Myth..alegory..real event?

Win At Life said:

---

Aliens. It's always Aliens.

---

Not what I was wanting to address/looking for, but...


Do you think this event actually occurred? Giggles are optional.

Strangely, this is one of the more plausible stories in Genesis. A meteor the size of a building crashing into Earth could wipe out an ancient city pretty easily.

Win At Life said:

---

Spyderman said:

---

Win At Life said:

---

Aliens. It's always Aliens.

---

Not what I was wanting to address/looking for, but...


Do you think this event actually occurred? Giggles are optional.

---

Well, then. My personal interpretation of scripture is to take it at face value first, when the scripture intends itself to be face value (i.e. not parable, poetic or symbolic at face value). So, yes, I believe it happened basically as depicted. And my personal belief is that is was a meteor/asteroid event.

---

I've heard that ground evidence has been located where they think the 2 cities once were suggesting very high heat was involved. I too think it was a real event. It very well could have been a directed meteor event. By whom?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2018/12/04/new-science-suggests-biblical-city-of-sodom-was-smote-by-an-exploding-meteor/?sh=5b43bc925c67

Vindicated by science

https://www.timesofisrael.com/evidence-of-sodom-meteor-blast-cause-of-biblical-destruction-say-scientists/

These are historical realities and ALSO myths

Very similar to the Greek and Roman and Hindu gods and all other pagan gods, including those of the Americas

ALL of those gods are real

These are elhoims once, and maybe now, in the court of Elohim, the Triune God, who rules all and created all. Some are fallen angels, and some not (angel is a job description - messenger - not a category of being, just as satan is - accuser).

Then, humans add in their imperfections and subjectivity in our understanding and memory.

REAL

What does historical archeology affirm? The Old Testament.

Which 19th Century Saint, in her visions, led archeologists to affirm Biblical reality via archeology - more than once? Anne Catherine Emmerich.

Shroud of Turn

REAL

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3187078

What about the pillar of salt?

Redstone said:

---

These are historical realities and ALSO myths

Very similar to the Greek and Roman and Hindu gods and all other pagan gods, including those of the Americas

ALL of those gods are real

These are elhoims once, and maybe now, in the court of Elohim, the Triune God, who rules all and created all. Some are fallen angels, and some not (angel is a job description - messenger - not a category of being, just as satan is - accuser).

Then, humans add in their imperfections and subjectivity in our understanding and memory.

REAL

---

Yes, real ET in origin. Men "made" them "gods" IMO. Some equate elhoims with the Annunki.

I've seen videos where archeologists are finding evidence...sulfur balls and high temps..melted glass etc.

Many of the stories in scripture are infact based in reality IMO. Many of the stories in the Hindu religion as well.

Then we have the Dogon people of Mali.....amazing story they have.

Maybe. My summary is here

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3190665/replies/59029510

Bottom line:
Inter-Dimensional

Redstone said:

---

What does historical archeology affirm? The Old Testament.

Which 19th Century Saint, in her visions, led archeologists to affirm Biblical reality via archeology - more than once? Anne Catherine Emmerich.

---

Except for where it very clearly doesn't. Tower of Babel, exodus, conquest, creation (if you are one of those), global flood ...

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I have no reason to believe it isn't true. It didn't say jk/lol at the end.

---

It doesn't say that about a global flood or Tower of Babel but most Christians reject those. It doesn't need to say jk to be an intentionally mythical tale

Aggrad08 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I have no reason to believe it isn't true. It didn't say jk/lol at the end.

---

It doesn't say that about a global flood or Tower of Babel but most Christians reject those. It doesn't need to say jk to be an intentionally mythical tale

---

On what do you base this assertion?

A LOT has been historically validated....if you have an understanding as the Apostolic faith (Catholic / Orthodox) do:

Sacraments

So, for example, Adam and Eve were not the first hominids - not at all. They were the "First Man" of the Sacramental promise. Adam was a priest. Christ is the New Adam, Son of Man.

Adam founded Jerusalem and Jesus was crucified over his gravesite. (There's more about elohims, but this is a materialist point).

Applies to much else:
Flood - this is:
- real event - Black Sea expansion
- Sacramental point of Baptism

Ordhound04 said:

---

Ezekiel addresses the issue with Sodom explicitly:
'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

Another aspect of Sodom and Gomorrah is the issue of hospitality and treatment of strangers.

The fornication aspect of Sodom and Gomorrah is mentioned in 2 Peter and Jude.

---

I'm not defending Sodom. The question is what is God's relationship with Lot. When the people of Sodom come to Lot's house and demand the angels be given to them, Lot offers his virgin daughters to the mob to do what they will. After Lot has fled the city, his daughters proceed to get their father drunk and have sex with him.

Given what God just did to Sodom, why is Lot spared? Or his daughters?

This question I'm asking presumes that we both agree that offering your virgin daughters to an angry mob is not commendable. And that getting someone drunk and having sex with them while they are not aware (let alone a family member) is also not commendable.

I don't think the patriarchs or really nearly anyone in the OT are set out as great examples. We learn these stories in Sunday school and they're watered down and hero-ized but they're not nice stories, and with very few exceptions they're not nice or good people.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Whatever the story is (real, myth, whatever), it seems clear that it is intended to serve as a warning against sinful behavior. Rape and homosexuality in particular maybe.

What I don't understand is the justification immediately following whereby Lot's daughters get him drunk and sleep with him while he is 'not aware'. There very well be some further explanation of this that I'm not aware of. The actions of the daughters are neither really explicitly condoned or condemned that I know of. On the surface, it seems like we've traded rape and homosexuality for rape and incest.

---

Do you need that to be spelled out to you? Because the Jews didn't.

Zobel said:

---

I don't think the patriarchs or really nearly anyone in the OT are set out as great examples. We learn these stories in Sunday school and they're watered down and hero-ized but they're not nice stories, and with very few exceptions they're not nice or good people.

---

Peter calls him righteous.

2 Pet. 2:6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard);

Redstone said:

---

A LOT has been historically validated....if you have an understanding as the Apostolic faith (Catholic / Orthodox) do:

Sacraments

So, for example, Adam and Eve were not the first hominids - not at all. They were the "First Man" of the Sacramental promise. Adam was a priest.

---

I'm not sure how this applies to my point about all the areas that are firmly invalidated. If you don't believe in a global flood then you substituting a local one isn't really taking it very literally. Same with Adam and Eve and trying to reconcile with evolution.

It applies directly. Sodom, Flood, David / Solomon, Mary's House in Ephesus and much else is VALIDATED - if we understand in the liturgical, Sacramental context.

How? David being a real king doesn't make Babel or the exodus less false.

Because many events are both literal and allegory at the exact same time. An understanding in Sacramental context is how I could affirm Adam is the first man, and also not the first human.

Redstone said:

---

Because many events are both literal and allegory at the exact same time. An understanding in Sacramental context is how I could affirm Adam is the first man, and also not the first human.

---

and many events had better be allegory because they are simply false

Maybe. If the Bible is "inspired," which I affirm as a Catholic, I have no problems whatsoever with historical critique.