what parts of scripture "must" be historical

[Vort]

Traveler, in my previous response, please replace "Father" with "Son". Leave everything else as is. My answer is identical.

[Traveler]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Traveler, in my previous response, please replace "Father" with "Son". Leave everything else as is. My answer is identical.

Just so I understand correctly - you believe that Jesus (the Son) and Satan never have any communications - that all scripture references to such or in any conference talks by prophets seers and revelators are  foolish and uninspired fabrications?

 

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

If Job wasn't a true story then why would the Lord declare to Joseph, "Thou art no yet as Job..." Talk about a slap in the face from the Lord to Joseph if Job was fictional.  You know Joseph, your life has been tough, but not as tough as the fictional character, and this is why I don't place much trust in scholars. Don't get me wrong, I like reading up on information, but scholarly information is as good as the evidence they have at hand...much like "climate changers."  Yep, the climate will change, thank you, we know this, it has been changing since the earth's creation.

[Traveler]

4 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

If Job wasn't a true story then why would the Lord declare to Joseph, "Thou art no yet as Job..." Talk about a slap in the face from the Lord to Joseph if Job was fictional.  You know Joseph, your life has been tough, but not as tough as the fictional character, and this is why I don't place much trust in scholars. Don't get me wrong, I like reading up on information, but scholarly information is as good as the evidence they have at hand...much like "climate changers."  Yep, the climate will change, thank you, we know this, it has been changing since the earth's creation.

Not necessarily - The statement " "Thou art no yet as Job..." may have symbolic meaning - which is not unlike the manner in which Jesus teaches his apostles.   In other words the L-rd may have been telling Joseph that his trials were not over yet.  The purpose of revelation is to instruct those that are "in tune" with the Holy Ghost - principles of truth that can be applied directly to their lives (liken unto them) and also in testifying of Christ - his missions and atonement.

 

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

Not necessarily - The statement " "Thou art no yet as Job..." may have symbolic meaning - which is not unlike the manner in which Jesus teaches his apostles.   In other words the L-rd may have been telling Joseph that his trials were not over yet.  The purpose of revelation is to instruct those that are "in tune" with the Holy Ghost - principles of truth that can be applied directly to their lives (liken unto them) and also in testifying of Christ - his missions and atonement.

 

The Traveler

Agreed, scriptures have symbolic meaning, no argument there. In reference to Job, the meaning is clear. There is no symbolic meaning to likening someone to a fictional character, either for good or for bad.

Hey John, dang the Lord has blessed you with wealth, but your not yet like Aladdin. He married a princess and gained a whole kingdom.  Response, "Thanks Anddenex, Aladdin is fictional if you forgot. Nice pep talk, do I also get a genie"?

Hey Suzie, you had a rough child hood, and the teenage years don't look any easier, but hey, Cinderella had it tough to and look at her. She married a prince a gained the honor of a queen. Your life could be like hers. Response, "Thanks Anddenex, gosh if only her life actually was real."

[LeSellers]

22 hours ago, Vort said:

On 6/4/2016 at 7:42 AM, Traveler said:

Also the possibility that the epochs of such characters as Adam and Job are wrapped around the scriptural use of types and shadows (that can only truly be understood through the power of the Holy Ghost) that such character references are not intended to be historical events of individual persons

I.e. mythological.

Myth isn't necessarily false. It's just "old".

Quote

from French Mythe (1818) and directly from Modern Latin mythus, from Greek mythos "speech, thought, story, myth, anything delivered by word of mouth," of unknown origin.

General sense of "untrue story, rumor" is from 1840.

Lehi

Edited June 5, 2016 by LeSellers

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

Agreed, scriptures have symbolic meaning, no argument there. In reference to Job, the meaning is clear. There is no symbolic meaning to likening someone to a fictional character, either for good or for bad.

Hey John, dang the Lord has blessed you with wealth, but your not yet like Aladdin. He married a princess and gained a whole kingdom.  Response, "Thanks Anddenex, Aladdin is fictional if you forgot. Nice pep talk, do I also get a genie"?

Hey Suzie, you had a rough child hood, and the teenage years don't look any easier, but hey, Cinderella had it tough to and look at her. She married a prince a gained the honor of a queen. Your life could be like hers. Response, "Thanks Anddenex, gosh if only her life actually was real."

I think I can understand your point. I think what this thought experiment does for me is to ask if this reaction to being compared to a fictional character is based in real truth ("God would never compare a real person to a fictional character because that is against God's eternal truths") or is it based on my assumptions and perceptions of how God interacts with man.  My reaction to your post right now is that, as the child in this relationship, I don't want to tell God that He cannot compare me or other man to a fictional character, because that sounds to me more like being a petulant teenager than a humble child. I'm not sure that I see any evidence that God would never compare a man to a fictional character -- especially if He is the source of that fiction.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

 There is no symbolic meaning to likening someone to a fictional character, either for good or for bad.

So you believe that it is impossible to learn anything of the Messiah (Jesus) by symbolically likening him to the fictional character - the Good Samaritan?

 

The Traveler

[zil]

Traveler,

IMO, twice in this thread (once with Vort and now with Anddenex), you appear to me to have taken what they said and stretched it to an extreme that they didn't say.  I mention this only so that you're aware of the perception.  I do this mostly in light of another post where you felt a need to apologize - I don't think the apology was necessary, but I do think this is one thing which may have led to misunderstandings or disagreement previously.  Here is an example where you can look at what they wrote, what you wrote, and my perceptions of both, and see if perhaps there's any room to improve communication and understanding...

FWIW.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

Myth isn't necessarily false. It's just "old".

Lehi

I believe it is possible to cross the meaning of symbolism and draw the wrong conclusion.  For example in the ancient societies of Rome, prostitutes (ladies) would gather at their place of work and "sing" or call in unison.  This vocal call caused them to be symbolically referenced as "wolves".  According to the ancient myth of Rome - the city of Rome was founded by two brothers (Romus and Remulus) that were raised by wolves.  Generally it is thought that the brothers were raised in the wild by animals - but it would make more sense that they were actually raised by prostitutes.  The problem with myth symbolism is that the "popular" or traditional notion of the meaning may not be correct.  In fact it was part of the knowledge of the ancients that the myths and legends would be misunderstood by the "unworthy".

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Agreed, scriptures have symbolic meaning, no argument there. In reference to Job, the meaning is clear. There is no symbolic meaning to likening someone to a fictional character, either for good or for bad.

Hey John, dang the Lord has blessed you with wealth, but your not yet like Aladdin. He married a princess and gained a whole kingdom.  Response, "Thanks Anddenex, Aladdin is fictional if you forgot. Nice pep talk, do I also get a genie"?

Hey Suzie, you had a rough child hood, and the teenage years don't look any easier, but hey, Cinderella had it tough to and look at her. She married a prince a gained the honor of a queen. Your life could be like hers. Response, "Thanks Anddenex, gosh if only her life actually was real."

In fairness, Job is not cited in D&C 121 for the proposiion that "he remained faithful, and so can you".  Rather, the point of citing Job is "look, bub, things could be a LOT worse than they are right now.  Let me give you an example of how they could be worse."  In that context, IMHO, it wouldn't be nearly so problematic for Job to have been a fictional character.

That said, I agree with you that modern LDS discourse about Job--originating with GAs who one presumes know what they are talking about--has tended to eschew the D&C application in favor of the one you adopt.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Traveler,

IMO, twice in this thread (once with Vort and now with Anddenex), you appear to me to have taken what they said and stretched it to an extreme that they didn't say.  I mention this only so that you're aware of the perception.  I do this mostly in light of another post where you felt a need to apologize - I don't think the apology was necessary, but I do think this is one thing which may have led to misunderstandings or disagreement previously.  Here is an example where you can look at what they wrote, what you wrote, and my perceptions of both, and see if perhaps there's any room to improve communication and understanding...

FWIW.

Thanks for your post - as an engineer and scientist I have come to realize the the test or proof of logic is at the extremes.  If the logic of an idea is proven false by a single counter example then the idea as applied is false and needs to be reconsidered and more thought.  My purpose is to insure that an idea is well thought out and all possible exceptions accounted for.  If the extreme examples are not considered and explained - I am concerned that I may not understand their definitive statement correctly - so I ask to be sure.  If someone finds offense in being asked clarifying questions.  I apologize for creating an offense - but not for trying to understand or clarify their position.

 

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

59 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In fairness, Job is not cited in D&C 121 for the proposiion that "he remained faithful, and so can you".  Rather, the point of citing Job is "look, bub, things could be a LOT worse than they are right now.  Let me give you an example of how they could be worse."  In that context, IMHO, it wouldn't be nearly so problematic for Job to have been a fictional character.

That said, I agree with you that modern LDS discourse about Job--originating with GAs who one presumes know what they are talking about--has tended to eschew the D&C application in favor of the one you adopt.

JAG, my minds eye can only see it as problematic to tell someone their life could be worse through a fictional character. The next chapter highlights an even more important question to Joseph, "The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?" In highlight of both verses, and the experiences of Job, the same question would be asked of Job, "Art thou greater than he?"

Job didn't experience anything, if fictional. Job didn't loose a job; Job didn't loose any children; Job didn't experience any mortal disease. Yet, Joseph did indeed experience job frustration. He did experience the loss of children. A fictional character of whose life was worse, isn't going to make a real person feel better, but a question like "Art thou greater than he?" will, because the comparison in based in truth -- real.

I would say though JAG, the proposition is for both, remain faithful and yes, life could be worse."

Edited June 5, 2016 by Anddenex

[zil]

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

Thanks for your post - as an engineer and scientist I have come to realize the the test or proof of logic is at the extremes.  If the logic of an idea is proven false by a single counter example then the idea as applied is false and needs to be reconsidered and more thought.  My purpose is to insure that an idea is well thought out and all possible exceptions accounted for.  If the extreme examples are not considered and explained - I am concerned that I may not understand their definitive statement correctly - so I ask to be sure.  If someone finds offense in being asked clarifying questions.  I apologize for creating an offense - but not for trying to understand or clarify their position.

The Traveler

To be clear, I don't think you "created an offense".  I was simply offering a perspective for you to consider.

As for the rest, IMO, what you describe doesn't work in relation to human behavior and understanding.  Just because Vort cannot imagine a conversation like the one described in the book of Job between God/Jehovah and Satan, does not mean Vort cannot imagine any conversation between Jehovah and Satan (e.g. the one in the NT).  Vort claimed disbelief in one case, then you question whether he believes any cases - but Vort hasn't given you grounds to question the latter.  And one cannot argue that just because the NT conversation took place, the one in Job must be accepted as having happened (logic does not support the argument in either direction - there are insufficient parameters to derive either conclusion).

Similar with Anddenex's comment - that he feels the reference to Job in the D&C would not be terribly comforting to Joseph if Job is fictional, does not in any way imply that Anddenex feels that no fictional reference could ever be useful for teaching or even comfort.

There are no grounds to take either statement to an extreme, nor are you clarifying anything by taking it to an extreme and questioning whether the person making the original statement also believes the extreme.  If you want to know the limits of their interpretation / believe / understanding, ask for them, ala: "Vort, what sort of conversation, if any, do you think could happen between Jehovah and Satan?  Exactly what about the Job conversation do you find incredulous?"  "Anddenex, what uses do you see for fictional comparisons?  Under what conditions does the fact that the example is fictional destroy its usefulness?"

Those would elicit further explanation / discussion without unfounded extremification (my new word for today ).

FWIW.

Edited June 5, 2016 by zil
sheesh; illicit > elicit

[Just_A_Guy]

47 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

JAG, my minds eye can only see it as problematic to tell someone their life could be worse through a fictional character. The next chapter highlights an even more important question to Joseph, "The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?" In highlight of both verses, and the experiences of Job, the same question would be asked of Job, "Art thou greater than he?"

Job didn't experience anything, if fictional. Job didn't loose a job; Job didn't loose any children; Job didn't experience any mortal disease. Yet, Joseph did indeed experience job frustration. He did experience the loss of children. A fictional character of whose life was worse, isn't going to make a real person feel better, but a question like "Art thou greater than he?" will, because the comparison in based in truth -- real.

I would say though JAG, the proposition is for both, remain faithful and yes, life could be worse."

D&C 121-123 do not represent a single continuous revelation; rather, they are mash-ups of extracts from a seventeen-page letter, followed by a nine-page continuation of the original letter, written by Joseph Smith from the Liberty Jail.  The reference to Job comes from the main letter; to the Son of Man, from the latter; and there are many pages of instruction, questions, encouragement, legalese, and even an account of a failed jailbreak in the interim.  (The Joseph Smith Papers website has the whole thing.). In context, I don't think the reference to the historical Jesus precludes the reference to Job as being a purely literary figure.  If, at some point, the letter also included a reference to "thou art not yet as Edmund Dantes; thine imprisonment is not the result of thy best friend's scamming on thy fiancée"--the reference would not have been out of place; and no one would be insisting by virtue of that reference alone that The Count of Monte Cristo was a true story.

[CV75]

On 6/2/2016 at 11:16 AM, MrShorty said:

This has probably been a long time building, but the other night while reading my scriptures, the thought/question came to me, "What parts of scripture must be historical, or the whole thing falls apart?"

Years ago, I became aware of the scholarly belief that the book of Job was a work of fiction. At the time, I recall someone in LDS circles who claimed that this was false, and the LDS have revealed proof that Job was historical. Scholarly consensus today is that Job is a work of fiction that has been incorporated into the Christian Bible. If this is truth, then there is precedence for canonizing fiction as scripture.

We often talk about whether the creation accounts in Genesis are scientifically accurate or allegorical in nature.

Occasionally, questions around whether the Book of Mormon is a historical document or a fictional story come up. I think this is what triggered this post -- wondering if I felt compelled to believe that the BoM must be history or Mormonism dies. Can I accept the BoM as scripture if it proves to be more fiction than history?

Which led to the broader question -- what parts of the scripture canon must be historical? Is it necessary for the Exodus narrative to be historical? Jonah? Elijah?

Some thoughts so far:

The four gospels don't have to be historical in every detail, but it seems that some of the history around Christ's life and ministry must be historical. In particular, the crucifixion and resurrection parts of His story must be based on a historical event (even if the details don't match exactly what is in the gospels).

While I am quite willing to accept the creation accounts as allegorical, something about the narrative around the Fall must have actually happened. I suspect that historical details could differ from the Genesis account, but the Fall is big part, theologically, of what sets up the redemption through Christ. These two kind of go together in that, if one must be historical, the other must be, too.

That's about as far as I have gotten. Any thoughts from the community?

I think the best history from scripture is the history we live as result of our conversion.

There are so many schools of thought as to what constitute as legitimate history that I prefer to accept the scriptures as a good-enough, good-faith history. And that which might be seen by some as allegorical or apocrypha might as well be historical, or is as if it is historical, by virtue of the faith produced that brings someone to Christ. After that happens, it doesn't matter how good the history is by whatever standard. For example, "Oh then, is not this real?" means that yes, it is real (Alma 32).

[LeSellers]

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

I believe it is possible to cross the meaning of symbolism and draw the wrong conclusion. …  The problem with myth symbolism is that the "popular" or traditional notion of the meaning may not be correct.  In fact it was part of the knowledge of the ancients that the myths and legends would be misunderstood by the "unworthy".

Yes, I agree, but I spoke only to the meaning of "myth". We often assume that anything mythical is false, wrong, allegorical, fabulous, or merely "faith-promoting". That may be true about any particular myth, but it is not true of all myths. Adam'n'Eve is a myth. It is just as true as sunrise.

Lehi

[Anddenex]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

D&C 121-123 do not represent a single continuous revelation; rather, they are mash-ups of extracts from a seventeen-page letter, followed by a nine-page continuation of the original letter, written by Joseph Smith from the Liberty Jail.  The reference to Job comes from the main letter; to the Son of Man, from the latter; and there are many pages of instruction, questions, encouragement, legalese, and even an account of a failed jailbreak in the interim.  (The Joseph Smith Papers website has the whole thing.). In context, I don't think the reference to the historical Jesus precludes the reference to Job as being a purely literary figure.  If, at some point, the letter also included a reference to "thou art not yet as Edmund Dantes; thine imprisonment is not the result of thy best friend's scamming on thy fiancée"--the reference would not have been out of place; and no one would be insisting by virtue of that reference alone that The Count of Monte Cristo was a true story.

Correct, I didn't mean to represent them as a single continuous revelation, and from the last sentence referring to Edmund Dantes (one of my favorite books by the way) that I haven't explained myself well. The concern is not in the aspect of people believing a fictional story as true; however, in my minds eye, yes it would be out of place. There is no power comparing a real life to a fictional life. The former actually experiences a full spectrum of emotions from joy, pain, suffering, happiness, misery, sorrow, etc... The later didn't exist. No experience at all. The reason why Job's life is a powerful example to Joseph Smith is because the experience was real. Job lived. Job experienced. Job remained faithful no matter how bad his life circumstances were.  If the son of man who descended below all things were fictional then the story has no power to save, no power to move, it will not have the Spirit to testify of its truth. If Job wasn't real, then Joseph is/was greater than Job, because his life was real, and comparing someone who is greater than the other (fictional) will not have any power. And I am still not explaining myself well...nonetheless...it is what it is

[Just_A_Guy]

No, I think I get where you're going; but to me the mention of Job seems intended to define the hypothetical worst-case scenario; not to compare Job's experience to what Joseph was actually experiencing.  It serves to remind Joseph that his personal worst-case-scenario--the Job-like situation of being alone and friendless, a prospect that haunted Joseph up to the last night of his life--had not actually happened to him yet.  

That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but to me it just feels different.  I guess I'm not articulating very well, either.

[mrmarklin]

Job is not fiction. 

 

We we are all Job. Almost all of us will have to deal with some sort of adversity. Loss of livelihood, loss of loved ones, including wives, loss of health--even at a young age. 

 

Did the Lord turn the devil loose on Job?  Sure He did. There was no other way for Him to find out if Job would be faithful.

 

But Job's attitude is the real story of how he dealt with his problems. Despite his "friends" spite he kept his faith through all adversity just as many of us will do.

Yeah, Job is real. Look in the mirror. 

Edited June 6, 2016 by mrmarklin
Spelling

[zil]

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

No, I think I get where you're going; but to me the mention of Job seems intended to define the hypothetical worst-case scenario; not to compare Job's experience to what Joseph was actually experiencing.  It serves to remind Joseph that his personal worst-case-scenario--the Job-like situation of being alone and friendless, a prospect that haunted Joseph up to the last night of his life--had not actually happened to him yet.  

That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but to me it just feels different.  I guess I'm not articulating very well, either.

Not sure, but it's possible I'm the only one who used the word "compare".

I will note that one of the things which seems to help us as we struggle is to know that another real, live human has been through that, and come out the other side better in some way - it tells us it's possible to survive, even overcome.  Fiction tells us no such thing.  If I were going through something severe, like divorce, or cancer, or unjust imprisonment of the type Joseph had to endure, I'm sure I would not find it comforting to hear, "Oh, that's just like the character in this novel I was reading..."  But I might find it strength in knowing another human had gone through a similar (or worse) experience, had faith, prayed, endured well, and been blessed in the end.

Frankly, fiction is exaggeration and simplification, even in Joseph Smith's day (though nothing like as extreme as our day), so that fictional characters endure and accomplish things no real human could.  Therefore, to say, "your life isn't as bad as this fictional character", when the hearer knows the described character is fictional, just doesn't offer any support.  The logical response to that is, "Well, duh."

That said, your version of how things might have been, is more palatable than other proposed uses of Job as a fictional character, but even it would be a stronger consolation / motivator if Job is (believed to be) real.

[Traveler]

I thought I would summarize some of the aspects of Job from my personal studies.  To begin; the first historian that our western civilization had was a Greek called Homer.  Anything that happened before Homer is called pre-history or prehistoric.  Anything that happened after Homer is called historic.  In addition the references to events that are prehistoric are called, by definition myths and legends.   Generally speaking our modern culture has labeled myths and legends as inaccurate and false thus for many a story that is told that is not true is often spoken of as a myth and legend.   I personally believe this classification of myths and legends to be inaccurate and a false or deception of the ancients, our past ancestors and their efforts to save things that were important to them in their day.  Modern revelation given to our prophets has revealed that Adam was actually the first historian but his historical records (and many others) have been lost.  We also know that the reason these records were lost is because of an evil conspiracy to corrupt the truth.  It is my understanding that the ancients understood this conspiracy and created oral traditions (poetic renderings) to save sacred things.

The epoch of Job was one of these ancient oral traditions.  The sacred elements are captured in the tradition of Job in an ancient Hebrew poetic style.  These ancient poetic styles or formats are similar to our poetry and music and were designed such that attempts to change or alter the message would corrupt the poetic style and make such attempts obvious.  I believe that the sacredness of the message was “hidden” in the same manner that Jesus hid sacred things in his parables – so the spiritually undisciplined would not be aware and therefore powerless to both comprehend the importance and to modify the message.

It appeared to me that a poster of this forum (Vort) deliberately scoffed and made light of specific aspects of great spiritual value of things divinely preserved  symbolically in the Book of Job.  First this was done by implying the book to be myth and legend in the context of containing unreliable “doctrine” and second by mocking the symbolic conversation between Jehovah and Satan.  It has been my experience that before addressing sacred things it is worthwhile to qualify the willingness of a possible listener – in essence the concept of casting perils before swine.  Which is my effort to ascertain the willingness of someone to consider something they possibly have not considered before; flawed as I am.

I personally find and believe the Book of Job to be a powerful scriptural proof and witness against the corrupt concept of the “Trinity” because it positions Jehovah as a qualified, appointed and separate being from the supreme Suzerain of the Kingdom of heaven.  In addition the Book of Job gives spiritual witness in it poetic format to the modern prophetic revelations of our pre-existence.  But because of the inspiration of the ancients – the truth of such things, though empirically sound, are spiritual in nature.  I regret that this sacred work is mocked and challenge by those that do not appreciate the great importance of Job; that those that discount Job reconsider – a change of heart – not just to learn some doctrine but to modify behavior – which I believe to be the essence and meaning of intelligence.  

 

The Traveler

[tesuji]

The OP question is a fascinating one.

I think the biggest points from my perspective are:

1. Jesus must have been a real person, with God as his father, and have performed the atonement and established the primitive Christian church.

2. Joseph Smith must have been given his calling as a prophet by God and received his revelations from God. Including his story about translating physical plates into the Book of Mormon by revelation. The modern events and people in the D&C better be real, too.

Those are the main things that must be real, that I can think of. There may be more.

In any case --

The main purpose of scripture, as I see it, is to teach us spiritual truth, to nourish our spirits, to inspire us to follow Christ, and to be a catalyst to connect us with the Holy Spirit and the personal revelation it brings. It's not necessary that the stories in it be perfect historical fact to accomplish these things - however, in that case, a modern reader wants to see a disclaimer at the beginning saying "not necessarily all historical" - but of course, this isn't possible, given how the Bible came into existence.

I do think LDS members are on shaky ground when they believe in total scriptural literalness. As has been said, if something turns out not to be historical fact, they can loose their faith, because it was based on an untruth to begin with. It's not good to be naive about the scriptures.

I personally believe it's very likely that at least some of what's in the Bible is not literal, historical fact. Genesis in particular seems to be a very vague and incomplete account of the beginning of the universe and man in it. And, yes,Job has always struck me as too much like something a playwright would construct to teach a moral lesson. I actually hope it isn't historical, for the man Job's sake  

An interested related note: The story of the woman taken in adultery in the gospel of John is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts. It's good to be aware of these kinds of things about the Bible. I love the story, and I hope it did happen. Perhaps a later scribe knew about the story and wanted it to be part of the record, since it wasn't reported in the other gospels.

Edited June 7, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest]

19 hours ago, tesuji said:

And, yes,Job has always struck me as too much like something a playwright would construct to teach a moral lesson. I actually hope it isn't historical, for the man Job's sake  

Another post about Job.  I hear all the arguments.  And Vort's characterization about the conversation between God and the Devil does strike me as "metaphorical", etc.  But in other ways I believe it was a true story.  I have no evidence to back this up or even any real logic that says so.  I just believe it is so.

[MrShorty]

15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I have no evidence to back this up or even any real logic that says so

Perhaps highlighting the somewhat hypothetical nature of the question, as difficult as it would be to find any evidence or proof or logic that scripture stores are historical, it will probably be even more difficult if not impossible to prove them false. It is very difficult to prove a negative, especially when the main "evidence" is a lack of evidence for the existence of the person or story.

I think the main thing I get out of this for me is that my testimony of Job or most other scripture is not dependent on my belief that they are historical. Whether or not Job was a real person who suffered dramatic hardships or not, I can accept it as inspired and valuable and "true". I think I can say the same thing about most other scripture.