How can you study history and still believe in Judaism, Christianity

>>3068864
>if one admits Genesis in allegorical
Many religious people do. The biblical literalists of modern American Protestantism have had an outsized effect on how people view Christianity today, not because they are a majority of Christians, but because they make a majority of the noise. Jews tend not to be scriptural literalists. It's why they believe you have to study the scripture for years and years to fully understand it. Their literalists are called Kairaite Jews; they tend to be looked down upon. Muslims were writing Hadiths clear into the 20th century. Their scriptural literalists, the so called Quaranists, reject the Hadiths. They are largely considered apostates.

>>3068864
>The only way I can see around this is if one admits Genesis in allegorical because a lot of

You mean like most Christians thought since the very start of Christianity?

>>3068900
>they tend to be looked down upon
For the same reason as literalist Christians. They believe wholly in the teachings of their holy book, often contrary to modern culture, and thus are rejected. The critics on the other hand only "believe" in what suits them and fits current thinking.

>>3068864
Orthodox Jew here, we don't take Genesis literally.

>>3068928
>since the very start
Citation needed. Aquinas writing some shit 300 years later is not "since the very start."

>>3068864
>For example, we have no evidence to suggest that Israel and Judah were ever united kingdoms.

I do.

You deny the evidence, so you don't.

Because you're not seeking truth; you're pushing an evil and satanic agenda. It's okay. You'll be dealt with.

>>3068900
>The most serious and thoughtful people of each religion are the apostates.

neck yourself

>>3068928
No, the very opposite.

Christians have always known Genesis to be literal.

Fools believe men and demons over God.

File: fdf2de6c2861f44f4d6f4c5a6587ccb0.jpg (391KB, 1048x1920px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1048x1920px

>>3068864
Muslims are confused here watch this lecture series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V006bX4mlu4
What she says is not 100% accurate though.

>>3069246
what kind of accent is that, note the way she says "forgotten" at 1:00, it's cute

>>3069111
I did not imply that I was on either side, but since you ask, I'm a Unitarian (rejects the trinity) Universalist (rejects damnation). Philosophically, we're descended from ancient Christian schools of thought, but we are not in fact Christian. Unitarians believed that the trinity was a Paganistic heresy; Christians believe that to deny the holy spirit is one of only two sins (the other being suicide) that sends you directly to hell, no second chances, no forgiveness, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

>>3068864
You have to realize that people didn't always write histories the way we do today. Histories, especially in biblical times, were more important for the message they were sending than the accuracy of what they were saying. Religious texts tend to take that to the extreme.

Genesis is likely a blend of allegorical stories that slowly become heavily distorted histories, as much of what it's talking about likely predates writing and thus comes from often-unreliably oral histories. Exodus is similar, although there the message is likely more distorted from the fact that it was likely written during the time of the Babylonian exile, so the history ends up taking on elements of that.

File: penguin.jpg (91KB, 634x476px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 634x476px

>>3069083
Yes you do you.

>>3070509
This. One never really gets the sense, in reading the Bible, that it was intended to be a history textbook. I imagine, in fact, that the forensic discipline of history as we understand it would have been an entirely foreign concept the the Bible's original audiences, as well as to the early Church. It seems fairly clear that it is a corpus of the history of salvation, the account of God's covenantal dealings with His people. The questions being asked and answered are not always the same as the ones a historian might ask.

>>3070696
Those are Haredi/Ultra-Orthodox Jews. Try harder.

You also have to realize that Biblical history gets scrutinized a lot more than other history.

You get an ancient Sumerian tablet saying X was King of Y, and some similarly dated tablet says "U controls all of Y and Z" and shrug. Minor peripheral state who cares.

You get a similar contradiction in sources related to the Bible and it's "omfg, xtians btfo!!!!!"

>>3068900
Where in the Bible does it say that Genesis is fictional? Is Jesus fictional too?

Reading the Bible and the literature surrounding it made me realise that its basically just a particular ethnic interpretation of God. I believe in God, but I prefer to base what I know about God from the lens of my culture not the ethnoreligion of another xxxxx

God is a fiction human made. This world has been there since before human appeared and will be so after we disappear.