Reply #23: I like the last two 's of your post as they point out that historical

[bluerum]

context is a critical consideration.

I am always intrigued when we start applying current standards of scientific rigor and understanding to ancient theological work. AFAIK modern science has not located, identified or demonstrated the existence of heaven, hell, purgatory, the kingdom of god, the holy trinity, the devil, angels, the holy ghost etc. etc. At the same time, we find it perfectly acceptable to speak of these things as if we could hold them in our hands in the context of a spiritual or theological discussion. Does this not suggest that we (for whatever reasons) suspend the requirement of scientific rigor when we speak of spiritual things and beliefs?

Hmm. My only point is broken down into several distinct but connected thoughts:

1. The oral traditions were handed down orally (duh), for perhaps generations.
2. The relatively educated writers (scribes) of the bible recorded the oral traditions.
3. As written language evolved oral traditions over wide geographical areas were recorded with little intermingling (until much later).
4. The written word was re-written, many times, by those of lesser or greater education, with lesser or greater interest in propagating their own beliefs. Also keep in mind the influence of the simple typo.

My only thesis: If it was possible to provide supporting historical fact, observation or detail to support biblical work as literal historical fact, I very much expect that it would have been provided. The fact that it was not provided suggests a metaphorical nature for the texts.