Bible - especially the Old Testament - problems?

[_Danna]

The Old Testament is clearly a mixture of myths and collected oral histories which may have been transmitted orally for hundreds of years before being written down. If I recall correctly many of the books of moses were 'discovered' during the time of the prophets, so the stories were probably not written down until then (probably be the discoverer).

I have always liked to read them though - not for divine guidance, but for the insight into life so long ago. The people are so similar to us in many ways, yet so so different. Thinking of Esau saying "what is that red stuff" makes me laugh, as that is exactly what my husband said the time I tried making red lentil bolognaise.

As a young Mormon I had no problem with the obvious myth and legend in the Old Testament - that was to be expected. It was when the same stories, and outright errors and anachronisms were set in concrete as 'FACT' by their appearance in the Book of Mormon and PoGP that the problems began.

After learning that the phrase 'of Chaldees' was a scribal gloss and that Abraham certainly had nothing to do with Chaldea, chaldeans etc, I dove straight into the Book of Abraham expecting to find the JSjr would have the correct story - but no, JSjr has Abraham galavanting around a non-existant Chadea, speaking non-existant Chaldean, and talking about non-existant Chaldean customs. Talk about caught with one's pant's down.

[_huckelberry]

Danna, you seem to share some of my Old Testament views. I find the book quite interesting as an in depth vieiw into peoples thought and experience long ago.

Even if I am using the view that it is Gods word I do not expect most of the material to be telling me what to do. It does do that occasionally, ten commandments, much of proverbs is worth reflection. The prophetic call to social justice is of ongoing value. I do not see any reason to try to read moral messages into all the events related. Some of the events probably looked messy and confusing then as now.

There seems to be no end to people insisting on seeing all the folktale elements in the old material to be factually accurate. I do not see any chance of that being the case. Sometimes people argue that if some of it is fiction then perhaps none of it is history. I see no logic in that. I seems quite clear some of it is history some fiction and some like Exodus a subtle hybred of the two.

[_aussieguy55]

I found the Book of Ruth to be an interesting book. It seens as thoughhey had their own welfare state. The pooru could pick up the loose strands of wheat and also any sheaves that fell apart as well as the wheat in the corners. I wonder if the rich complained about the lazy poor then. Naomi seems to be the matchmaker with a plan for Ruth to catch her man (Boaz). You learn women could be sexually haressed back then as Boaz tells the men to leave her alone. Then you have the instance where Ruth lies down on the corner of Boaz's coat. Some scholars say Boaz would have been drinking the night before after the harvest. He wakes up and finds a woman at his feet. A possible scandel. Only chapters and there is so much sociological information in there.