Realist:
A few years a go I read a book called. The Original Torah.(written by Jewish scholars[I believe]) It was a fairly small book that I obtained from a yeshivah. And it was one of the first publications to open my mind to the possibility that what was written in the Bible might not have been meant to be literally interpreted. And was certainly not written for outsiders.
It suggested that the "stories'' would have been (by design) interpreted differently to outsiders than to those whom it was meant to instruct. They used some word (memory fails me at the moment) hyponoai or hypokonaia (something like that). Which meant that there was a hidden meaning to the stories that only they would understand. I assumed what they meant by that to be similar to the way Homer is interpreted. On the surface there might be a compelling story, but if you go a little deeper (ie.motives etc.)there's much more to it.
It was also in that book where I first heard of the word Philology. Subsequently, a history professor had explained to our class,that Philology has been of great assistance to historians;and he used the common expression that we often hear today, " No way, Jose!" to prove his point.
He said if we came across some written form that was assumed to be 200 years old , but we found "No way, Jose!" written upon the document, we could conclude that the document written in the 20th century rather than the 18th.
The book,The Original Torah,brought out that the first five books of the Bible could not possibly have been written in the time frame attributed to Moses ,and they used Philology to prove that point. I believe it was in that book where I had first heard of the Hebrew writings having likely been composed in Babylon around 800BC.
I felt sooooo dumb, for having been so gulible in the past.
How could I have taken everything so literally and without question from the WT? I have been away from the Bible for a long time. Couldn't deal with it. But I am ready to look at it in a literary way to see if there is not more to it than a religion presents.
My interest in Abraham is not to dispute whether he lived or not, Francois. My interest is in what the writers of the Abrahamic story wanted to convey.
Cookie
