TexasScientist said:
I find it interesting that some cherry pick what they want to believe from a book of primitive tales that originate from an oral tradition. Once some part becomes so convincingly ludicrous they discard that part, but cling to the rest.
It's not cherry picking. It gets that label because it's easier to put us in a box and refute our claims. But that isn't what we are doing.
Every story in the OT his a historic story. True or false--it's a part of somebody's historic narrative.
You have to remember--these are primitive people telling stories dozens of years after the fact and the primary source was oral tradition and dead.
I'm not denying the story is true--I'm wondering if it has (and I know it does) embellishment and what that embellishment is.
But it doesn't just happen in stories that are thousands of years old. I have a real life example that is around 40 years old.
A few months ago I told you about a car wreck I was involved in when I was a kid. You asked are you sure. I said yes.
I haven't been to the scene of the crime (it was a criminal act), in 35+ years. But you got me to wondering, so I did some research.
The width of the two vehicles in question placed side by side is 9.5 ft. Under current Arkansas law, the minimum width of a one lane bridge is 10.5ft (that's the law today--that may or may not be what it was nearly 40 years ago). Let's assume it was the same back then.
That means there are 12 inches of extra space on that bridge. My six year old brain didn't see it that way. Dad drove down the middle of that bridge every time we drove across. I mean--who drives right up on the rail? Besides--I'd never seen two cars cross it at the same time. Of course when 13 year old me saw it seven years later--it still looked like only one car could cross. I didn't have a license. I had no frame of reference for navigating TWO cars over a ONE lane bridge. My mind confirmed what I already "knew."
To you--that extra foot is enough to completely debunk my brother's claim that he saw an angel with a fiery sword standing in between the two cars.
To me--he still has a valid claim. Why? 1 foot of wiggle room is not a lot of room for 2 non professional drivers to operate 2 cars at a high rate of speed across a one lane bridge. Secondly, one of those drivers was intoxicated. Who's to say that angel didn't make it so the cars side swiped instead of hitting head on?
Have I embellished the story over time. Almost assuredly, I have. Does that change the meaning of what happened? To some it does; others will see it the same way as when I told it the first time--a guardian angel saved the life of my family when I was 6 years old.