Quote:
Originally Posted by Solon
I'm not sure if I understand perfectly. I certainly think there's merit in determining the historicity of particular events, if only to satisfy antiquarian curiosity, but it really doesn't matter much to me if certain fantastic or supernatural episodes in the Bible are "true" or factual. I have no way of determining if, for instance, a long ago people tried to build a tower to heaven in some type of pre-historic society. What does matter to me is those who believed this story and how it affected them and their actions.
But, if you're referring to the distinction between this type of supernatural story and the basic historical texts (e.g. Chronicles) that can be somewhat established chronologically and geographically, then sure.
What I'm interested in is how myth affects history. I don't really care if the myth is "true" or not. What matters is how historical persons interacted with their myths.
Is this the distinction you're making? If so, we're on the same page.
I wonder if knowing whether there was a real flood that covered the earth, a limited flood that covered the known earth, or an allegorical flood that never happened would really change people's religious beliefs all that much (other than their belief in the flood). I really don't know.
|
The slope that believers fear is stating some things are simply allegorical, then belief is not real, just made up, manufactured. Disbelievers find joy in it because anything supernatural is necessarily untrue, not historical.
For example, because we do not empirically witness persons rising from the grave, the empiricist will declare, men do not resurrect. If the historian endeavors to determine if proof exists for this allegation, both the believer and disbeliever are disturbed. The believer doesn't want the core of his belief called into question, and the disbeliever doesn't want anybody to investigate anything which "obviously isn't true" because it can't withstand empirical standards.