JimLewandowski Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Funny kind of propaganda, I mean what's the point if only
the initiated, (and presumably already convinced) get it?

> 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.

The problem with symbolism of course is a symbol means
whatever you want it to mean so symbolical reading requires
mind reading people dead and gone and of a different culture
than oneself.

> 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.

Son, you are working to hard! To my eye this is a very
straight-forward descriptive passage.

> 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).

You've never taken a creative writing course have you?
If you had you'd have learned all about concrete imagery
being more interesting than generalities like 'he died'.
I suppose Homer is being 'symbolic' too when he describes
his heroes as 'biting the dust'.

> 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).

Well, let's see...the story is set on a mountain top, there
are lots of rocks on mountain tops. Could it be the scribe was
simply conveying a feel for the setting, (Creative Writting 101
again).

> 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 -

You've never seen a waterfall or rock spring???

> Am I "lucky" (i.e. it doesn't necessary take IQ)
> to understand Alford's simple theory?

I don't call this simple. 'Simple' would be
taking descriptive phrases as descriptive phrases.

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.

Um, so there's a premium on ignorance is there?