from MY standpoint which is very, very narrow: WHO is this "God" the writers are speaking of. All the patriarchal/political stuff in the Bible is completely boring and simply creative ways at wielding cultural power.

Whether there is a Mt. Sinai or not is a non-issue. Whether Moses was partly historical and partly mythical is a non-issue. IF myth has been added to the character of Moses, it is THAT that I am interested in (easily identifiable as I've never seen a person's face emanate rays or "shine" like the sun). WHY did the scribe decide to embellish a historical character using very, very, very, very cryptic terms and attributes? Either it's really NOT cryptic (i.e. people of the day - the intended audience - understood it) or it WAS cryptic even in its day to the "intended" audience. I believe (strongly) it's the latter.

I honestly don't know why people here on this board are not at least interested in attempting to understand the symbolism (even if it's not wholly correct) because it seems we might, just might, understand the writers' beliefs better than we do now (i.e. having asked many a biblical "scholar" about certain passages). I am wholly shocked by how little so many of them DO know about these certain passages (and I'm not easily shocked). The simplest questions are overwhelming to people with PhD's in theology. SIMPLE questions. They're stuck in "literal" and haven't learned to put the car in "symbolism". That's not my fault.

Example:

And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.

***
IMO, there are 5-6 (depending on where you draw the line) pieces of symbolism in the above verse. Think about WHY the scribe has used certain descriptive terms when others would suffice.

For example, instead of "he fell upon his face to the earth", he could have said "he died" or "he fell down and died". But the scribe DIDN'T for very, very obvious reasons. He has added 2 pieces of symbolism that speak to the consistent identity of God (and Jesus).

[bible.crosswalk.com]

(note: not all verses that have fell AND face are presenting the same symbolic elements - I'm showing them via this search for brevity).

Why all this falling on one's face? It adds NOTHING to the story if it's taken semi-literally (historical, narrative). The scribe simply could have said "kneeled" or "hid his face from God". But no. The scribe is very, very precise in what he's trying to get across to those that can understand the symbolism. Think about it.



Exodus (KJV)

20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. 21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: 22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: 23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.


WHY would the scribe decide to add the elements of Moses standing on a rock (verse 21)? It adds NOTHING to the story UNLESS it means something other than a literal attribute. The scribe could have said "Moses stood near God" or "Moses stood on the ground" or "Moses sat on the ground" or "Moses waited". Instead he chose the element of rock (consistently used).

We've seen rocks shed water (in the bible). There's that pesky "water" again. Is the point of passages like this to display a miracle (i.e. we've never seen a rock giving forth water and likely our ancestors didn't either). Or, might the scribe be using symbolism to explain WHO they thought (beliefs) "God" was? Isn't the whole point of the bible to display/present a culture/peoples' view of who they thought "God" was? Isn't that the whole point of all religious writing?

Am I "lucky" (i.e. it doesn't necessary take IQ) to understand Alford's simple theory? Is it because I DON'T have the breadth of knowledge (adult) that allows me to see as a (naive) child? I'm beginning to think it's simply a matter of being able to divorce yourself from what you've been taught and what you think you know and approach the subject as a complete and utter novice.

JL

Shephard of Hermas - 2[79]:2 Now this rock was ancient, and had a gate hewn out of it; but the gate seemed to me to have been hewed out quite recently. And the gate glistened beyond the brightness of the sun, so that I marvelled at the brightness of the gate.