How much of the Old Testament is actually historical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I’m not Jewish, my point is that the people whose ancestors lived through it appear to believe it really happened.
 
And I was going to say the same thing until I read your response!
 
This article says the same thing my former priest said; that there were fewer people in the Exodus than what the Bible says and this article says it was 400 years later that the number of 603, 550 males were added to the story.

Are some things in the OT exaggerated? False? Or am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
If you look at any ancient Near Eastern text, except for things like inventory tally sheets, you will see that most cultures regarded numbers as a symbolic, poetic element, much as we regard color names.

You don’t expect “sea foam green” to be the actual color of foam off the ocean, particularly since sea foam is not green, much less that particular weird green. The name is a convention, which conveys exact color values to those who know the system. (And there’s even a cross-industry organization in charge of making sure that everybody using “sea foam green” for clothing is using the same color.) But to somebody outside the system, it seems like colorblindness or a lie.

If somebody says “ten thousand” in an ancient text, I have learned to read it as “big number.” Then you check up on what the specific culture’s symbolic values were for “ten” and “thousand,” and you get the specific symbolism beyond “big number.” I read it from inside the system, and therefore I am not stuck looking for some strange ancient seashore with mutant sea foam that is a specific weird green.
 
Indeed. The numbers 7, 40, and 70 all had significance among the Hebrews.
 
So, are you saying that the huge number of people listed in Exodus isn’t a lie or exaggeration, but part of their culture to express that there were many who fled?
 
Anyone else, please…especially @mintaka.
 
Last edited:
Thats a good question. I think some of its historical, some of it is poetry, some allegory etc.
 
Jamie5 said:
I have met people who take both the OT and NT as literal, which is very very scary. I think it’s always a good thing to use logic and common sense in whatever interpretation you may take.
Click to expand...
It isn’t clear to me that the restricted notions of parochial logic and “common sense” have very much to say about what could have or did happen in ancient history.

Certainly, we have an idea of what appears to consistently happen around us, and from there we might extrapolate to what we expect may have happened, but that would seem to be as far as we can push our conclusions.

To invoke logic and common sense as if we have some kind of firm grasp of everything that is possible merely because of our experience, seems just a tad overreaching.

If the entire universe – with all of its complexity and the myriad of life forms that exist just on this earth – actually did come from an infinitely minute singularity of matter, energy, and space-time, and we can barely fathom THAT as a possibility, it would appear we ought to just remain a little silent and humbled about we do know regarding what can and cannot occur in reality.

Where, for example, do logic and “common sense” describe the unfolding of human life from a single cell that unpacks and builds itself into an intricately designed and complex network of systematically organized interactive bio-machines we call a human being? At what point can we say this feat of nature – repeated millions of times in nature with millions of life forms – is “logical” and ”common" sensical when we have no clue why it takes place at all? How can we conclude anything about the way things are when things could just as easily have been very, very different? At least those who propose something like the infinite variety of possible universes they call “the multiverse” grasp this point.

How do we know with any kind of assurance what is logical or common sensical? I doubt we have very much to say about that at all.

I wouldn’t suppose an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would need to go too far in the direction of audacity to provide objective lessons to human beings regarding the things we need to understand, but I would also suppose that just a few baffling and difficult to comprehend events to keep us a bit humbled and wondering would have their place.

If the omniscient and omnipotent God exists then pretty much anything is possible. If God doesn’t exist then a purely material, mechanically precise universe might be predictable in the “logical and common sense” way you would expect. So is that your grounds for restricting the Biblical narrative? That God doesn’t really exist?

If that conclusion is true there are still anomalies like personal conscious awareness and moral responsibility which need to be explained, along with those historical events and outcomes which don’t fit with mechanical, unguided, clockwork precision; which itself would lack any explanation for why THAT is what is instead of something else. Good luck with that.

Seems to me that “logic and common sense” are pretty much stifled and without foundation either way.
 
Last edited:
Joe1 said:
Wait how are we Catholics supposed to read the OT?
Click to expand...
You only read the OT as ‘types’ and ‘shadows’… it shed light on the NT and as future type shadows for what WE believe. Do NOT do what the Anabaptists do and try to find ‘truth’ in the OT. The OT can NOT give you salvation or teach you about MORAL TRUTHS/SINS etc. Ie: Do NOT look up to David or ANYONE in the OT as an EXAMPLE to follow. That is what Anabaptists (Pagans) and Jews and even Muslims do. Here’s what Jesus says about people that take OT seriously as a moral resource:

John 5:39-40 “You search the [OT] SCRIPTURES because YOU THINK they give you eternal life…But you are NOT WILLING to COME TO ME that you may have life. (come to priest/communion).

Anabaptists are technically NOT of the Christian (catholic) Faith and are indirectly waging war against our Church. Someone has to start saying it. They reject our creeds and essentially are Pagans with a Bible in their hand. Their Bible is our stolen Church property (someone has to start saying it).

Here’s an example of how to use the OT in a Catholic way:

-PERPETUAL, EVERLASTING VIRGINITY OR MARY!

Ezekiel 44:1-2 I saw that THE DOORS to this gate were CLOSED. The Lord said: “This gate shall be SHUT; it shall NOT BE OPENED, and NO MAN shall ENTER by it, because the LORD GOD of Israel HAS ENTERED BY IT; therefore it will be SHUT [FOREVER].

WOW!

Another example. The OT is ‘divinely in error’ for complex doctrinal reasons that don’t concern us. This is why the OT is so dangerous. It has PURPOSEFUL errors EVERYWHERE (because we need that to contrast the NT and learn about Satan’s workings etc. Here’s an example:

-ERROR - Proverbs 3:6 In all thy ways ACKNOWLEDGE him, and he shall DIRECT THY PATHS.
-CORRECT - Mat 7:14 “But the GATE to life is VERY narrow. THE PATH that leads there is SO HARD to follow that only a FEW PEOPLE FIND IT”.

Definition of Anabaptist: a (NON) Protestant sectarian of a radical movement arising in the 16th century and advocating the baptism and church membership of adult believers only, nonresistance, and the separation of church and state. -merriam-webster
 
Last edited:
pianistclare said:
Well, I’m not Jewish, my point is that the people whose ancestors lived through it appear to believe it really happened.
Click to expand...
Okay I can’t hold it any longer.

Ever notice how the ONE THING in the OT that has NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, the Exodus, is ALSO the ONE THING that the Jews base their entire tradition (‘religion’) off of?

Coincidence? Nope. It just TRULY shows the divinity of the the fight of good vs evil in the universe. And do NOT associate Jesus with THOSE TRIBAL ANCESTOR - he already FULLY DENIES ALL AFFILIATION/RELATION/ASSOCIATION with them.

John 6:49-50 YOUR ANCESTORS (not ‘our’) ate manna in the wilderness, but THEY ALL DIED

John 6:32 JESUS SAID to them, “I tell you FOR CERTAIN, MOSES did NOT give you the BREAD from heaven, but My Father gives you the TRUE BREAD from heaven (implying the other was FALSE ie:a LIE i know it’s harsh but just logically conclude what he’s really saying)

John 6:49 YOUR fathers ate the MANNA in the wilderness, and ARE DEAD

John 6:53 “I TELL YOU FOR CERTAIN that unless you EAT THE FLESH of the Son of Man and DRINK HIS BLOOD, you have NO LIFE IN YOU.”

THOSE WHO WANT TO FOLLOW THE JEWS (ANABAPTISTS/MASONS/MUSLIMS) MET THIS FATE:

John 6:52 "The JEWS therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us HIS FLESH TO EAT?” (THEY SUCK YOU IN AS VICTIMS)

John 6:64 But there are SOME OF YOU who DO NOT BELIEVE.” (JESUS KNOWS WHO DOESN’T BELIEVE. AND…)

John 6:66 “Because of what JESUS SAID [ABOUT EATING FLESH/BLOOD], many of his disciples TURNED THEIR BACKS on him and STOPPED FOLLOWING HIM .”

OUCH! KICKED OUT OF CHRISTIANITY. DENYING CHRIST ALSO MEANS LITERALLY DENYING THE EUCHARIST. (This denial may be tolerable of the Pope allows it lawful and it’s done in remembrance to meet a lesser criteria so Mainline Protestants are in a special situation and thus not included in the above groups, even if their host isn’t is just bread, they meet a criteria to still hold the the minimums of the catholic faith in the Creeds. UNLIKE the Anabaptists - 35% of American Christians. About 100 million world wide so mostly confined to America).
 
SnoopSword said:
Okay I can’t hold it any longer.

Ever notice how the ONE THING in the OT that has NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, the Exodus, is ALSO the ONE THING that the Jews base their entire tradition (‘religion’) off of?

Coincidence? Nope. It just TRULY shows the divinity of the the fight of good vs evil in the universe. And do NOT associate Jesus with THOSE TRIBAL ANCESTOR - he already FULLY DENIES ALL AFFILIATION/RELATION/ASSOCIATION with them.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you are advocating some version of Marcionism with some elements of Manichaeism or Gnosticism.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches about the Old Testament (from the Catechism.)
The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
Indeed, “the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men.” “Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,” the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings “are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way.”
Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism). (CCC 121-123)
Click to expand...
You would benefit from reading Brant Pitre’s works on the “Jewish roots” of much of Catholicism (the Eucharist, the Sacraments, the Papacy, the Liturgy, etc.,)

 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
You would benefit from reading Brant Pitre’s works on the “Jewish roots” of much of Catholicism (the Eucharist, the Sacraments, the Papacy, the Liturgy, etc.,)
Click to expand...
I’m VERY apposed to those sorts of works and find they are lies that stem from Satan himself.

The ‘truth’ is one of those things that you have to dig and search for. But eventually… you find it:

-“the LAST SUPPER could NOT have been a PASSOVER SEDER , because the Passover Seder DIDN’T EXIST until several decades AFTER Jesus’ death.” -Rabbi Mark S. Glickman, seattletimes 2008

-“the PASSOVER SEDER was a RESPONSE to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in the YEAR 70, and it WASN’T FINALIZED until sometime during the THIRD CENTURY -Rabbi Mark S. Glickman, seattletimes 2008

-“to be PERFECTLY HONEST — the PASSOVER SEDER developed, in part, as an ANTI-CHRISTIAN POLEMIC — a “SLAM” on the then-new and growing religion called CHRISTIANITY.” -Rabbi Mark S. Glickman, seattletimes 2008

-“the ANTI-CHRISTIAN ROOTS of the [PASSOVER SEDER] event are UNMISTAKABLE . -Rabbi Mark S. Glickman, seattletimes 2008

-“it strikes me as DISINGENUOUS for Christianity to REACH BACK into JUDAISM to CO-OPT JEWISH RITUALS that developed ONLY AFTER we split. -Rabbi Mark S. Glickman, seattletimes 2008
 
SnoopSword said:
I’m VERY apposed to those sorts of works and find they are lies that stem from Satan himself.
Click to expand...
I think you mean opposed.
SnoopSword said:
The ‘truth’ is one of those things that you have to dig and search for. But eventually… you find it:

-“the LAST SUPPER could NOT have been a PASSOVER SEDER , because the Passover Seder DIDN’T EXIST until several decades AFTER Jesus’ death.” -Rabbi Mark S. Glickman, seattletimes 2008

-“the PASSOVER SEDER was a RESPONSE to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in the YEAR 70, and it WASN’T FINALIZED until sometime during the THIRD CENTURY -Rabbi Mark S. Glickman, seattletimes 2008

-“to be PERFECTLY HONEST — the PASSOVER SEDER developed, in part, as an ANTI-CHRISTIAN POLEMIC — a “SLAM” on the then-new and growing religion called CHRISTIANITY.” -Rabbi Mark S. Glickman, seattletimes 2008

-“the ANTI-CHRISTIAN ROOTS of the [PASSOVER SEDER] event are UNMISTAKABLE . -Rabbi Mark S. Glickman, seattletimes 2008

-“it strikes me as DISINGENUOUS for Christianity to REACH BACK into JUDAISM to CO-OPT JEWISH RITUALS that developed ONLY AFTER we split. -Rabbi Mark S. Glickman, seattletimes 2008
Click to expand...
I suppose that if you mean “dig and search for” so assiduously as to cite one source to make a minor point that is insignificant, then that level of scholarly pursuit won’t be very effective as a bulwark against the “lies that stem from Satan himself.”

I also think you have revealed a great deal about your vulnerability to untruths, if your goto position is to call opposing views “lies that stem from Satan himself.”
 
Jamie5 said:
I have met people who take both the OT and NT as literal, which is very very scary. I think it’s always a good thing to use logic and common sense in whatever interpretation you may take.
Click to expand...
There are ways of determining whether a verse or passage is literal or figurative. Sometimes there are literal elements in a figurative passage, and sometimes, figurative elements in a literal passage.
 
Last edited:
Yes but those are completely subjective when it comes to who believes which is figurative and literal in each case, for example Noah’s Ark and Adam and Eve, the 2 best examples of not meant to be taken literally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top