1 The Bible is not first and foremost a “historical documentary” in the modern sense. The very idea of a historical account striving for objective unbiased reality is fairly recent historically, and the Bible is meant to be a religious text that’s trying to teach you something.
Yes people absolutely did write and read it as an historical account. You need to distinguish between multiple authors who did not sit in a writing room together and editors who collected the works. The reason why multiple reports were collected was to get at the truth. Long lists of names and events were included to establish historical credibility.
#2 The Biblical authors are aware there are contradictions.
Just no. Some of the authors wouldn’t even have been aware of all the other authors.
#3 The Bible contradicts itself intentionally. It’s an ancient Jewish way of teaching to have two rabbis take different stances, and argue publicly. Often, the truth of something is in the tension between two perspectives.
Yes, but using contradictions intentionally as a teaching device applies to the talmud(interpretation of the law), not to the tanach(biblical law). Contradictions in the tanach were seen as something that needs to be explained. And yes, some of them were explained, after the fact, as purposeful by theologians. But if we went to take a historically sound approach, we have to acknowledge, that they are a collection from many verbal sources separated by time and place. So it’s far more likely that these unconnected sources contradict each other precisely because no written account has existed until then.
If contradictions in teaching had been a core part of Jewish theology beforehand, they would continue in writing. There would be many Toras. But the opposite happens:
With the advent of the written word, correct word-for-word transmission of the written law immediately becomes absolutely central to the religion. So the conclusion is inevitable, that contradictions came first and ideology to explain them had to follow after the fact.
Verbal traditions can be contradictory, because contradictions are harder to notice. Once the verbal tradition is frozen as words on paper, the contradictions become obvious and ideology forms around them like a pearl froms around a speck of sand in an oyster, to protect the body of the teaching from the damage.
Yes people absolutely did write and read it as an historical account. You need to distinguish between multiple authors who did not sit in a writing room together and editors who collected the works. The reason why multiple reports were collected was to get at the truth. Long lists of names and events were included to establish historical credibility.
Were you raised in a protestant country? Because this is a very protestant logic.
Why the F do you all need to make things about xyz religion that isn’t Christianity EVERY time? Just because we aren’t sleeping with you doesn’t mean we’re sleeping with someone else ffs.
Most of the people around me fall into one of these
Religious fanatics that believe if a baby isn’t baptised its the end of the world
Crazy people that believe 5G is the end of us, that have 5G routers in their own homes
People so poor they barely have clothes and food
People with close to 0 education working minimum wage barely surviving
As opposed to what you seem to think I grew my own spine while most people in my life did all but sabotage me, besides my father, brother and a few others.
The fact that you seem to think I can’t have my own thoughts and knowledge in my head shows a lot of your own character.
Nobody taught me to think what you’re saying is dumb.
you’re defined by your environment, either by aligning to it or by rejecting it. You’re never free from it. What I’m saying is that that’s your understanding of spirituality and religion, even if you reject it, because most people around you employ that worldview. And it has very little to do with your rational side or critical thinking.
I can play devil’s advocate too:
Yes people absolutely did write and read it as an historical account. You need to distinguish between multiple authors who did not sit in a writing room together and editors who collected the works. The reason why multiple reports were collected was to get at the truth. Long lists of names and events were included to establish historical credibility.
Just no. Some of the authors wouldn’t even have been aware of all the other authors.
Yes, but using contradictions intentionally as a teaching device applies to the talmud(interpretation of the law), not to the tanach(biblical law). Contradictions in the tanach were seen as something that needs to be explained. And yes, some of them were explained, after the fact, as purposeful by theologians. But if we went to take a historically sound approach, we have to acknowledge, that they are a collection from many verbal sources separated by time and place. So it’s far more likely that these unconnected sources contradict each other precisely because no written account has existed until then.
If contradictions in teaching had been a core part of Jewish theology beforehand, they would continue in writing. There would be many Toras. But the opposite happens: With the advent of the written word, correct word-for-word transmission of the written law immediately becomes absolutely central to the religion. So the conclusion is inevitable, that contradictions came first and ideology to explain them had to follow after the fact.
Verbal traditions can be contradictory, because contradictions are harder to notice. Once the verbal tradition is frozen as words on paper, the contradictions become obvious and ideology forms around them like a pearl froms around a speck of sand in an oyster, to protect the body of the teaching from the damage.
Were you raised in a protestant country? Because this is a very protestant logic.
Sounds like normal person logic to me.
Why the F do you all need to make things about xyz religion that isn’t Christianity EVERY time? Just because we aren’t sleeping with you doesn’t mean we’re sleeping with someone else ffs.
Are most of the people around you raised in a protestant culture? Because that would explain a lot.
Most of the people around me fall into one of these
As opposed to what you seem to think I grew my own spine while most people in my life did all but sabotage me, besides my father, brother and a few others.
The fact that you seem to think I can’t have my own thoughts and knowledge in my head shows a lot of your own character.
Nobody taught me to think what you’re saying is dumb.
you’re defined by your environment, either by aligning to it or by rejecting it. You’re never free from it. What I’m saying is that that’s your understanding of spirituality and religion, even if you reject it, because most people around you employ that worldview. And it has very little to do with your rational side or critical thinking.