came into being.

They did? Is that why God destroyed the world with a flood? The Bible is the word of God, and the word of God was from the beginning. The word came to Abraham, and even Job said he esteemed the words of God's mouth more than necessary food. There is a thread that asks does man have a sin nature, and the answer is of course.

How did anyone know what is moral and what is not without being told?


And the Bible itself is not always very moral.

Do you mean the men in the Bible, or God?


Technically, even that doesn't follow. Plenty of people throughout history have believed in God while rejecting the Bible: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Voltaire, and 50 million Hindus, are just a few examples.

So morality is worshiping animals while children starve to death?

I have to leave for awhile, sorry to be so brief.

Fenris
Jul 25th 2011, 08:34 PM
That is the whole purpose of a parable, to relate a story with a different perspective. It's to teach a lesson.

Free Indeed
Jul 25th 2011, 08:36 PM
How did anyone know what is moral and what is not without being told?

Deuteronomy 21:18 - 21 says that a rebellious son must be stoned to death. Is this the sort of morality that you're talking about? Because, while I would admit that being dishonorable towards parents is immoral, I would also say that I think that stoning kids to death is even more immoral, and I don't need anyone to tell me that.


So morality is worshiping animals while children starve to death?

False dichotomy. For example, Gandhi was a Hindu, and was much more moral than many self-professed Christians I know. If children are going to starve to death anyway, what's the difference between worshiping animals and worshiping the Bible?

Ta-An
Jul 25th 2011, 08:38 PM
I enjoyed reading this on the Feast of Purim (http://www.jesusboatmuseum.com/blog/?p=972),,
Imagine standing on the brink of disaster with only a thin veil of hope between you and immanent death. You pray for deliverance from your enemies…and God not only delivers you, but brings swift justice to those who had willfully plotted your demise.
Imagine your relief. Imagine your joy. You’d call your friends and family together to celebrate God’s goodness. Purim celebrates just such a deliverance and is observed annually on the 14th of Adar; also the 15th in Jerusalem, Jaffa, and Tiberias (March 19-20, 2011).
The book of Esther tells the story of Purim. Esther, raised by her cousin Mordecai, is chosen as queen by King Xerxes. Haman, the highest-ranked nobleman in court, despises Mordecai because he won’t bow to him. Outraged, Haman plots the destruction of the entire Jewish nation. Esther risks her life to plead with the king to save her people. The tables are turned and Haman is hung on the very gallows he’d prepared for Mordecai.
Because of the Jews’ miraculous reversal of fortune, Purim is a happy holiday characterized by reversals, when the expected gets turned upside down. Purim customs include parades and festive gatherings and children are especially encouraged to celebrate by dressing in costume and joining in the noisemaking. There’s a strong emphasis on community involving giving gifts of food (Esther 9:19), giving gifts to charity, (9:22) and a festive meal. (9:18, 22)
Central to the Purim holiday is a noisy reading of the book of Esther. It’s customary to boo, hiss, stomp feet, and rattle noisemakers called graggers whenever the name of Haman (Boo!) is read aloud in order to drown out his name. In contrast, listeners cheer each time Mordecai is named (Yay!).
[Go ahead, turn to Esther. We know you want to try it...]
Behind the revelry lies a timeless message: God often works in ways that are not always apparent to us. He acts in ways that some call chance or coincidence. Yet, on closer examination, we see his fingerprints everywhere. Albert Einstein once wrote, “Coincidence is God’s way of remaining anonymous.”
Some will call it luck, but we know that God is in control.

BroRog
Jul 25th 2011, 08:57 PM
I disagree. "Faith" is not mentioned in Esther. Neither is God.While the term "faith" may not be used by the author of Esther, the concept of faith is definitely a major theme of Esther. For instance, faith is found in the words of Mordecai in the following passage.

4:13 Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, "Do not imagine that you in the king's palace can escape any more than all the Jews. 14 "For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?"

In Mordecai's own words, "deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place", which indicates that Mordecai knew that God would deliver his people from utter destruction. Mordecai's concern was not that his people might be destroyed, but that Esther might abandon her people and miss out on God's blessing seeing that her father's house would perish. Mordecai raised Esther and was reminding her of something that she already knew was right. She was ultimately in the hands of God and her being in the favor of the king was not source of her blessing, but a chance to participate in the salvation of her people.


Also, it does not expressly purport to be true.Yes it does. It reads like history and there is nothing in the account to suggest that it is a work of fiction. The only reason why scholars consider the book to be a "novella" is because certain details are inaccurate in their opinion.

Nevertheless, I have learned to be very cautious when it comes to the expert opinion of modern scholars, who have the vantage point of a guy sitting in the upper decks of a very large football stadium, trying to figure out what happened in the previous day's game. When a scholar talks about "inaccuracies" what he means is "I have compared the account of Esther to the accounts of other historians and the bits and pieces of Persian culture, history, and politics and have found a few places where Esther and the other data disagree." What they don't tell you is that they are making a judgment as to which sources to believe and trust. That's what an expert opinion is: a judgment. We don't like it, but the human knowledge base depends on the wise judgments of those who contribute to it. We want our experts to give us mathematical certainty and we have constructed a framework of opinion that society has agreed to provisionally consider to be "truth", based on supposed considered decisions and sensible conclusions. In other words, we treat the subjective opinions of "experts" as if they are the "objective" truth, when in reality all expert opinions are subject to bias.

In fact, these so-called "inaccuracies" may not be inaccuracies at all. For some reason historians, like all of us, tend to forget that history is the account of human activity and humans are messy, complicated, complex creatures. Just because an historian finds a document that describes the life of the courts of Persian kings, doesn't mean that the courts always performed the way such a document describes. Real life is messy and real life doesn't always conform to rules. What typically happens in any given situation may not be what actually happened in a particular situation. What people say they do, is not what they always do.

So, without actually knowing the thinking that went behind and led up to an expert opinion, we must always hear expert opinions as subjective rulings and not objective truth. The guy who wrote Esther was there, and those who read his work were also there and since I trust other portions of the scriptures I choose to give the author of Esther the benefit of the doubt and choose to think that he chose to give us a true account in all of its human messiness and complexity.

rejoice44
Jul 26th 2011, 12:07 AM
[QUOTE=Knight Templar;2719580]Deuteronomy 21:18 - 21 says that a rebellious son must be stoned to death. Is this the sort of morality that you're talking about? Because, while I would admit that being dishonorable towards parents is immoral, I would also say that I think that stoning kids to death is even more immoral, and I don't need anyone to tell me that.

I will stick with God's righteousness above my own any and every day. Only God is good, and only God knows righteousness. The end result of disobedience is death and condemning God's righteousness is the quickest way to get there.

Would you condemn God for bringing on the flood? Perhaps you believe that the flood was fiction too.

Is there something written that we are guaranteed a certain time on earth, or is it God's good pleasure? If God says stone a rebellious child, then that is right, and that is good. How many lives will that rebellious child impact in a negative way? I don't know, but God knows the evil that disobedience projects. God's ways are not our ways. Our ways are selfish and sinful, but God's ways are righteous and good.

Nihil Obstat
Jul 26th 2011, 05:25 AM
BroRog, I can't rep you again yet, but that was an excellent post!

Quickened
Jul 26th 2011, 11:05 AM
BroRog, I can't rep you again yet, but that was an excellent post!

I agree.

To address the OP personally there is no evidence that what is recorded here isn't history. I see no reason to doubt that it is history.

divaD
Jul 26th 2011, 12:05 PM
BroRog, I can't rep you again yet, but that was an excellent post!



Well it wouldn't be the first time BroRog ever made an excellent post. He pretty much makes excellent posts every time he posts. So he has a lot of experience at it. I would love to have the insight he has, if the truth be told. But not to take away from what you said. I too agree it was an excellent post in particular.

Free Indeed
Jul 26th 2011, 02:58 PM
Yes it does. It reads like history and there is nothing in the account to suggest that it is a work of fiction.

All fiction reads like a history. The way something "reads" is no indication of its historicity.


The only reason why scholars consider the book to be a "novella" is because certain details are inaccurate in their opinion.

What is the difference between an opinion and a historical fact? How are we to differentiate between the two?

Rullion Green
Jul 26th 2011, 05:25 PM
What is the difference between an opinion and a historical fact? How are we to differentiate between the two?

Opinions may or may not have a good basis, Historical facts must have a logical basis and be corroborated by whatever methods historians use (I'm sure they have an inductive process to sift through data). However literature that is not corroborated does not necessitate it being fictional. I like this statement by J.A Alexander on problematic text and i think it can apply to this issue;

“It is best, however, as in all such cases, to leave the discrepancy unsolved rather than to solve it by unnatural and forced constructions. Although we may not be able to explain it, and the multitude of cases in which riddles once esteemed insoluble have since been satisfactorily settled, should encourage us to hope for like results in other cases”

nzyr
Jul 27th 2011, 12:51 AM
I believe the events in book of Esther really happened. There's two books in the bible named after women. One is about a Gentile who married a Jew (Ruth). The other is about a Jew who married a Gentile (Esther). Scholars disagree about a lot of things. But when a scholar says he doesn't believe that the things that are described in the bible actually occurred that's when I don't listen to that scholar.

divaD
Jul 27th 2011, 12:56 AM
But when a scholar says he doesn't believe that the things that are described in the bible actually occurred that's when I don't listen to that scholar.

That's excellent advice. If the scholar is wrong about that, why take chances with other things he or she might say?

Free Indeed
Jul 27th 2011, 12:59 PM
But when a scholar says he doesn't believe that the things that are described in the bible actually occurred that's when I don't listen to that scholar.

But...what if the scholar is correct?

rejoice44
Jul 27th 2011, 01:43 PM
But...what if the scholar is correct?

If the scholar is right and the Bible is wrong, you might as well throw your Bible away.

Fenris
Jul 27th 2011, 01:50 PM
If the scholar is right and the Bible is wrong, you might as well throw your Bible away.Why? Again, just because it may not be literally true doesn't mean that is has no lessons to teach...

Free Indeed
Jul 27th 2011, 02:44 PM
If the scholar is right and the Bible is wrong, you might as well throw your Bible away.

Ok, but even if that's right, it sort of misses the point. The poster said if Scholar A says X, then he would stop listening to Scholar A. This seems to indicate that the poster doesn't care whether or not X is true, but instead is only concerned with whether X matches his own previously held ideas.

So where does "truth" come into play in this?

Fenris
Jul 27th 2011, 02:49 PM
This seems to indicate that the poster doesn't care whether or not X is true, but instead is only concerned with whether X matches his own previously held ideas.
I believe this is what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

Free Indeed
Jul 27th 2011, 02:51 PM
I will stick with God's righteousness above my own any and every day. Only God is good, and only God knows righteousness. The end result of disobedience is death and condemning God's righteousness is the quickest way to get there.


You indicated that we do not know what morality is without the Bible. Yet I pointed out that we seem to have moral knowledge without the Bible, and at least in this particular case, in spite of the Bible (i.e., I'm assuming that most of us consider it immoral to stone kids to death).


Would you condemn God for bringing on the flood? Perhaps you believe that the flood was fiction too.

From a historical, geological standpoint, yes, it is "fictional". Obviously, a God who is omnipotent and omniscient does not "repent" or regret any of His own actions, as that would be mean that such God is either not omnipotent or that he is not omniscient.


If God says stone a rebellious child, then that is right, and that is good.

I can think of absolutely no way that a person can really believe that and at the same time be a good, or moral, person. In fact, anyone who truly believes that is no different than the Taliban or al-Qaeda, since that's exactly what they teach and practice, and what we as "civilized westerners" condemn them for.

divaD
Jul 27th 2011, 03:05 PM
On this other board, where this is the current topic of discussion, the reason I started this topic here, now they're using the book of Mormon to try and disprove the Bible. None of these folks are Mormons by any means, but this has to do with the phrase "it came to pass" that is used 3 times in the book of Esther. My argument is simply this, fictitious things don't come to pass in the Bible unless it is clear that a parable is being utilized to make a point. Jesus used parables numerous times. But it was plainly clear that they were parables to begin with. And some of those parables used that same phrase "it came to pass".

So anyway, they provided a link to some blog where it was shown that Joseph Smith used that phrase ""it came to pass" in the book of Mormon maybe 3 or 4 times more than it's used in the Bible. Seriously, what a lame argument. No born again believer would even believe the book if Mormon was inspired writing to begin with. So it wouldn't matter if Mr. Smith used that phrase a million times in the book of Mormon, since no believer would even believe any of it came to pass in the first place, since the book of Mormon is hardly considered holy writ, yet the Bible is.

Fenris
Jul 27th 2011, 03:10 PM
the book of Mormon is hardly considered holy writ, yet the Bible is.Mormons consider it holy writ.

Rullion Green
Jul 27th 2011, 03:10 PM
I believe this is what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

I never wanted the grapes anyway !

divaD
Jul 27th 2011, 03:13 PM
Mormons consider it holy writ.

Maybe so, but the majority of us Christians don't.

Fenris
Jul 27th 2011, 03:25 PM
Maybe so, but the majority of us Christians don't.My point being, saying that "it's holy writ and therefore..." is not really a strong point.

Free Indeed
Jul 27th 2011, 03:33 PM
So anyway, they provided a link to some blog where it was shown that Joseph Smith used that phrase ""it came to pass" in the book of Mormon maybe 3 or 4 times more than it's used in the Bible.

Actually, in the Book of Mormon, the phrase "and it came to pass" is used 3 or 4 times on practically every page. It is important in this regard because the repetitive use of such a phrase throughout the book denotes the writing style of one single individual (in this case, Joseph Smith). So the overabundance of use of this phrase is circumstantial evidence that the book was not written by various ancient authors (as Smith and the Mormons claim).

rejoice44
Jul 27th 2011, 09:15 PM
Why? Again, just because it may not be literally true doesn't mean that is has no lessons to teach...

If the book isn't true then why should one assume the lessons are true. Why learn false lessons?

Fenris
Jul 27th 2011, 09:20 PM
If the book isn't true then why should one assume the lessons are true. Why learn false lessons?Parables are false lessons?

rejoice44
Jul 27th 2011, 09:24 PM
Ok, but even if that's right, it sort of misses the point. The poster said if Scholar A says X, then he would stop listening to Scholar A. This seems to indicate that the poster doesn't care whether or not X is true, but instead is only concerned with whether X matches his own previously held ideas.

So where does "truth" come into play in this?

His previously held ideas are that God is true, that God is the author of the Bible, and therefore the Bible is true. The poster has faith in God and his word and if Scholar A disagrees with God then there is no conclusion left other than that Scholar A is wrong.

Of course if one doesn't have faith in God, what does it matter?

rejoice44
Jul 27th 2011, 09:26 PM
Parables are false lessons?

Only if the parable is predicated on a fallacy.

rejoice44
Jul 27th 2011, 09:41 PM
[QUOTE=Knight Templar;2720453]You indicated that we do not know what morality is without the Bible. Yet I pointed out that we seem to have moral knowledge without the Bible, and at least in this particular case, in spite of the Bible (i.e., I'm assuming that most of us consider it immoral to stone kids to death).

Morality is doing what is right. There has to be a supreme judge to decide what is wrong and wrong, otherwise morality is only what is right in our own eyes, and that varies quite erratically. That is where God comes into the picture, as the supreme judge. If God says stoning kids is right, then that is right.


From a historical, geological standpoint, yes, it is "fictional". Obviously, a God who is omnipotent and omniscient does not "repent" or regret any of His own actions, as that would be mean that such God is either not omnipotent or that he is not omniscient.

Oh Ye of little faith.


I can think of absolutely no way that a person can really believe that and at the same time be a good, or moral, person. In fact, anyone who truly believes that is no different than the Taliban or al-Qaeda, since that's exactly what they teach and practice, and what we as "civilized westerners" condemn them for.

You are mixing apples with termites.

God said love your enemies, the Taliban says kill everyone who doesn't agree with you.

God said love your enemies, and he also said vengeance was his.

Free Indeed
Jul 27th 2011, 11:15 PM
His previously held ideas are that God is true, that God is the author of the Bible, and therefore the Bible is true. The poster has faith in God and his word and if Scholar A disagrees with God then there is no conclusion left other than that Scholar A is wrong.


I think Fenris already addressed this line of reasoning in post # 94.

Free Indeed
Jul 27th 2011, 11:17 PM
[QUOTE]

Morality is doing what is right. There has to be a supreme judge to decide what is wrong and wrong, otherwise morality is only what is right in our own eyes, and that varies quite erratically. That is where God comes into the picture, as the supreme judge. If God says stoning kids is right, then that is right.

It is quite obvious that stoning kids most certainly isn't "right". We have a word for people who kill their kids because they think God wants them to: psychopaths.

We also have a place to put such people: mental hospitals.

rejoice44
Jul 27th 2011, 11:39 PM
I think Fenris already addressed this line of reasoning in post # 94.

Ah! Cognitive dissonance. We understand why Fenris rejects the New Testament, but why do you reject the scripture you reject?

rejoice44
Jul 27th 2011, 11:44 PM
It is quite obvious that stoning kids most certainly isn't "right". We have a word for people who kill their kids because they think God wants them to: psychopaths.

There is a difference between thinking something based on fiction, and thinking something based on truth.


We also have a place to put such people: mental hospitals.

Ah! would you have all Christians put in mental institutions. That is where you would have had Abraham put, is it not?

divaD
Jul 27th 2011, 11:54 PM
It is quite obvious that stoning kids most certainly isn't "right". We have a word for people who kill their kids because they think God wants them to: psychopaths.

We also have a place to put such people: mental hospitals.



When you say kids, what age ranges are you thinking? I'm 53 years old. My mother is still alive, and as far as she's concerned, I'm still one of her kids(children).

Deuteronomy 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

Why do you think it mentions glutton and drunkard in the passage? Should the drunkard part be understood in the literal sense? If so, how many young kids would actually be drunkards? If we're to understand drunkard in some form of literal sense, then this description fits an adult more than it would fit a mere child, say 14 or under for example.

What about this commandment?

Deuteronomy 5:16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.


Do you think there's an age limit attached to this?

Free Indeed
Jul 28th 2011, 12:04 AM
[QUOTE=Knight Templar;2720730]



What about this commandment?

Deuteronomy 5:16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.


Do you think there's an age limit attached to this?

Not at all. I already said that, in general, disrespecting one's parents is immoral. There are of course hypothetical exceptions.

Concerning your other question, let's say, for example, that your child is 17 or 18, a drunkard, and is disrepectful toward you for no good reason. I agree with you that this child is behaving immorally.

Do you think it is moral to stone him to death? Would you do it yourself?

Concerning Abraham: I don't take much in Genesis very literally. These stories were handed down from generation to generation around campfires among Bronze Age warriors. Unlike the New Testament, they are not eyewitness accounts, and sometimes present God in a purely anthropomorphic manner that is later denied in the New Testament.

nzyr
Jul 28th 2011, 02:35 AM
But...what if the scholar is correct?I trust the word of God not scholars.

Fenris
Jul 28th 2011, 12:15 PM
Ah! Cognitive dissonance. We understand why Fenris rejects the New TestamentLol. That could be said of anyone by any faith. Why are you not Muslim, or Hindu, or Jewish, or Animist? Cognitive dissonance!

nzyr
Jul 28th 2011, 12:44 PM
If Jesus told a parable, and someone wrote it down, would it not be a holy text? Even though it isn't strictly true?The book of Esther is not a parable.

Fenris
Jul 28th 2011, 12:50 PM
The book of Esther is not a parable.I am inclined to agree with you, but what if it was? Would it have no value?

nzyr
Jul 28th 2011, 12:54 PM
That does not follow. People wrote about, talked about, and practiced morality long before the Bible came into being. And the Bible itself is not always very moral. The argument that the book of Esther must be historically valid in order for the Bible to be true is not logical. Even Paul warned against placing too much importance on "Jewish fables" and "endless geneologies".The book of Esther isn't a Jewish fable. It's about how a holocaust was averted.




Technically, even that doesn't follow. Plenty of people throughout history have believed in God while rejecting the Bible: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Voltaire, and 50 million Hindus, are just a few examples. Of course I personally believe in the Gospel message, but if my belief in it were false, that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a God. And it certainly wouldn't mean that there isn't a God simply if it was found that the Book of Esther is a fictional account (again, Esther is not even a religious book, it's a secular one, and doesn't even mention God).It doesn't mention God. So what? Who are you to say which books are valid and which are not? Esther is a very important book. It it wasn't it wouldn't be in our bibles.

rejoice44
Jul 28th 2011, 01:18 PM
Lol. That could be said of anyone by any faith. Why are you not Muslim, or Hindu, or Jewish, or Animist? Cognitive dissonance!

Because when I cried out to God he answered me in my inner being in a way that logic could not answer.

Fenris
Jul 28th 2011, 01:20 PM
Because when I cried out to God he answered me in my inner being in a way that logic could not answer.What a coincidence! Me too!! is that amazing or what?

rejoice44
Jul 28th 2011, 01:25 PM
What a coincidence! Me too!! is that amazing or what?

And what did God answer you?

Fenris
Jul 28th 2011, 01:26 PM
And what did God answer you?He told me to hang in there.

rejoice44
Jul 28th 2011, 01:31 PM
He told me to hang in there.

Well he filled me with the presence of his goodness and the knowledge that I could trust him.

Fenris
Jul 28th 2011, 02:01 PM
Well he filled me with the presence of his goodness and the knowledge that I could trust him.That's awesome.

rejoice44
Jul 28th 2011, 02:18 PM
He told me to hang in there.

To hang in there and then what?

Fenris
Jul 28th 2011, 02:23 PM
To hang in there and then what?Carry out His will, as defined in the bible.

Adstars
Jul 28th 2011, 02:46 PM
He told me to hang in there.

Hang in where? Where do you think "there" is?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

rejoice44
Jul 28th 2011, 02:51 PM
Carry out His will, as defined in the bible.

His will is that none be lost, and that all come to a saving knowledge of the Messiah.

Fenris
Jul 28th 2011, 03:08 PM
His will is that none be lost, and that all come to a saving knowledge of the Messiah.Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand that's a wrap, folks.

rejoice44
Jul 29th 2011, 01:44 AM
From a historical, geological standpoint, yes, it is "fictional". Obviously, a God who is omnipotent and omniscient does not "repent" or regret any of His own actions, as that would be mean that such God is either not omnipotent or that he is not omniscient.

Here are the words of Jesus, and you are flatly denying them. "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark." (Matthew 24:38) You do not believe in Jesus, or am I missing something?