Old Testament: Representational or Literal?

[creekster]

In other words, the bible is correct as far as the text is a correct depiction of actual events. I guess I'm really going out on a limb by saying that the bible is true to the extent that it is true, aren't I?

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't – till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them – particularly verbs, they're the proudest – adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs – however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

Through the Looking Glass; Lewis Carroll

[All-American]

I struggle more with what I think about the OT than the NT. It comes across as much like the mythology of the Hebrews as an explanation of their origins. Similar to the Greek and Roman Gods, in that those civilizations used the Gods to explain the world around them.

It does raise the question for believers as to how much of the bible is man-made etiology and how much is God-delivered revelation. Even more perplexing is the idea that God has apparently authorized the creation account (see the creation accounts in the Pearl of Great Price, for example). You either have to dispute the idea that God has authorized those accounts, accept them as literal, or accept the idea that God has decided that a hybrid of artificial etiology and divine inspiration is sufficient for his purposes.

[jay santos]

It does raise the question for believers as to how much of the bible is man-made etiology and how much is God-delivered revelation. Even more perplexing is the idea that God has apparently authorized the creation account (see the creation accounts in the Pearl of Great Price, for example). You either have to dispute the idea that God has authorized those accounts, accept them as literal, or accept the idea that God has decided that a hybrid of artificial etiology and divine inspiration is sufficient for his purposes.

This comes back to point I made a couple weeks ago here that LDS have a more difficult time making sense of the Old Testament than any other religious group, because Joseph Smith brought additional numerous teachings that makes it more difficult to dismiss OT allegories.

[pellegrino]

It does raise the question for believers as to how much of the bible is man-made etiology and how much is God-delivered revelation. Even more perplexing is the idea that God has apparently authorized the creation account (see the creation accounts in the Pearl of Great Price, for example). You either have to dispute the idea that God has authorized those accounts, accept them as literal, or accept the idea that God has decided that a hybrid of artificial etiology and divine inspiration is sufficient for his purposes.

This is where I feel most scripture falls, simply because there are too many human factors involved in the production and reproduction of sacred texts. No sacred text was actually written as the purported events happened. Even if miraculous and great things occurred the laps in time between the event and the retelling causes a large amount of human error to creep in. Then the retelling is always colored by the biases of the narrator. Just look at the way a Ute fan and a BYU fan look at any given play or game.

In short, the only feasible option (for me) is to say that the errors of men are acceptable to God.