Old Testament Myths

[James248]

In regards to the veil of the temple being split, do you not think that there would be some outside source recording something which would have been seen as so miraculous and disturbing for the Jews of the time or do you not give the slightest possibility to the fact that the Gospel author used it as a device to illustrate that the veil that that symbolized the separation of man from God was dissolved and that the temple sacrifice of burnt offerings was no longer efficacious due to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross? Is it not possible that things were presented in such a way that would speak to the Jews of the time, the same way that Christ speaking the beatitudes was presented as Moses the lawgiver giving the Hebrews the laws of God?

.

Is there any precedence for your interpretation? Because it would have Matthew look like a liar.

 

[Tim_D]

If Adam were not real, Original Sin would not be real . Therefore: any prophet among human prophets would suffice as a messenger bringing the Ten Commandments to us. That is modern Arianism.

Thank you very much for proving my point.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you very much for proving my point.

I would like to know more about your point. It is good to know that someone knows how “Arianism” is being portrayed. Many folks are not familiar with the tampering of Original Sin and Sacred Divine Revelation in the first three basic chapters of Genesis.

Some of the people hacking at the foundation of Catholicism are now using the more attractive word “rebuilding.” Does your Arianism point include “preferred” changes allowed. Depending on your point.

It can be scary when the “Old Testament Myths” mess with the dawn of human history.

 

[grannymh]

One last thought for today.

There is some figurative language in the first three truth-filled chapters in Genesis. Figurative language can help with a description. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit in major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils, Divine Revelation has been properly defined.

 

[Tim_D]

I would like to know more about your point. It is good to know that someone knows how “Arianism” is being portrayed. Many folks are not familiar with the tampering of Original Sin and Sacred Divine Revelation in the first three basic chapters of Genesis.

Some of the people hacking at the foundation of Catholicism are now using the more attractive word “rebuilding.” Does your Arianism point include “preferred” changes allowed. Depending on your point.

It can be scary when the “Old Testament Myths” mess with the dawn of human history.

Define “arianism.”

 

[edwest2]

Fundamentalist historicity is not a traditional Catholic thing, it is a peculiarity of modern Protestantism that has rubbed off on many Catholics. it is a relatively recent phenomenon in comparison with the whole of Catholic tradition.

Oh yes. Catholics only have to walk by a Protestant and the infection spreads like a common cold. Nonsense. I know nothing about what Protestants believe.

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

“It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.”

"Adam and Eve: Real People

“It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).”

Source: Catholic Answers

Ed

 

[grannymh]

Define “arianism.”

This link catholic.com/encyclopedia/arianism
gives the history of Arianism which demonstrates its significance. While it does not address modern Arianism, this comment in the last sentence speaks to today. “a question on which the future of Christianity depended.”

Here is the link where I learned the term “stealth”.
romancatholicman.com/stealth-arianism-the-pervasive-heresy-of-our-times/

Here is a link from my friend Google. This might appeal to some readers. patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/01/arianism-today.html

I learned about Arianism in Catholic high school. Our teacher loved the battles in the early Catholic Church. I learned about modern Arianism in a workshop during a major Catholic Conference. It was amazing how many examples of the effects of modern Arianism we found. I have forgotten most of them.

When trying to define Modern Arianism, I would simply say that Jesus Christ is a great prophet even to the point that He can bring about healing miracles. But, He is not considered fully Divine. Jesus is from the Father but not equal to the Father.

Maybe someday, I will find a formal definition for modern Arianism. For now, I prefer to examine the effects of the concept of not fully Divine.

Many years ago, when I had a pet dinosaur, I read my first adult biography of Jesus Christ. When I got to the chapter on the loaves and fish miracle (John 6: 1-15) the author praised Jesus Christ for being a wonderful preacher. Jesus Christ was such a powerful speaker that He had the crowd of people sharing what little food they had with their neighbor. He turned the hungry crowd into a loving crowd where charity (giving food) to their neighbor was primary.

In my innocent youth, I wondered what happened to the miracle. If the miracle never took place, how do we know that Jesus is Divine. If Jesus is not Divine, then we can skip some of His annoying thoughts about sinning no more. Later, I learned that the loaves and fish chapter was an example of modern Arianism.

There are other ways “Arianism” is used.

 

[Richca]

Fundamentalist historicity is not a traditional Catholic thing, it is a peculiarity of modern Protestantism that has rubbed off on many Catholics. it is a relatively recent phenomenon in comparison with the whole of Catholic tradition.

Historically, I believe it is a rather very recent phenomenon of biblical scholarship and interpretation that has questioned the historicity of some of the books or passages of the bible and especially of the Old Testament. This has occurred within the last 100-200 years beginning, if my memory serves me right, with some protestant scholars and which didn’t really affect catholic biblical scholarship more or less until the 20th century. Before this novelty which has some good as well as some bad points, the historicity of the Old Testament from Genesis 1 to 2 Maccabees was taken for granted for the most part as historical fact in the whole of the catholic tradition among the fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church as a reading of their writings I think bears out. The Douay-Rheims Challoner Bible with the Challoner notes (18th century) and the Haydock bible with very extensive notes and commentary and lots from the fathers, doctors, and saints (19th century) can be taken I believe as the common catholic understanding of the historicity of the whole Old Testament beginning with the sacred writers of the New Testament from which followed the Apostolic Fathers, the fathers of the Church, the scholastic theologians, and so on down to the printing of the said bibles. For example, the age of the creation of the heavens and the earth was believed to be 4000-7000 years old according to the said bibles commentary notes. The Baltimore Catechism #4 (late 19th century) says the world was about 4000 years old before the time of Christ. Of course, this is computing the years from what is said in the Bible beginning with Adam and Eve. In a word, I think it can be said with historical accuracy that before the rise of modern biblical criticism and science that for the most part the historical character of all the books of the Old Testament and their stories was taken for granted and not questioned and this was probably the case among many of the catholic laity well into the 20th century until the publication of new bibles in the second half of the 20th century.

Again, as an example, it was not until the early part of the 20th century that the Church through the Pontifical Biblical Commission which commission at that time was an official arm of the Magisterial teaching Church from what I understand, stated in the negative that the six days of the creation story in Genesis 1 must be understood as six 24 hour days according to catholic teaching. Before this time, probably the majority of catholics especially the simple folk among the laity as well as many protestant christians probably understood the six days of the creation narrative as six 24 hour days as this was also the common opinion of the church fathers (from what I have read) except that of St Augustine who had a different interpretation.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am extremely hesitant to affirm or deny any biblical account, even those in the OT, because they reflect the imposition of modern understandings on events about which we actually know little or nothing.

I have read that for centuries, and including this one, that some have consigned the creation story to the realm of “myth” for reasons that simply reflected their understandings of physics.

For example, “let there be light” was consigned to myth because in Genesis it precedes the creation of the sun and stars. They couldn’t be light previously, they opined, because light comes from stars. But in fairly recent times, virtually all astrophysicists have come to accept the “Big Bang” theory, in which a tiny “speck” of immensely intense energy exploded and expanded. So, according to that, light, being energy, would have preceded the formation of stars, which are composed of matter…of atoms that didn’t even exist for a considerable time after the Big Bang. That’s not me or the interpretation of some biblical exegete. It’s physics. Light preceded the stars.

And “darkness was on the face of the deep” preceding the creation of the world. What was “the deep”? Was it the oceans, as some have thought, or was it the “deep” of a nothing that didn’t even contain a “space” that is more and more considered to be a “thing” rather than the “nothing” we have thought it to be.

And “the waters” over which the Spirit of God moved? Was it H2O in that passage? Some astrophysicists assert (with plenty of high-end math behind them) that the “Big Bang” was generated by the partial collision of two or more billowing “membranes” which are more or less equivalent to dimensions. What, indeed, was the vision or mental image presented to the writer of Genesis?

What is all of that? Fact is, we simply don’t know, though it is fascinating to think about.

Did Moses part the Red Sea or “Reed Sea” or whatever it was? Well, we know now that “wind set-down” can cause a phenomenon like that, and occasionally does.

Which opens up another fascinating inquiry into the nature of miracles. Were miracles a “suspension of the laws of nature” as many have thought, or are they the result of coinciding natural events intended by God from all eternity, with all things set in motion in such a way as to accommodate things like the parting of the Red Sea? In some ways that seems more awe-inspiring than God simply intervening in time to tell the Red Sea to part despite its otherwise prevailing inclination not to do so. Might the laws of physics, instead, have required the event, with everything necessary to that obedience having been set in motion at the creation of the Universe, to coincide at exactly the right moment with the movement of the Israelites?

In other words, are the things we consider to be “supernatural” in one way, “supernatural” in a far more complex way? And should we demand of the Bible that it correspond to the level of understanding of the early 21st Century or criticize it if it doesn’t seem to do so?

Consider just a grasshopper. There are probably trillions of them, and they have been around for what? Millions of years. And yet, the grasshopper I see today is indisputably the descendant of millions of years of grasshoppers, and only one line of grasshoppers (most of which died out long ago). And before that line of grasshoppers there was (evolutionists tell us) previous histories of previous creatures (most of which died off without reproducing) that led to the evolution of the very first grasshopper.

Now, there’s a statistical (at least statistical) miracle almost beyond all comprehension. All those millions of years of grasshoppers that did NOT die before reproducing, and in a single direct line producing the grasshopper I see before me.

We accept such things without ever considering the statistical near-impossibility of my seeing this particular grasshopper on a particular day in a particular place, and having functioning human eyes to see it and recognize it. And yet, when it comes to the bible, we choke on even accepting far easier things like the collapse of the walls of Jericho or Moses producing water out of rock by striking it.

I’m cautious, that’s all.

 

[DebChris]

I am extremely hesitant to affirm or deny any biblical account, even those in the OT, because they reflect the imposition of modern understandings on events about which we actually know little or nothing.

I have read that for centuries, and including this one, that some have consigned the creation story to the realm of “myth” for reasons that simply reflected their understandings of physics.

For example, “let there be light” was consigned to myth because in Genesis it precedes the creation of the sun and stars. They couldn’t be light previously, they opined, because light comes from stars. But in fairly recent times, virtually all astrophysicists have come to accept the “Big Bang” theory, in which a tiny “speck” of immensely intense energy exploded and expanded. So, according to that, light, being energy, would have preceded the formation of stars, which are composed of matter…of atoms that didn’t even exist for a considerable time after the Big Bang. That’s not me or the interpretation of some biblical exegete. It’s physics. Light preceded the stars.

And “darkness was on the face of the deep” preceding the creation of the world. What was “the deep”? Was it the oceans, as some have thought, or was it the “deep” of a nothing that didn’t even contain a “space” that is more and more considered to be a “thing” rather than the “nothing” we have thought it to be.

And “the waters” over which the Spirit of God moved? Was it H2O in that passage? Some astrophysicists assert (with plenty of high-end math behind them) that the “Big Bang” was generated by the partial collision of two or more billowing “membranes” which are more or less equivalent to dimensions. What, indeed, was the vision or mental image presented to the writer of Genesis?

What is all of that? Fact is, we simply don’t know, though it is fascinating to think about.

Did Moses part the Red Sea or “Reed Sea” or whatever it was? Well, we know now that “wind set-down” can cause a phenomenon like that, and occasionally does.

Which opens up another fascinating inquiry into the nature of miracles. Were miracles a “suspension of the laws of nature” as many have thought, or are they the result of coinciding natural events intended by God from all eternity, with all things set in motion in such a way as to accommodate things like the parting of the Red Sea? In some ways that seems more awe-inspiring than God simply intervening in time to tell the Red Sea to part despite its otherwise prevailing inclination not to do so. Might the laws of physics, instead, have required the event, with everything necessary to that obedience having been set in motion at the creation of the Universe, to coincide at exactly the right moment with the movement of the Israelites?

In other words, are the things we consider to be “supernatural” in one way, “supernatural” in a far more complex way? And should we demand of the Bible that it correspond to the level of understanding of the early 21st Century or criticize it if it doesn’t seem to do so?

Consider just a grasshopper. There are probably trillions of them, and they have been around for what? Millions of years. And yet, the grasshopper I see today is indisputably the descendant of millions of years of grasshoppers, and only one line of grasshoppers (most of which died out long ago). And before that line of grasshoppers there was (evolutionists tell us) previous histories of previous creatures (most of which died off without reproducing) that led to the evolution of the very first grasshopper.

Now, there’s a statistical (at least statistical) miracle almost beyond all comprehension. All those millions of years of grasshoppers that did NOT die before reproducing, and in a single direct line producing the grasshopper I see before me.

We accept such things without ever considering the statistical near-impossibility of my seeing this particular grasshopper on a particular day in a particular place, and having functioning human eyes to see it and recognize it. And yet, when it comes to the bible, we choke on even accepting far easier things like the collapse of the walls of Jericho or Moses producing water out of rock by striking it.

I’m cautious, that’s all.

My faith is not shaken by the idea that God used natural means to achieve His ends.
God spoke and (Big Bang) the universe was created.
Do we have night and day? Yes. Do we have land and seas and oceans? Yes.
Does the rainbow come out after a rain?

The variety of types of books and writing within the Bible express the Truth the inspired writer was trying to convey. Jonah could not hide from God. Nineveh repented. There’s even humor in the story.

There are the historical books like Exodus that recount the flight out of Egypt. I don’t know too many people who discount the existence of Abraham and his descendants. This story does begin in Genesis. The Jewish people, and people who follow Islam both trace their ancestry to Abraham. Both remain under the Covenant of the Circumcision.

There are certainly times when God worked to show His power on behalf of His people. There are dramatic events like the fall of Jericho. The OT shows a pattern of God’s protection as long as His people remained faithful. There are also the quieter works that were not always accompanied by trumpets. “God was not in the earthquake.”
God continues to work today, if we let Him, in our own hearts.

The question is whether or not we are willing to listen to the still quiet voice.

 

[Tim_D]

When trying to define Modern Arianism, I would simply say that Jesus Christ is a great prophet even to the point that He can bring about healing miracles. But, He is not considered fully Divine. Jesus is from the Father but not equal to the Father.

So, you are telling me that, even though you throw the word around, you cannot define “arianism” and from what you post you do not know the definition of “arianism.”

I fail to understand how, in not taking a literal interpretation of the early Genesis accounts, this equals to an embracing of true arianism.

 

[Tim_D]

My faith is not shaken by the idea that God used natural means to achieve His ends.
God spoke and (Big Bang) the universe was created.
Do we have night and day? Yes. Do we have land and seas and oceans? Yes.
Does the rainbow come out after a rain?

The variety of types of books and writing within the Bible express the Truth the inspired writer was trying to convey. Jonah could not hide from God. Nineveh repented. There’s even humor in the story.

There are the historical books like Exodus that recount the flight out of Egypt. I don’t know too many people who discount the existence of Abraham and his descendants. This story does begin in Genesis. The Jewish people, and people who follow Islam both trace their ancestry to Abraham. Both remain under the Covenant of the Circumcision.

There are certainly times when God worked to show His power on behalf of His people. There are dramatic events like the fall of Jericho. The OT shows a pattern of God’s protection as long as His people remained faithful. There are also the quieter works that were not always accompanied by trumpets. “God was not in the earthquake.”
God continues to work today, if we let Him, in our own hearts.

The question is whether or not we are willing to listen to the still quiet voice.

Yours is the best post on this thread!

 

[Ridgerunner]

My faith is not shaken by the idea that God used natural means to achieve His ends.
God spoke and (Big Bang) the universe was created.
Do we have night and day? Yes. Do we have land and seas and oceans? Yes.
Does the rainbow come out after a rain?

The variety of types of books and writing within the Bible express the Truth the inspired writer was trying to convey. Jonah could not hide from God. Nineveh repented. There’s even humor in the story.

There are the historical books like Exodus that recount the flight out of Egypt. I don’t know too many people who discount the existence of Abraham and his descendants. This story does begin in Genesis. The Jewish people, and people who follow Islam both trace their ancestry to Abraham. Both remain under the Covenant of the Circumcision.

There are certainly times when God worked to show His power on behalf of His people. There are dramatic events like the fall of Jericho. The OT shows a pattern of God’s protection as long as His people remained faithful. There are also the quieter works that were not always accompanied by trumpets. “God was not in the earthquake.”
God continues to work today, if we let Him, in our own hearts.

The question is whether or not we are willing to listen to the still quiet voice.

Well said, but I sometimes wonder if we err by separating “natural means” mentally from “supernatural means”. One can think of them as being the very same thing. God intends all things from all eternity, from the Big Bang, to the spinning of one single electron around a nucleus to the election of Pope Francis to the existence of a single grasshopper in southwest Missouri. He holds all things in his mind; every atom, every subatomic particle, every bit of energy, without which they would pass out of existence.

One can, in a small way, think of all creation as a symphony written by someone like Mozart. The whole is a marvel in itself, but every single note and every harmony is intended.

 

[DebChris]

Well said, but I sometimes wonder if we err by separating “natural means” mentally from “supernatural means”. One can think of them as being the very same thing. God intends all things from all eternity, from the Big Bang, to the spinning of one single electron around a nucleus to the election of Pope Francis to the existence of a single grasshopper in southwest Missouri. He holds all things in his mind; every atom, every subatomic particle, every bit of energy, without which they would pass out of existence.

One can, in a small way, think of all creation as a symphony written by someone like Mozart. The whole is a marvel in itself, but every single note and every harmony is intended.

No sparrow falls from a tree without God knowing about it.

I have seen how expertly this symphony is written within my own life. A priest gave a homily in which he spoke about the extraordinary births of individuals destined to lead extraordinary lives. Of course, after Mass I had to tell him how I am a legend within my own family having been born in the ambulance in front of my Grandmother’s house while my father was at war. His response, “I knew there had to be at least one.”
There are simply too many events to describe how I was placed in a situation where I was needed, or the person I needed “just happened to be” where he was when I needed him.

 

[grannymh]

So, you are telling me that, even though you throw the word around, you cannot define “arianism” and from what you post you do not know the definition of “arianism.”

I fail to understand how, in not taking a literal interpretation of the early Genesis accounts, this equals to an embracing of true arianism.

In this thread, it really is not necessary to understand modern Arianism.

Still, someone might be interested in the original scorning of the Divine Creator (Original Sin) which required the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity to step in. John 3: 16-17. Obviously, that requires knowledge of real events which are described in the first three chapters of Genesis.
CCC 397-398.

 

[reggieM]

Seeing as how the Gospels mention nothing about thunder claps and lightening strikes when Jesus turned water into wine, I fail to see how my statement could have any influence on what you think I believe about other things presented in the Gospels.

I’m trying to understand what you believe.

In regards to the veil of the temple being split, do you not think that there would be some outside source recording something which would have been seen as so miraculous and disturbing for the Jews of the time or do you not give the slightest possibility to the fact that the Gospel author used it as a device to illustrate that the veil that that symbolized the separation of man from God was dissolved and that the temple sacrifice of burnt offerings was no longer efficacious due to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross?

That’s quite a long sentence, but you’re saying that you don’t believe the veil in the temple was split. The reason for that, is there is “no outside source recording it”. Again, that is very helpful.

The feeding of the 5,000? No outside source recording - so I’ll assume you think it is a myth. Jesus walking on the water. The same. Jesus raising Lazarus? The same. Jesus raising the daugher of Jarius? The same. Lots of myths in the New Testament, but according to your view, apparently, there are still “spiritual truths” there so it’s all good.

Oddly, you do seem to think that Jesus changed water into wine, but perhaps you have an outside source that recorded and confirmed that.

The meteorological events during Christ’s miracles and the crucifixion are not Catholic doctrine.

Ok, good to know. According to you, the earthquake didn’t happen nor did the eclipse.
We’re making some progress here. Perhaps you agree with John Dominic Crossan that Jesus did not actually rise from the dead?
These things are important to know about your views - again, since you expect people to agree with you and follow your interpretations.

Is it not possible that things were presented in such a way that would speak to the Jews of the time, the same way that Christ speaking the beatitudes was presented as Moses the lawgiver giving the Hebrews the laws of God?

So, Jesus didn’t actually speak the beatitudes but they were invented by the Gospel writers to mimic what Moses said in giving the Law to the Hebrews - right?

As we work through the supposed miracles in the New Testament - most of which you reject as literal (I’m assuming) we could move to the words of Jesus Himself.

Again, no outside source recording - so rather than go through the entire New Testament it’s probably safe to assume that you believe the entire thing is fictional (except the miracle of the water changing to wine?) - is that a good assessment of your views?

 

[Tim_D]

This is pointless.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m trying to understand what you believe.

That’s quite a long sentence, but you’re saying that you don’t believe the veil in the temple was split. The reason for that, is there is “no outside source recording it”. Again, that is very helpful.

The feeding of the 5,000? No outside source recording - so I’ll assume you think it is a myth. Jesus walking on the water. The same. Jesus raising Lazarus? The same. Jesus raising the daugher of Jarius? The same. Lots of myths in the New Testament, but according to your view, apparently, there are still “spiritual truths” there so it’s all good.

Oddly, you do seem to think that Jesus changed water into wine, but perhaps you have an outside source that recorded and confirmed that.

Ok, good to know. According to you, the earthquake didn’t happen nor did the eclipse.
We’re making some progress here. Perhaps you agree with John Dominic Crossan that Jesus did not actually rise from the dead?
These things are important to know about your views - again, since you expect people to agree with you and follow your interpretations.

So, Jesus didn’t actually speak the beatitudes but they were invented by the Gospel writers to mimic what Moses said in giving the Law to the Hebrews - right?

As we work through the supposed miracles in the New Testament - most of which you reject as literal (I’m assuming) we could move to the words of Jesus Himself.

Again, no outside source recording - so rather than go through the entire New Testament it’s probably safe to assume that you believe the entire thing is fictional (except the miracle of the water changing to wine?) - is that a good assessment of your views?

Its a grey world Reggie.
Not every miracle or wonder recorded in the Bible is going to be literally true and there is nothing wrong or misplaced in applying reason to guage the liklihood of the more extreme examples.

The Church is not a truth machine, a video recorder that alledges it can with absolute certainty propose any particular historical truth other than the resurrection I suppose.

One does not need to believe definitively in Jesus’s miracles or those of the saints to be a Catholic as far as I know.

 

[grannymh]

Its a grey world Reggie.
Not every miracle or wonder recorded in the Bible is going to be literally true and there is nothing wrong or misplaced in applying reason to guage the liklihood of the more extreme examples.

The Church is not a truth machine, a video recorder that alledges it can with absolute certainty propose any particular historical truth other than the resurrection I suppose.

One does not need to believe definitively in Jesus’s miracles or those of the saints to be a Catholic as far as I know.

Catholicism believes in the Divinity of Jesus which is expressed in the New Testament. Unfortunately, very few modern Catholics have been trained to see the issue of Divinity in the first three valuable chapters of Genesis, that is, in the Old Testament. Pope Pius XII recognized the problem in the 1940’s.

 

[steve_b]

My faith is not shaken by the idea that God used natural means to achieve His ends.
God spoke and (Big Bang) the universe was created.
Do we have night and day? Yes. Do we have land and seas and oceans? Yes.
Does the rainbow come out after a rain?

The variety of types of books and writing within the Bible express the Truth the inspired writer was trying to convey. Jonah could not hide from God. Nineveh repented. There’s even humor in the story.

There are the historical books like Exodus that recount the flight out of Egypt. I don’t know too many people who discount the existence of Abraham and his descendants. This story does begin in Genesis. The Jewish people, and people who follow Islam both trace their ancestry to Abraham. Both remain under the Covenant of the Circumcision.

There are certainly times when God worked to show His power on behalf of His people. There are dramatic events like the fall of Jericho. The OT shows a pattern of God’s protection as long as His people remained faithful. There are also the quieter works that were not always accompanied by trumpets. “God was not in the earthquake.”
God continues to work today, if we let Him, in our own hearts.

The question is whether or not we are willing to listen to the still quiet voice.

and in extension, back on your post #38 , as far as the issue of actual “time” in Genesis is concerned,

Peter said 2 Peter 3:8 ]
Therefore, when comparing time in God’s timing “is like”…? “is like” is NOT meant to be an exact comparison. Make it a million or a billion years is like a day in God’s timing, because to God who is outside of time, there is no time. So technically, Genesis and science when it comes to timing those events in creation, don’t have to conflict.