Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • divaD
    replied
    Re: The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?

    Originally posted by Fenris View Post
    Mormons consider it holy writ.
    Maybe so, but the majority of us Christians don't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rullion Green
    replied
    Re: The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?

    Originally posted by Fenris View Post
    I believe this is what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance"
    I never wanted the grapes anyway !

    Leave a comment:


  • Fenris
    replied
    Re: The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?

    Originally posted by divaD View Post
    the book of Mormon is hardly considered holy writ, yet the Bible is.
    Mormons consider it holy writ.

    Leave a comment:


  • divaD
    replied
    Re: The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Free Indeed
    replied
    Re: The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?

    Originally posted by rejoice44 View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fenris
    replied
    Re: The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?

    Originally posted by Knight Templar View Post
    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"

    Leave a comment:


  • Free Indeed
    replied
    Re: The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?

    Originally posted by rejoice44 View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fenris
    replied
    Re: The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?

    Originally posted by rejoice44 View Post
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • rejoice44
    replied
    Re: The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?

    Originally posted by Knight Templar View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Free Indeed
    replied
    Re: The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?

    Originally posted by nzyr View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • divaD
    replied
    Re: The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?

    Originally posted by nzyr View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • nzyr
    replied
    Re: The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rullion Green
    replied
    Re: The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?

    Originally posted by Knight Templar View Post
    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”

    Leave a comment:


  • Free Indeed
    replied
    Re: The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?

    Originally posted by BroRog View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • divaD
    replied
    Re: The book of Esther. Based on historical fact or fiction?

    Originally posted by astrongerthanhe View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X