Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

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

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    Having said that, I do believe that the book is a historical document.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Knight Templar View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Knight Templar View Post
    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 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have any evidence for a biblical premise, but at the same time show why we have faith in the Bible as a trustworthy historical document.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".

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Knight Templar View Post
    hmm...God or wikipedia?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Nobunaga View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Jake View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Fenris View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Jews consider the Book of Esther to be a historical document.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Knight Templar View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Knight Templar View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Knight Templar View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by divaD View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by divaD View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Ta-An View Post
    How do you get to that

    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by BroRog View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X