"It got a bit blown up in the telling.."

[Elijah John]

To borrow a phrase from Thomas Mc Donald, "It got a bit blown up in the telling".

Thomas was referring to the episode where someone was struck down dead for touching the Ark of the Covenant. The tale indicates that the person meant well, and was trying to steady the cart, but was killed anyway.

Thomas indicated that the reality behind the event was probably a freak, workplace accident where the cart fell on him and killed him. But it "got a bit blown up in the telling".

I'm thinkin that many of the Bible tales have a core reality behind them, but also "got a bit blown up in the telling".

It's easy to be dismissive of the tales considering the unlikely nature of them (if taken literally). And in the words of Thomas Paine, the Bible sometimes does it's cause no justice. Paine put it this way: (to paraphrase from memory) "The Bible has produced nothing but atheists and fanatics".

For debate: Do skeptics err, and are they too quick to dismiss Bible tales as worthless? (Or even harmful or superstitious). In dismissing the tales of the Bible, are skeptics omitting the very real human propensity to exaggerate, and "blow things up in the telling"?

And conversely, are Fundamentalists erring too, when they accept the tales literally, as written. Are they also disregarding the very human propensity to "blow things up in the telling"?

(Thank you Thomas, both Thomases )

[William]

To borrow a phrase from Thomas Mc Donald, "It got a bit blown up in the telling".

Thomas was referring to the episode where someone was struck down dead for touching the Ark of the Covenant. The tale indicates that the person meant well, and was trying to steady the cart, but was killed anyway.

Thomas indicated that the reality behind the event was probably a freak, workplace accident where the cart fell on him and killed him. But it "got a bit blown up in the telling".

I'm thinkin that many of the Bible tales have a core reality behind them, but also "got a bit blown up in the telling".

It's easy to be dismissive of the tales considering the unlikely nature of them (if taken literally). And in the words of Thomas Paine, the Bible sometimes does it's cause no justice. Paine put it this way: (to paraphrase from memory) "The Bible has produced nothing but atheists and fanatics".

For debate: Do skeptics err, and are they too quick to dismiss Bible tales as worthless? (Or even harmful or superstitious). In dismissing the tales of the Bible, are skeptics omitting the very real human propensity to exaggerate, and "blow things up in the telling"?

And conversely, are Fundamentalists erring too, when they accept the tales literally, as written. Are they also disregarding the very human propensity to "blow things up in the telling"?

(Thank you Thomas, both Thomases )

William: William: What allows me to see the funny side of Fireside Yarns, has a lot to do with how - then - people make stuff up about made-up stuff as if somehow this proves that made up stuff is only made up.

True Dear Elijah John - you can't make this stuff up!

When one realizes that Fireside Yarns are part of Human Culture developed as a way of explaining the unexplained in Metaphor, one can then look into the Mythology to see what just might be hidden behind that.

One cannot easily do so whilst inventing stuff about invented stuff...because of that obvious distraction.

Having stated as much, if other Cultures Fireside Yarns show similar stories...and one which springs to mind is Maui catching the Sun in his net I will take that as contributing to the evidence that something strangely out of the ordinary happened one 'non-day' in the past...not unlike the Biblical one...

I think the Biblical tale - and others like it, are most likely inventions of Roman and Jewish People combining their imaginations in order to create a Fireside Yarn intent on getting the listeners to focus upon said story.

It worked a charm.

The reasons for 'why' - this particular Fireside Yarn - seem obvious, but it pays to be vigilant nonetheless.

The Biblical Christ reigns in the hearts and imaginations of the most vulnerable listeners, not attentive to The Greater Fireside Yarn which nestles all Human Fireside Yarns in the bosom of Her ample Yards.

In My Fathers House - There are Many such Yarns. This one has been prepared for You.

Happy Earth Entity Day People.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by William]

And happy Earth Day to you as well. I think St. Francis called her "Sister Mother Earth". He was very much in touch with God's Creation.

[Zzyzx]

.

I'm thinkin that many of the Bible tales have a core reality behind them, but also "got a bit blown up in the telling".

Agree; however, exactly the same thing can be said for tales / legends Robin Hood, Ali Baba, John Henry, and Paul Bunyan.

Fortunately, few people attempt to promote those tales as being being guides for life decisions.

Note: Mein Kampf contains some truthful and useful information.

It's easy to be dismissive of the tales considering the unlikely nature of them (if taken literally).

Agreed.

And in the words of Thomas Paine, the Bible sometimes does it's cause no justice. Paine put it this way: (to paraphrase from memory) "The Bible has produced nothing but atheists and fanatics".

I suggest instead that the Bible produces a continuum of positions between extremes 'Atheist' and 'Fanatic'. BUT the most extreme ends get a lot of attention.

Non-fanatical Theists / Christians / Deists do not seem to be as vocal or as attention-seeking.

Do skeptics err, and are they too quick to dismiss Bible tales as worthless?

Complete dismissal and complete acceptance are probably both illogical. As Thomas Paine says there may be, 'diamonds in the dung heap'.

Unfortunately, many Christians / Apologists / Debaters appear to regard the entire 'dung heap' as being diamond.

There has not been offered a means by which a reasoned decision can be made regarding which Bible tales are 'diamond' and/or which are literal truth. It is a matter of opinion and/or cherry picking (in positive or negative directions)

(Or even harmful or superstitious).

Condoning or encouraging warfare, genocide, slavery, capturing virgins 'for yourselves', etc ARE example of harmful.

Definition of superstition: excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings: a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief; A widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/superstition

In dismissing the tales of the Bible, are skeptics omitting the very real human propensity to exaggerate, and "blow things up in the telling"?

Most of us are probably aware of the propensity to exaggerate, particularly in folklore, legend, and myth.

And conversely, are Fundamentalists erring too, when they accept the tales literally, as written. Are they also disregarding the very human propensity to "blow things up in the telling"?

Those who insist that Bible tales are literal / accurate / historical descriptions of events that occurred in the real world evidently DENY exaggeration occurred " and claim that long-dead bodies really did come back to life (multiple examples), donkeys and snakes spoke human languages, etc.

[Elijah John]

.

I'm thinkin that many of the Bible tales have a core reality behind them, but also "got a bit blown up in the telling".

Agree; however, exactly the same thing can be said for tales / legends Robin Hood, Ali Baba, John Henry, and Paul Bunyan.

Fortunately, few people attempt to promote those tales as being being guides for life decisions.

Difference being, of course, that some of those tales are simply intended as good stories. And few if any offer codes of ethics or are companions to books of wisdom or prayers. (Psalms and Proverbs etc.)

[Elijah John]

Complete dismissal and complete acceptance are probably both illogical. As Thomas Paine says there may be, 'diamonds in the dung heap'.

I agree with many of your points in your post (#4), but it was Thomas Jefferson, not Thomas Paine who said that.

Unfortunately, many Christians / Apologists / Debaters appear to regard the entire 'dung heap' as being diamond.

And it amazes me how far the adherents of Bible perfection will go to defend that notion. Even defending the tale of Abraham's attempted slaughter of Isaac, praising him for his "great faith" or defending the keeping and beating of slaves half-to-death. (Exodus 21.20-21)

[Zzyzx]

.

I agree with many of your points in your post (#4), but it was Thomas Jefferson, not Thomas Paine who said that.

Oops -- got the Toms mixed up.

I'm thinkin that many of the Bible tales have a core reality behind them, but also "got a bit blown up in the telling".

Agree; however, exactly the same thing can be said for tales / legends Robin Hood, Ali Baba, John Henry, and Paul Bunyan.

Fortunately, few people attempt to promote those tales as being being guides for life decisions.

Difference being, of course, that some of those tales are simply intended as good stories.

Which tales can be shown to have been 'intended as good stories'? How can that be determined?

Which of the Jesus tales are 'intended as good stories'?

[Thomas123]

Thank You , Elijah John, for giving my submissions here some recognition. It sometimes feels as if our efforts are largely ignored.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hoover-dam-bodies/

" On 22 September 1938, a section of the dam broke loose and slid into the lake below. Eight workers were buried in the debris, and only two of the bodies were recovered, leaving six forever entombed within the mass of the structure."

Workplace accidents do gather traction, even in modern times!

ps
I am using less of everything in Lockdown.
Less clothes, less cleaning agents , less fuel, less everything. This is nothing but a regression towards normalcy. We are chomping on the bit to get back to abnormalcy asap. ( I may be inventing words here)

A present to you for your efforts!

The Lake Isle of Innisfree
BY WILLIAM BUTLER YEATS

I will arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,
And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made;
Nine bean-rows will I have there, a hive for the honey-bee,
And live alone in the bee-loud glade.

And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow,
Dropping from the veils of the morning to where the cricket sings;
There midnights all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,
And evening full of the linnets wings....

[Elijah John]

.

Difference being, of course, that some of those tales are simply intended as good stories.

Which tales can be shown to have been 'intended as good stories'? How can that be determined?

Which of the Jesus tales are 'intended as good stories'?

I was referring to those other tales as intended as good stories, not the Bible ones. I think the Bible tales were at least meant to be mythic and instructive. Though some, no doubt, as history as they understood it.

As for Jesus, are you referring to tales told about him? Or parables told by him.

But you're right. It's hard to tell sometimes which is which.

I have observed that when detractors attack the Bible and the character of God as portrayed in the Bible, they mostly (mostly) cite the narratives of Genesis and Exodus and often (often not always) ignore the Proverbs, the Prophets and the Psalms.

[marco]

Do skeptics err, and are they too quick to dismiss Bible tales as worthless? (Or even harmful or superstitious). In dismissing the tales of the Bible, are skeptics omitting the very real human propensity to exaggerate, and "blow things up in the telling"?

If tales of miracles have a simple rational explanation behind them then there is nothing to be sceptical about. If Lot's wife's tragic dissolution was really an explanation of a hill that looked like a pillar of salt; if Jesus just waded in and Peter stumbled to meet him, and was caught by the Lord; if the apostles simply went up a mountain with Jesus and that was the extent of the ascension - then all is well but Jesus has left the building. There is noting to build altars and cathedrals over.

When I consider various texts I am constantly aware of exaggeration, especially from Matthew.