- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Thought this was an interesting article. Quote:And now this: a scientific report establishing that camels, the basic mode of transportation for the biblical patriarchs, weren’t domesticated in Israel until hundreds of years after Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are said to have wandered the earth.
As is being discussed in another thread it is near impossible to take the Bible as a literal historical document anymore. The issues of historical reliability within Mormonism (as separate from Christianity in general) are no worse than the same issues within Judaism and Christianity. (and, to be fair, every other major religion [not denomination] in the world) Seriously, every issue within Mormonism can be found on steroids in the Bible and from the close of the Bible to the birth of Joseph Smith. I could make a very good argument that if someone was looking for a “continuation” or “restoration” of “
allthings”, the messiness that is Mormon history fits such a description perfectly. 🙂 I don’t remember camels playing a particularly strong role in the Old Testament. It is worth mentioning one of the Hebrew letters, Gimel takes its name from the camel, and Gamal/Jamal, a common middle eastern name means Camel. But I don’t read the Bible for the camels. Worth remembering also that archeology is a work in progress. What they say this week, will be different to last week, and to next week. Next week, they could turn something up that completely contradicts this notion, and proves camels were in use well before this.
Besides which the Bible, and the BoM indeed, are primarily scripture. We don’t read them to know about Babylonian building practises or Egyptian
pets, we read them as part of worship, and spiritual
education/edification. If I was building a boat, I wouldn’t use the BoM
as a guide.
Biblical literalism has been creeping in as we ally ourselves with evangelicals and others for political causes. It’s not making us any smarter. Actually, the worst literalists, Hawkgrrl, are so called skeptics and rationalists in my experience. It’s the only way they seem to be able to read the Bible. I’ve no idea how they get along with musical, artistic or literary interpretation, because they only seem to be able to take things at surface value. SamBee wrote:Actually, the worst literalists, Hawkgrrl, are so called skeptics and rationalists in my experience. It’s the only way they seem to be able to read the Bible. I’ve no idea how they get along with musical, artistic or literary interpretation, because they only seem to be able to take things at surface value.
That’s because so many religious people run around making a big deal that it is literal, at least all the vocal ones. We are just reacting to what we hear. This nuanced non literal belief that many cherish is not coming through loud and clear like the literalists.Personally I do not see a big difference. Non literal belief just let’s you reconcile the discrepancies better. Where as literal belief just forces you into a somewhat smaller box.
Before Curtis jumps in I am referring to the belief that scripture is dictated by god not whether it has value or meaning
SamBee wrote:Actually, the worst literalists, Hawkgrrl, are so called skeptics and rationalists in my experience. It’s the only way they seem to be able to read the Bible. I’ve no idea how they get along with musical, artistic or literary interpretation, because they only seem to be able to take things at surface value.
By the way I do appreciate artistic things. Music and art are a part of my life. It may be because I can appreciate them on their own merits and not because I need to make them something they are not. No one is claiming a children’s illustrated book on ponies is full of the greatest wisdom of all time. It may have some tidbits here and there but it is not Tom Sawyer.
I agree with Cadence. If we weren’t told the Bible is suppose to be historical then I could easily accept that. If they’re going to make me teach the Bible as if it actually happened, then I’m going to have some issues with that. Quote:Before Curtis jumps in
😆 :clap: The only part of the west in which fundamentalism is part of mainstream Christianity is America. On the other hand, people like Richard Dawkins are very literalist. And he SHOULD know better. Coming from an English Anglican background, he of all people knows few Christians in his home country are literalists or
fundamentalists. The Church of England is notoriously agnostic, to the point of vagueness.
I grew up in a Christian household, and was exposed to a variety of
denominations. Even though I learnt about Eden and the Flood, I was TWELVE before I met a Creationist!!! I must have met hundreds (thousands?) of Christians of different backgrounds before then!
It’s easier to take pot shots at religious literalists, than religious
people with a more nuanced approch. That’s why Dawkins etc tend to chat to snake handlers and not academic theologians. (Who would run rings around him) Even so it’s clear a part of him can’t read it as anything but literal, despite being an unbeliever himself.
What do camels tell us? * That the Bible contains oral tradition. Not exactly a fresh idea, but it explains anachronisms.
* That archeology hasn’t found the evidence yet. Proving a negative is notoriously difficult! What does seem to be clear though is that camels
were never the main form of transport within present day Israel (with the exception of the Negev) – donkeys seemed to fulfil that role.
Evidence may turn up to prove the Genesis camels, but I’m not holding my breath.
By the way, the Bible IS a partly historical book. Historical books do NOT have to be particularly accurate (like Soviet histories of the Russian Revolution), are usually biased (like Tacitus or McAulay), and the older they are, the more magical aspects they contain (like Herodotus or Mayan documents). Its age alone and subject matter make it one. The Book of Mormon qualifies now as an historical document – regardless of how one views its origins.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.