NationStates Jolt Archive

Fair enough, but it still puts a cramp in your "That’s not true according to the Catholics" claim. Are Catholics Minimalists now?

That doesn’t put a cramp in the "Catholics" statement as all. The NAB is being hosted by a Catholic website, and the Catholics will argue with other Catholics all the time, it's great. However, the link I posted was the Catholic Encyclopedia, the official answer to questions...

...
Very cute. Instead of responding to my arguments you tell me to go and read a book. Presumably you've read the book, why don't you 'rebut' my arguments for yourself? I typed out my own arguments instead of handing you a reading list or a long section of link spam.

Because the answer is too long to be broken in to sound bites... Such as...

1. There are no known cases in which a writing--once discovered to be pseudepigraphal--was not rejected, in Graeco-Roman or Christian circles. Period.
2. Pseudox (in G-R) went to great lengths to deceive, for the goal of 'delivering the payload' REQUIRED everyone to be fooled (assuming it wasn’t merely a literary convention, and therefore NOT 'high pseudox').
3. The OTP written in the period was 'sectarian' and in a struggle for mastery with other 'authoritative' writings/traditions.
4. (The later Christian apocrypha--much of it pseudox of one form or another--was also dominantly sectarian in the same way.)
5. Anonymous Jewish literature was still being written.
6. The first-century NT materials were all written by Jews, and reflected this preference for anonymity.
7. The practice of pseudox did not "spread any" outside of the pre-NT circle in which it was dominant some 200-300 years earlier.
8. All the data we have in our period (G-R, Jewish apocrypha, Rabbinics) evidence a growing concern over accurate and 'originating-author' attribution, and no evidence of the softer, Meade-an notion of 'continuity attribution'.
9. The "Jewish matrix" also manifests this growing focus on attribution, both in biblical (ancient authority) and in rabbinic (recent authority) citations.
10. There are no observable differences between the Jewish matrix and the 'non-Jewish matrix', in terms of attribution patterns.
11. The "profile" of pre-80AD Christian authorial praxis reveal zero awareness of, presence of, or preference for pseudox or even micro-pseudox.
12. There are a number of elements in the NT mindset that militate against any such 'crafty' strategies for 'helping out the church'.
13. The alleged NT pseudox certainly don't fit the pattern of "wait hundreds of years before you write one" (present in all KNOWN pseudox).
14. (Shorter gaps look more like forgery, than 'noble lie' pseudox.)
15. In the 50-150 period, we noticed basic continuity with the earlier period.
16. The only pseudox in the 50-150 ad period were a couple of sectarian epistles (by Marcion, apparently), although the existence of other forgeries of Gnostic sects are mentioned by later writers.
17. All the orthodox literature of this 50-150 period is, again, either anonymous or reliably self-attributed (i.e., no perspective differences between a mostly-Jewish-members Church and a mostly-Gentile-members Church show up in this space).
18. We do not see the types of pseudox which would be expected if it had been 'acceptable': gospels and epistles by Jesus.
19. The rejection by the Muratorian fragment of some Pauline pseudox, either was strictly on the basis of literary pretensions (i.e., only because they were pseudox), or on the combined basis of heresy/literary form (i.e., the 'forgery' word was deliberately used).
20. The later period of 50-150ad exhibited the same 'paranoia' toward deception as was (a) encouraged by our Lord, and (b) manifested in the NT writings.
21. The later period manifested ethical continuity with the earlier period, arguing that 'deception' and 'craftiness' would have been similarly frowned upon.
22. The later 50-150 period exhibited the same 'Nine-Point Profile toward Pseudox' we saw in the earlier period.
23. The forgery issue becomes more noticeable, as the volume of writings increases. Paul's complaints about false teachers and deceivers are echoed in our later period as well.
24. There even seems to be the same 'canonical consciousness' in the church of the later period.
25. Church leaders have always been 'primarily' interested in doctrinal health, but this does not mean they are oblivious to ethical 'ill-health' (such as forgery) issues. The use of forgery, deception, and pseudox by heretical groups made them 'suspect' forgeries whenever doctrinal error was detected.
26. The post-150 church is battling the same issues of deception, but at a much higher level of intensity and extensiveness.
27. They do not condone forgery for 'noble lie' purposes.
28. The church was not gullible about attribution, but used methods of literary and historical criticism to 'test' literature.
29. The Church was hyper about people 'tampering' with the Scriptures, as were the Jews (i.e., no 'matrix' differences).
30. Whenever forgery was discovered, it was a matter of shame, censure, and rejection of the forgery.
31. Pseudox was rejected whether it was orthodox or heterodox, whether motivated by 'good' or by 'bad' motives.
32. Supposed support for a 'noble lie' ethic in the fathers is either negligible or non-existent, and is in any case, contradicted by actual practice of Church leaders!
33. There are no observable--in the hard data--points of discontinuity in praxis (relative to pseudox/forgery) between the apostolic, pre-150 sub-apostolic, and post-150 sub-apostolic periods.
34. There is no evidence that the post-150 church was 'different' (because of its Gentile makeup) from the apostolic church--in matters of attitude toward their authoritative traditions (written or otherwise).
35. Only heterodoxy used pseudox--every orthodox attempt met with rejection.
36. Even heretical epistolary pseudox in the post-Easter period is extremely scant and minimal--arguing that no one really thought of pseudox as a 'major player'.
37. The earlier dating of 1 Clement would make some of this discussion moot, since it witnesses to the authority of several of the alleged post-80 pseudox already.
38. Stylistic arguments about pseudox (at least in the Pauline corpus) are non definitive.
39. It is inaccurate to differentiate between 'sacred pseudox' and false-prophets; pseudox was simply a sub-set of false-prophecy.
40. Pauline ethical instructions specifically mandated avoiding all 'appearance of evil'--in the sight of the watching world. Given that pseudox was clearly considered forgery in the G-R world, and given that the Pastorals are addressed to predominantly G-R churches, the alleged author of those pseudoxy epistles would have been in direct violation of Paul's teachings.


I have to conclude that --unless we beg the question and assume the existence of NT high-pseudox without the existence of a single external precedent--the data of Jewish, G-R, and early church history overwhelming supports the conclusion that NT epistolary pseudepigrapha, by an orthodox writer, would have been totally unacceptable to all recipients, and therefore unlikely to have been attempted, by a loyal follower of Paul or Peter.

There is not a solid piece of hard data, in the actual leadership practice, literature production, theology of tradition/authority transmission, ethical stance, public statements, and methods of attribution--in EITHER mainstream Judaism OR in mainstream Christianity--in the period between the first century BC and the 4th century AD that would support a different conclusion.
Part 1 link: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html
Part 2 link: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/pseudox2.html

That doesn’t put a cramp in the "Catholics" statement as all. The NAB is being hosted by a Catholic website, and the Catholics will argue with other Catholics all the time, it's great. However, the link I posted was the Catholic Encyclopedia, the official answer to questions...

It does if you're referring to "the Catholics"; use of the definite article implies universality. To the best of my knowledge the Catholic Encyclopedia enjoys no official status as such, beyond being a pretty authoritative source on Roman Catholicism.

-snip-

Only one point even attempts to address my arguments:

38. Stylistic arguments about pseudox (at least in the Pauline corpus) are non definitive.

That's it? I read through that long rambling list which is supposed to 'rebut' my arguments and this is all I find?

It does if you're referring to "the Catholics"; use of the definite article implies universality. To the best of my knowledge the Catholic Encyclopedia enjoys no official status as such, beyond being a pretty authoritative source on Roman Catholicism.

The NAB has been approved for study and at home use, officially the translation has been discredited by the Vatican and by Traditionalists so it is not for official use. Whereas, to the best of my knowledge, the New Advent information has not be challenged by the Vatican.

Only one point even attempts to address my arguments:

That's it? I read through that long rambling list which is supposed to 'rebut' my arguments and this is all I find?

That's what I said, it does not work as sound bites. I showed you why I didn't summarize the argument previously.

You would have to read an entire book (which you objected to), or at least the thesis of that topic alone, but the summary I posted was of that very argument, those 40 points are only the summary of the second part of the argument. You would have to read section 1 then follow that through to part 2 to appreciate the reason the conclusion is come to that it is far more likely that 2 Timothy (and others) ARE authentic Paul writings, not writings of followers some forty plus years after Paul’s death...

The works in question were considered authentic by the second century Christians, and today’s critics would have us believe that they are the very ones that wrote them and dispersed them deceptively in the first place.

That's what I said, it does not work as sound bites. I showed you why I didn't summarize the argument previously.

It doesn't have to be presented in 'sound bites', it only has to be presented in coherent, logical form. If an argument can't be presented in such a fashion then that's a pretty sure sign that it's vacuous.

You would have to read an entire book (which you objected to), or at least the thesis of that topic alone, but the summary I posted was of that very argument, those 40 points are only the summary of the second part of the argument. You would have to read section 1 then follow that through to part 2 to appreciate the reason the conclusion is come to that it is far more likely that 2 Timothy (and others) ARE authentic Paul writings, not writings of followers some forty plus years after Paul’s death...

I'm not interested in the whole book, just summarise the bits which apparently rebut my two arguments. If you're incapable of explaining it yourself then I don't see the point in continuing this conversation.

The works in question were considered authentic by the second century Christians, and today’s critics would have us believe that they are the very ones that wrote them and dispersed them deceptively in the first place.

Misrepresentation. Only the author (possibly authors) would have known it to be a forgery, the distributors would have believed it to be genuine.

It doesn't have to be presented in 'sound bites', it only has to be presented in coherent, logical form. If an argument can't be presented in such a fashion then that's a pretty sure sign that it's vacuous.

You must really love political debates on TV then. As for me, I think a good argument requires mounds of base material to establish the groundwork for the discussion. If two sides are not speaking with the same dictionary and understandings then there is no point in arguing over minutia.

The word "testament" in the designations "Old Testament" and "New Testament," given to the two divisions of the Bible, goes back through Latin testamentum to Greek diatheke, which in most of its occurrences in the Greek Bible means "covenant" rather than "testament." In Jeremiah 31:31, a new covenant is foretold which will supersede that which God made with Israel in the wilderness (Exod. 24:7). "By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete" (Heb. 8:13). The New Testament writers see the fulfillment of the prophecy of the new covenant in the new order inaugurated by the work of Christ; his own words of institution (1 Cor. 11:25) give the authority for this interpretation. The Old Testament books, then, are so called because of their close association with the history of the "old covenant"; the New Testament books are so called because they are the foundation documents of the "new covenant." An approach to our common use of the term "Old Testament" appears in 2 Corinthians 3:14, "when the old covenant is read," although Paul probably means the law, the basis of the old covenant, rather than the whole volume of Hebrew Scripture. The terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" for the two collections of books came into general Christian use in the later part of the second century; Tertullian rendered diatheke into Latin by instrumentum (a legal document) and also by testamentum; it was the latter word that survived, unfortunately, since the two parts of the Bible are not "testaments" in the ordinary sense of the term.

The word "testament" in the designations "Old Testament" and "New Testament," given to the two divisions of the Bible, goes back through Latin testamentum to Greek diatheke, which in most of its occurrences in the Greek Bible means "covenant" rather than "testament." In Jeremiah 31:31, a new covenant is foretold which will supersede that which God made with Israel in the wilderness (Exod. 24:7). "By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete" (Heb. 8:13). The New Testament writers see the fulfillment of the prophecy of the new covenant in the new order inaugurated by the work of Christ; his own words of institution (1 Cor. 11:25) give the authority for this interpretation. The Old Testament books, then, are so called because of their close association with the history of the "old covenant"; the New Testament books are so called because they are the foundation documents of the "new covenant." An approach to our common use of the term "Old Testament" appears in 2 Corinthians 3:14, "when the old covenant is read," although Paul probably means the law, the basis of the old covenant, rather than the whole volume of Hebrew Scripture. The terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" for the two collections of books came into general Christian use in the later part of the second century; Tertullian rendered diatheke into Latin by instrumentum (a legal document) and also by testamentum; it was the latter word that survived, unfortunately, since the two parts of the Bible are not "testaments" in the ordinary sense of the term.

and then?

In the Hebrew Bible the books are arranged in three divisions: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Law comprises the Pentateuch, the five "books of Moses." The Prophets fall into two subdivisions: the "Former Prophets," comprising Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; and the "Latter Prophets," comprising Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and "The Book of the Twelve Prophets." The Writings contain the rest of the books: first Psalms, Proverbs, and Job; then the five "Scrolls," namely Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther; and finally Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. The total is traditionally reckoned as twenty-four, but these twenty-four correspond exactly to our common reckoning of thirty-nine, since in the latter reckoning the Minor Prophets are counted as twelve books, and Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah as two each. There were other ways of counting the same twenty-four books in antiquity; in one (attested by Josephus) the total was brought down to twenty-two; in another (known to Jerome) it was raised to twenty-seven.

In the Hebrew Bible the books are arranged in three divisions: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Law comprises the Pentateuch, the five "books of Moses." The Prophets fall into two subdivisions: the "Former Prophets," comprising Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; and the "Latter Prophets," comprising Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and "The Book of the Twelve Prophets." The Writings contain the rest of the books: first Psalms, Proverbs, and Job; then the five "Scrolls," namely Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther; and finally Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. The total is traditionally reckoned as twenty-four, but these twenty-four correspond exactly to our common reckoning of thirty-nine, since in the latter reckoning the Minor Prophets are counted as twelve books, and Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah as two each. There were other ways of counting the same twenty-four books in antiquity; in one (attested by Josephus) the total was brought down to twenty-two; in another (known to Jerome) it was raised to twenty-seven.

Is this part of an argument or just random information about the bible?

They're in response to previous posts, Pacific.

To add to my last post:

The origin of the arrangement of books in the Hebrew Bible cannot be traced; the threefold division is frequently believed to correspond to the three stages in which the books received canonical recognition, but there is no direct evidence for this.

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind next time. I must have been too busy using my Shift Key to capitalize the first letters of my sentences and must have gone straight past the notice that spelling errors will be corrected warning. Oh, and by the way, it’s “French” when referencing the language, not, french.

This is a game you will win though, I am a notoriously bad speller, my handwriting is even worse, I'll concede that point now to save you the trouble.

Edit: On topic though, from the link you provided, going to introduction of 2 Timothy, it says:
On the theory of authorship by Paul himself, Second Timothy appears to be the last of the three Pastoral Epistles. The many scholars who argue that the Pastorals are products of the Pauline school often incline toward Second Timothy as the earliest of the three and the one most likely to have actual fragments of material from Paul himself. link (http://www.catholic.org/phpframedirect/out.php?url=http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm)

i forgot i had posted in this thread.

doesnt your quote support my contention that the authorship of 2timothy must be somewhat in the air? "pauline school" means followers of paul. fragments by paul himself means that most of it is likely to have been written by someone other than paul.

Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. Copyright © 2005 by Bart Ehrman.


I highly recommend this book to anyone who would claim to have an open mind. And especially those who would demand that others read the bible to better understand their views. Otherwise, they simply lack the conviction of their claims like the cowards they are.

seconded.

its an excellent introduction to the history of the text of the new testament and how hard it is to come up with the definitive "word of god" and why.

i forgot i had posted in this thread.

doesnt your quote support my contention that the authorship of 2timothy must be somewhat in the air? "pauline school" means followers of paul. fragments by paul himself means that most of it is likely to have been written by someone other than paul.

Yes, that is correct. There are at least two sides that have split into more sides (possibly more than four sides) who posit different levels of Paul's authorship of 2 Timothy. One side says simply that Paul had nothing to do with it (not held by many scholars anymore), this argument was established by nineteenth century Dutch and German theologians, but it did lead to our next position (which is held by a majority of secular theologians and I think RLI Rides Again ) who believes different degrees of “some of Paul's writings were gathered together and assembled by someone after his death or fragments were used and someone else filled in the blanks etc.,” and another side says all the naysaying is simply sour grapes speculation to begin with and has nothing to back it up, and since there is no hard evidences to believe anything was added or subtracted later and since the second century theologians accepted the writings as authentic themselves (and being the most recent to the events to know if their teachers had heard of the writings or not they should know if it was new to them or not), then 2 Timothy and the other epistles are authentic until there is something other than circumstantial reasons and unsubstantiated accusations to suspect anything else. The entire controversy is much ado about nothing as far as they are concerned (this view is held by most seminary and religious universities and colleges).

My whole point wasn't trying to pretend that there was no debate at all, only to prove that it wasn't a mutually agreed conclusion that the writings is not a Paul writing. I think I proved my point that there are more than enough people writing about why they think it is authentic Paul writings and making their case well enough.

In the Septuagint the books are arranged according to similarity of subject matter. The Pentateuch is followed by the historical books, these are followed by the books of poetry and wisdom, and these by the prophets. It is this order which, in its essential features, is perpetuated (via the Vulgate) in most Christian editions of the Bible. In some respects this order is truer to chronological sequence of the narrative contents than that of the Hebrew Bible; for example, Ruth appears immediately after Judges (since it records things that happened "in the days when the judges ruled"), and the work of the chronicler appears in the order Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

heh proove God exists, thats a good un!

"heh" Why don't you learn how to spell.

They're in response to previous posts, Pacific.

To add to my last post:

The origin of the arrangement of books in the Hebrew Bible cannot be traced; the threefold division is frequently believed to correspond to the three stages in which the books received canonical recognition, but there is no direct evidence for this.What exactly do you refer to as the Hebrew bible? The translations of the Septuagint into Hebrew?

I believe, that some of the Bible is law given to the Jewish people, from some of which Christians are excused, notably the dietary law, and the circumcision, some of which Christians are not excused from, personal modesty for example, which is roundly disobeyed instead of followed.
Some of the Bible is history, and even pretty verifiable, and some is direct revelation from God.
To interpret the Bible without taking into account the fact that this is a religion with Middle Eastern roots is to open oneself to serious errors of interpretation.

Incidentally I don't think I differ in this belief too far from the Catholic view on these matters.

For the record, I am Catholic. Maybe I don't go to church as much as I ought to, but the basics of the church are my beliefs.

Some of the Bible is history, and even pretty verifiable.Some of it, but not the aspect that deals with what people in ancient times actually believed in. Nobody prior to the Persian rule in Mesopotamia and the Levant believed in what Jews (or Christians and Muslims) believe in today, namely not the concept of "god" they believe in today.

Some of it, but not the aspect that deals with what people in ancient times actually believed in. Nobody prior to the Persian rule in Mesopotamia and the Levant believed in what Jews (or Christians and Muslims) believe in today, namely not the concept of "god" they believe in today.

Oh my goodness, is there no end to blanket statements against the scripture in this thread?

I'll assume you mean to say something like; the "Moses" sections of the Bible were written by, 1. Historians in the courts of David. 2. Jewish scholars while in exile in Babylon. 3. a myth concocted centuries later in the time of Josiah to justify the existence of a Jewish state. 4. Some other such time period which ends up with similar results.

All of this will of course be backed up by the supposed proof that there is a consensus among scholars that there is no proof that the Exodus ever took place so they now believe that it didn't... (This time I'll only reference one source, but I'll post the entire article, it seems that only a few people read the links to articles for the last subject that dismissed the 'traditional' view.)


Has the Exodus Really Been Disproven?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Lawrence H. Schiffman

That there are people who do not believe the biblical accounts of the ancient history of the Israelites is not new. What is new in "Doubting the Story of the Exodus" (LA Times, April 13, 2001) is that doubt seems to have been turned into historical fact. Readers were told that there is a consensus of biblical historians and archaeologists that the Exodus did not happen. In reality, though, no such consensus actually exists.

Many archaeologists, Bible scholars and historians continue to conclude from the evidence that the Exodus did indeed occur, among them the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hershel Shanks (Ha'aretz Magazine, Nov. 5, 1999).

Evidence for ancient events is very difficult to come by. Sometimes, to be sure, indications of an event’s historicity is uncovered but more often all that can be done is to see whether the event can plausibly fit into what is presently known about the historical period. Lack of direct evidence does not disprove an ancient event. Nor can the existence of evidence only in later literary texts be taken as an argument against their reliability; the discovery of ancient Troy came about on the evidence of the much later writings of Homer.

The Exodus is dated by most of those who accept its veracity to about 1250 BCE. We know that for the previous few centuries, the period during which the Israelites are reported to have come down to Canaan from Egypt and to have become influential, there was indeed a rise in Semitic influence in Egypt, led by a group of western Semites known as the Hyksos, who were closely related to the Hebrews. At some point, ca. 1580 BCE, the native Egyptians rebelled against these foreigners, and this development can be taken to be reflected in the Bible's description of the Pharaoh "who did not know Joseph." As a result of this change, the Semites, including the Israelites, found themselves in the difficult position the Bible records, one which must have lasted for centuries. From this point of view, the story of the slavery and Exodus is perfectly plausible within the framework of Egyptian and Near Eastern history. Further, we have letters which describe the life of work gangs from Pharaonic Egypt and these seem to paint a picture very close to that of the biblical report.

The Bible describes the period immediately after the Exodus as one of extended wandering in the desert. This wandering was said to result from the fear of the Israelites that a direct route to Canaan, along the Mediterranean coast toward what is now the Gaza Strip, would be dangerous because of the Egyptian armies stationed there. This circumstance has been confirmed as historical by the discovery of the remains of extensive Egyptian influence, habitation and fortification in the Gaza region in this period, especially at Deir al-Balakh. Again, the biblical record is confirmed.

Further support for the historicity of the Exodus comes from a stele of the Egyptian ruler Merneptah (1224-1214 BCE). In reviewing his victories against the peoples of Canaan, he claimed, "Israel is laid waste; his seed is not." Here the text designated the people of Israel, not the land, as can be shown from the Egyptian linguistic usage. Many scholars believe that this text refers to the people of Israel before they entered Canaan--that is, in the period of desert wandering. More likely, it is a reference to Israel after they have entered Canaan, but before they established themselves as a sedentary population in the hill country in today's West Bank (Judea and Samaria). Since this view accords with the dating of the Exodus we suggested above, it seems that in this text, the only Egyptian document to mention Israel, we have a direct reference to the Israelites in the period of the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan.

Assuming the biblical account to be unreliable, some scholars have substituted a Marxist theory of class revolution to explain the formation of ancient Israel. According to this approach, the masses revolted against their Canaanite overlords and, after taking control, forged for themselves the new collective identity and mythology of the Israelites. Other scholars have suggested a process of differentiation in which some Canaanites began to see themselves as a separate people, and created an identity and a sacred history from whole cloth, thus inventing the Exodus and conquest narratives. But who would invent a history of slavery and disgrace?

Further, this theory must explain away the historical and archaeological evidence. Numerous cities from this period show a cultural change at precisely the point when the Israelites are said by the Bible to have appeared. Indeed, the newcomers, since they came from the desert, show a lower level of material culture than the Canaanites whom they displaced. This situation fits well the notion of Israelite conquest and infiltration. Second, the Israelites, throughout their history in the land, were concentrated in those areas easiest to defend against the superior arms of the Canaanites, a fact that supports the notion that they were invaders. Third, the doubters have claimed that few cities from this period show evidence of armed destruction. But careful consideration of the biblical narrative, with due attention to the account in Judges and the evidence that the Canaanites were never entirely displaced, eliminates this inconsistency fully. Indeed, the archaeological record supports a reconstruction of the historical events of the conquest when both Joshua and Judges are studied together. Finally, these scholars often claim that the Bible is the only source supporting the Exodus. But they forget that several different accounts of the Exodus exist in the Bible, in books written at different periods, thus providing corroborative evidence for the basic scheme of events.

We may not possess, at least at present, conclusive proof that the Israelites left Egypt en masse as the Bible describes. What we do have, though, are several indications of the Exodus’ historicity, and ample evidence that the biblical account is entirely plausible.

It is a simple matter to claim that lack of clear, decisive external confirmation of the biblical account is itself a disproof, but no rational person believes that what has not been proven is false. What can be stated with certainly, however, is that there is no consensus that the Exodus is a myth.



Lawrence H. Schiffman is Ethel and Irvin A. Edelman Professor in Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University, where he serves as Chair of the Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies. He is an internationally known scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls and recently co-edited the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford, 2000).

My whole point wasn't trying to pretend that there was no debate at all, only to prove that it wasn't a mutually agreed conclusion that the writings is not a Paul writing. I think I proved my point that there are more than enough people writing about why they think it is authentic Paul writings and making their case well enough.

ohhh ok. of course there is debate. its so late in the day to prove anything about the authorship of the bible. the writers werent prominent people when they were writing, their writings were copied by unkown people many times in order to spread the message. many copy errors were made.

there can only be speculation. its impossible to prove much of anything definitively.

ohhh ok. of course there is debate. its so late in the day to prove anything about the authorship of the bible. the writers werent prominent people when they were writing, their writings were copied by unkown people many times in order to spread the message. many copy errors were made.

there can only be speculation. its impossible to prove much of anything definitively.which is very convenient for most folks. otherwise an author could be pinpointed and it could even be found out how much he made up by himself.

which is very convenient for most folks. otherwise an author could be pinpointed and it could even be found out how much he made up by himself.

the truth of the writings is an entirely different issue. even if you could say that paul wrote every word of every epistle credited to him with his own hand there is no real way to know if the basis of his conversion is in any way true.

Yes, that is correct. There are at least two sides that have split into more sides (possibly more than four sides) who posit different levels of Paul's authorship of 2 Timothy. One side says simply that Paul had nothing to do with it (not held by many scholars anymore), this argument was established by nineteenth century Dutch and German theologians, but it did lead to our next position (which is held by a majority of secular theologians and I think RLI Rides Again ) who believes different degrees of “some of Paul's writings were gathered together and assembled by someone after his death or fragments were used and someone else filled in the blanks etc.,”

That's a fairly accurate characterisation of my position, although I personally don't know enough to say how much (if any) of the epistles were Paul's ideas. The authors were certainly influenced by Paul's writings, but whether they included any direct quotations is another matter.

and another side says all the naysaying is simply sour grapes speculation to begin with and has nothing to back it up, and since there is no hard evidences to believe anything was added or subtracted later

I've already pointed out that there is significant divergence between the lexis and style of Paul's epistles and that of the Pastorals; most scholars consider this to be sufficient evidence when combined with other apparent discrepencies.

and since the second century theologians accepted the writings as authentic themselves (and being the most recent to the events to know if their teachers had heard of the writings or not they should know if it was new to them or not), then 2 Timothy and the other epistles are authentic until there is something other than circumstantial reasons and unsubstantiated accusations to suspect anything else.

Again, I've already pointed out that second century theologians got quite a lot wrong. Do you think that Matthew was the first Gospel and was written in Hebrew? Do you think that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (including the account of his death and the reference to places which didn't exist until long after his death)? A few credible scholars still hold to the former, but barely any still accept the latter over the Documentary Hypothesis.

The entire controversy is much ado about nothing as far as they are concerned (this view is held by most seminary and religious universities and colleges).

Considering that academics at those institutions would lose their jobs if they suggested otherwise... ;)

My whole point wasn't trying to pretend that there was no debate at all, only to prove that it wasn't a mutually agreed conclusion that the writings is not a Paul writing. I think I proved my point that there are more than enough people writing about why they think it is authentic Paul writings and making their case well enough.

And I think I've shown that the people who argue for Pauline authorship are usually wingnuts rather than mainstream scholars; I personally wouldn't consider any 'scholar' worthy of the name if they began their argument with an appeal to ecclesiastical inerrancy.

Oh my goodness, is there no end to blanket statements against the scripture in this thread?

I'll assume you mean to say something like; the "Moses" sections of the Bible were written by, 1. Historians in the courts of David. 2. Jewish scholars while in exile in Babylon. 3. a myth concocted centuries later in the time of Josiah to justify the existence of a Jewish state. 4. Some other such time period which ends up with similar results.

Actually the accepted breakdown of the Documentary Hypothesis (to which I think he's refering) proposes four sources: the Elohist (E), the Yahwist (J, because Yahweh is spelt with a J in Germany where the theory was originally proposed), the Priestly source (P, possibly a small group rather than one individual) and the Deuteronomist (D, so called because most of the book of Deuteronomy is attributed to them). There are a few short passages which are thought to have been added by a later editor when the final edition was compiled.

None of this is dependent on the non-existence of Moses or the fictionality of the Exodus (although I feel there are good grounds for both these positions), it is based entirely on textual analysis. For example, J refers to God as Yahweh while E prefers Elohim; in P, priests of the line of Aaron are pre-eminent and are the only ones who perform rituals and sacrifices; J and E write in archaic Hebrew compared to P, whose language is dated compared to D.

Let me give you an example using the story of the Flood, which is a combination of J and P. Here's the full Flood story:

6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
6:3 And Yahweh said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6:6 And it repented Yahweh that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
6:7 And Yahweh said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of Yahweh.
6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
7:1 And Yahweh said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
7:5 And Noah did according unto all that Yahweh commanded him.
7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and Yahweh shut him in.
7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged;
8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
8:6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:
8:7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
8:8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.
8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;
8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
8:12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.
8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
8:14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
8:15 And God spake unto Noah, saying,
8:16 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.
8:17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.
8:18 And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him:
8:19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.
8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto Yahweh; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
8:21 And Yahweh smelled a sweet savour; and Yahweh said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Some parts are written in much older Hebrew than other parts, suggesting multiple authors. If we read the older text in isolation:

6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
6:3 And Yahweh said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6:6 And it repented Yahweh that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
6:7 And Yahweh said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of Yahweh.
7:1 And Yahweh said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
7:5 And Noah did according unto all that Yahweh commanded him.
7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
7:16 and Yahweh shut him in.
7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
8:2 and the rain from heaven was restrained;
8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually:
8:6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:
8:8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.
8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;
8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
8:12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.
8:13 and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto Yahweh; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
8:21 And Yahweh smelled a sweet savour; and Yahweh said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

and the more modern account of the Flood:

6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him:
7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged;
8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped,
8:3 and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
8:7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth:
8:14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
8:15 And God spake unto Noah, saying,
8:16 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.
8:17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.
8:18 And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him:
8:19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.

we see that the text can be broken down into two separate stories. The evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis mounts up when you realise that these separate accounts are actually more coherent than the combined one (contradictions such as "how many clean animals were taken onto the ark?" vanish) and that the style of the two accounts is consistent with what we know of J and P (in J's account God shuts the door of the ark personally, which is consistent with J's vision of a personal God, P's God is more aloof and doesn't get directly involved; in P's account Noah takes only one pair of each 'clean' species and performs no sacrifices because P believed that only priests of the line of Aaron could perform sacrifices).

Of course, even if the DH was completely disproven tomorrow Mosaic authorship would still be discredited due to anachronisms like Abraham's pursuit of his enemies "unto Dan" when the city was only named thusly after it was captured by the tribe of Dan during the invasion of Canaan, the description of Moses' death, the description of events which occured after Moses' death (the end of mana upon their entry into Canaan), and the passage which states that "Moses was the meekest man that ever lived" which would be wonderfully ironic if it was really written by Moses.

I hereby award a thousand cookies to anyone with the patience to read all of this, I hope you found it interesting. :p Any questions?

The threefold division of the Hebrew Bible is reflected in the wording of Luke 24:44 ("the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms"); more commonly the New Testament refers to "the Law and the Prophets" (see Matt. 7:12) or "Moses and the Prophets" (see Luke 16:29).

It's a book with lots of archaic names, no real plot and a bit repetitive towards the end. I'd only give it one star out of five: a book that long should have a real plot. :D

The divine revelation that the Old Testament records was conveyed in two principal ways--by mighty works and prophetic words. These two modes of revelation are bound up indissolubly together. The acts of mercy and judgment by which the God of Israel made himself known to his covenant people would not have carried their proper message had they not been interpreted to them by the prophets--the "spokesmen" of God who received and communicated his word. For example, the events of the Exodus would not have acquired their abiding significance for the Israelites if Moses had not told them that in these events the God of their fathers was acting for their deliverance, in accordance with his ancient promises, so that they might be his people and he their God. On the other hand, Moses' words would have been fruitless apart from their vindication in the events of the Exodus. We may compare the similarly significant role of Samuel at the time of the Philistine menace, of the great eighth-century prophets when Assyria was sweeping all before her, of Jeremiah and Ezekiel when the kingdom of Judah came to an end, and so forth.

*snip*
Any questions?1. Where are the (far older) Mesopotamian accounts of the Flood? Why is the (later) Jewish account different form the earlier accounts?
2. Is this an attempt to drown us in text?

1. Where are the (far older) Mesopotamian accounts of the Flood? Why is the (later) Jewish account different form the earlier accounts?
2. Is this an attempt to drown us in text?

get over yourself

Nicely taken out of context. No it isn't, and for future reference, don't rely on the "out of context" argument to qualify biblical incidence. Think about that for a second.
So you see, God was entirely right in being pissed off at the people. That doesn't make Him evil; on the contrary, Moses being able to persuade Him to forgive the people is clear evidence of God's benevolence, regardless of what you or I might think about genocide being a proper punishment for worshipping false idols.
It shows a lack of discerning judgment on God's part, obviously.

Furthermore, just because the translator of KJV has chosen to use the word 'evil' to describe God's intentions, it doesn't mean it's correct.That's why you should look at all the other translations, eh? So you can put it into context, as you put it. The Bible has even much bigger translation errors. KJV, or any other translation for that matter, just isn't evidence of anythingIt is, of course, where people will argue that it's either the inerrant word of God, or divinely inspired STILL the word of God., or divinely inspired words by men to reflect the actions and intent of God, for which, there is a context for the text provided. You said "you" wouldn't call "God" evil, whereas obviously beings who knew him better than yourself did, or at least his actions. In many, many translations. There's the context.
choice of words is the issue. The Finnish version, from which I checked, doesn't mention evil at all, just hatred and wrath. Well, i would certainly expect hatred to be an acceptable personality trait for what is supposed to be an all-loving, all-knowing, and just and right god. :rolleyes:
Is the Hebrew word for evil used in the original?Are you asking me to check for you about translations?
Further, you're gonna have to decide on which "translations" match your interpretation, since you won't really get any proof of which one is actually "true" anyway.

get over yourselfplease, he's just comparing versions of the same narrative, but fails to compare different sources from different times and places. it's like comparing Kings with Chronicles, instead of comparing the bible with non-biblical sources and actually making an attempt to find out things.

1. Where are the (far older) Mesopotamian accounts of the Flood? Why is the (later) Jewish account different form the earlier accounts?
2. Is this an attempt to drown us in text?

You are complaining about too much evidence? Tsk.

Not everyone accepts that there is a long tradition of Hebrew scripture. This is good. Doubt is good. However, just because there is doubt, that isn't the same as certainty of absence - especially when the tradition being discussed is an oral tradition.

So - today's scholar can find no extant copy of Hebrew scripture that is older than a few centuries BC... does that mean there were definitely no documents? No. Although - it does suggest that the documented version probably doesn't exist until after Babylon.

But - what of an oral tradition? After all - the first few chapters of scripture (indeed, various parts of a LOT of the Hebrew scripture) look a lot like they could be directly inspired by babylonian tales.

So - can we be SURE there was no pre-existant Hebrew tradition? No - of course not. We can strongly suspect that the authors of Old Testament scripture were influenced by material they found in babylon (or had encountered earlier, ultimately from the same source).

But - there is a clue that there was SOME form of Hebrew tradtion... and that is the repetition of the stories.

One can look at the story of Cain and Abel... and compare it to Jacob and Esau. The details are remarkably similar. It is basically the same story told with different details. Or - maybe the reverse... the details are the same, where the story elements change. Even more obviously - the Creation story is told (at least) three times, in varying fashions, and varying amounts of detail.

It is the very repetition of these story elements... plus the 'local flavour' of them, that supports the idea that there WAS an earlier 'tradition'.

Of course - we don't know for sure how much the CURRENT version resembles any of the 'original' traditions.

please, he's just comparing versions of the same narrative, but fails to compare different sources from different times and places. it's like comparing Kings with Chronicles, instead of comparing the bible with non-biblical sources and actually making an attempt to find out things.

Pay attention.

The point of the post you responded too... was to show that it is unlikely the 'mosaic' texts are artifacts of ONE hand.

Thus - we only NEED to discuss the mosaic texts. Indeed, talking about Akkadian stories would be a red herring, in the CONTEXT.

You are complaining about too much evidence? Tsk.

Not everyone accepts that there is a long tradition of Hebrew scripture. This is good. Doubt is good. However, just because there is doubt, that isn't the same as certainty of absence - especially when the tradition being discussed is an oral tradition.

So - today's scholar can find no extant copy of Hebrew scripture that is older than a few centuries BC... does that mean there were definitely no documents? No. Although - it does suggest that the documented version probably doesn't exist until after Babylon.

But - what of an oral tradition? After all - the first few chapters of scripture (indeed, various parts of a LOT of the Hebrew scripture) look a lot like they could be directly inspired by babylonian tales.

So - can we be SURE there was no pre-existant Hebrew tradition? No - of course not. We can strongly suspect that the authors of Old Testament scripture were influenced by material they found in babylon (or had encountered earlier, ultimately from the same source).

But - there is a clue that there was SOME form of Hebrew tradtion... and that is the repetition of the stories.

One can look at the story of Cain and Abel... and compare it to Jacob and Esau. The details are remarkably similar. It is basically the same story told with different details. Or - maybe the reverse... the details are the same, where the story elements change. Even more obviously - the Creation story is told (at least) three times, in varying fashions, and varying amounts of detail.

It is the very repetition of these story elements... plus the 'local flavour' of them, that supports the idea that there WAS an earlier 'tradition'.

Of course - we don't know for sure how much the CURRENT version resembles any of the 'original' traditions.

yeah, the "oral tradition" concept is very useful for the jewish, um, project...

Pay attention.

The point of the post you responded too... was to show that it is unlikely the 'mosaic' texts are artifacts of ONE hand.

Thus - we only NEED to discuss the mosaic texts. Indeed, talking about Akkadian stories would be a red herring, in the CONTEXT.
Very well then. I agree that the "mosaic" texts are a mosaic of texts from various authors, but that really isn't something particularly new, is it? And yet all the authors apparently had a common goal, to convert the older narratives (which they surely used as sources) into a narrative that would fit with their own religion. If different versions of these narratives have a few lines more or less doesn't really make such a difference. In the Interpretaion of the Bible one has to be cautious not to just use a perspective from the "inside".

All of this will of course be backed up by the supposed proof that there is a consensus among scholars that there is no proof that the Exodus ever took place so they now believe that it didn't...


A lack of proof is not proof of lack.

Any 'scholar' who claims otherwise, is a pretty poor scholar.


Has the Exodus Really Been Disproven?


Does it matter? Even if not DISproved, that doesn't mean it is 'proved'.


Lack of direct evidence does not disprove an ancient event.


Neither does lack of lack of eveidence PROVE the event happened.


We know that for the previous few centuries, the period during which the Israelites are reported to have come down to Canaan from Egypt and to have become influential, there was indeed a rise in Semitic influence in Egypt, led by a group of western Semites known as the Hyksos, who were closely related to the Hebrews.


Actually - there has been some discussion that the Hyksos not only are 'related to' the Hebrews... but might have BEEN the Hebrews.


At some point, ca. 1580 BCE, the native Egyptians rebelled against these foreigners, and this development can be taken to be reflected in the Bible's description of the Pharaoh "who did not know Joseph." As a result of this change, the Semites, including the Israelites, found themselves in the difficult position the Bible records, one which must have lasted for centuries. From this point of view, the story of the slavery and Exodus is perfectly plausible within the framework of Egyptian and Near Eastern history.


Plausible, if not for the fact that the evidence strongly suggests the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt. Not enslaved.


Further, we have letters which describe the life of work gangs from Pharaonic Egypt and these seem to paint a picture very close to that of the biblical report.


Worth noting - Egypt wasn't a slave-holding nation for it's full dynastic history...

yeah, the "oral tradition" concept is very useful for the jewish, um, project...

The what?

And... the 'convenience' of an oral tradition was ALL you got from that? I'd like to say how much I appreciate the amount of attention you pay. But, I dislike dishonesty.

Worth noting - Egypt wasn't a slave-holding nation for it's full dynastic history...Well, it was when huge numbers of Aamu ('Asiatics', including Hebrews) lived there in the 12th and 13th Dynasties.

The what?

And... the 'convenience' of an oral tradition was ALL you got from that? I'd like to say how much I appreciate the amount of attention you pay. But, I dislike dishonesty.
Can you give me any evidence for such an oral tradition, please. Then we can talk about all the ifs and coulds.
And what is the value of such a supposed oral tradition when the written traditions of contemporary peoples differ from what you assume as the content of said oral tradition?

Oh, and I fail to see the parallels between the Cain-Abel story and the Jacob-Esau story. Cain killed Abel because he got rejected. Jacob took Esau's birthright out of greed, assisted by his mother.

Very well then. I agree that the "mosaic" texts are a mosaic of texts from various authors, but that really isn't something particularly new, is it?


Yes.

Indeed, that was exactly what was being debated.

And it is still a matter of discussion to some - although most scholars now favour the 'collective' thought.


And yet all the authors apparently had a common goal, to convert the older narratives (which they surely used as sources) into a narrative that would fit with their own religion. If different versions of these narratives have a few lines more or less doesn't really make such a difference. In the Interpretaion of the Bible one has to be cautious not to just use a perspective from the "inside".

Unless the matter of debate is the 'inside' argument.

You really seem to be having a problem with the 'in context' part.

Well, it was when huge numbers of Aamu ('Asiatics', including Hebrews) lived there in the 12th and 13th Dynasties.

Foreigners living in your country doesn't necessarily equate to a slavetrade.

Under Ramses II, foreigners held prominent positions.

Can you give me any evidence for such an oral tradition, please. Then we can talk about all the ifs and coulds.
And what is the value of such a supposed oral tradition when the written traditions of contemporary peoples differ from what you assume as the content of said oral tradition?


You want me to show you evidence of an oral tradition... but you don't consider the narrative evidence to be evidence?

What would you like, taperecordings?

The simple fact that the stories employ different narrative forms of Hebrew (suggesting a long divergence between their creation) is a pretty good indication. But, not for you, apparently.


Oh, and I fail to see the parallels between the Cain-Abel story and the Jacob-Esau story.

Your failings are hardly my fault.

This interplay of mighty work and prophetic word in the Old Testament explains why history and prophecy are so intermingled throughout its pages; it was no doubt some realization of this that led the Jews to include the chief historical books among the Prophets. But not only do the Old Testament writings record this progressive twofold revelation of God; they record at the same time men's response to God's revelation--a response sometimes obedient, too often disobedient. In this Old Testament record of the response of those to whom the word of God came, the New Testament finds practical instruction for Christians; of the Israelites' rebellion in the wilderness and the disasters which ensued Paul writes: "These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come" (1 Cor. 10:11).

You want me to show you evidence of an oral tradition... but you don't consider the narrative evidence to be evidence?What evidence is there?

What would you like, taperecordings?Yes, I would like that.

The simple fact that the stories employ different narrative forms of Hebrew (suggesting a long divergence between their creation) is a pretty good indication.How so?

Your failings are hardly my fault.Well, it's less one of my failings than a bold interpretation on your part.

What evidence is there?


You're yanking my chain, right?


Well, it's less one of my failings than a bold interpretation on your part.

Yep. That'll be it. You can't see the common elements to the stories, so I'm at fault.

Dude, for someone who acts like such an expert on the scripture, a little attention to it, now and then, wouldn't hurt.

You're yanking my chain, right?What evidence is there?

Yep. That'll be it. You can't see the common elements to the stories, so I'm at fault.

Dude, for someone who acts like such an expert on the scripture, a little attention to it, now and then, wouldn't hurt.There is no common element in the stories whatsoever. Anger over divine rejection is not the same as greed and deceit, is it?

Regarding its place in the Christian Bible, the Old Testament is preparatory in character: what "God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets" waited for its completion in what was "spoken to us by his Son" (Heb. 1:1-2). Yet the Old Testament was the Bible that the apostles and other preachers of the gospel in the earliest days of Christianity took with them when they proclaimed Jesus as the divinely sent Messiah, Lord, and Savior: they found in it clear witness to Christ (John 5:39) and a plain setting forth of the way of salvation through faith in him (Rom. 3:21; 2 Tim. 3:15). For their use of the Old Testament they had the authority and example of Christ himself; and the church ever since has done well when it has followed the precedent set by him and his apostles and recognized the Old Testament as Christian Scripture. "What was indispensable to the Redeemer must always be indispensable to the redeemed" (G.A. Smith).

please, he's just comparing versions of the same narrative, but fails to compare different sources from different times and places.

why would that be done in the context of explaining the documentary hypothesis?

listen, we get it, one time you heard about gilgamesh and decided that that totally excuses your fear and hatred for the space jooz. that's awesome. now kindly piss off if you can't come up with something relevant to say.

What evidence is there?


You're wasting my time. You're wasting bandwidth.

If you think this serves a purpose... you're wasting your own time.

I've presented you several points to consider, which you've failed to actually address or - I suspect - to really consider. Sitting with hands over your eyes is not a valid method by which to assess the evidence.

You've made up your mind. Whatever. You're now using up my time, and - as a wise prophet once said, "bored now".


There is no common element in the stories whatsoever. Anger over divine rejection is not the same as greed and deceit, is it?

Okay.

Maybe it's more obvious in the Hebrew. Maybe you just didn't 'get' the stories.

Whatever. Like I said, not interested any more.

Your little comments like "the jewish, um, project", or your other fave "jew-ish" speak of an agenda beyond anything I'm willing to discuss. I'll debate the material, I won't indulge (what appears to be) a 'virtual' pogrom.

why would that be done in the context of explaining the documentary hypothesis?

listen, we get it, one time you heard about gilgamesh and decided that that totally excuses your fear and hatred for the space jooz. that's awesome. now kindly piss off if you can't come up with something relevant to say.it's so funny to see what indoctrination can do.
The issue of this thread is Interpretaion of the Bible. Here is one: it's all a lie. And you folks have time to discuss single words in that lie. Too funny.

You're wasting my time. You're wasting bandwidth.

If you think this serves a purpose... you're wasting your own time.

I've presented you several points to consider, which you've failed to actually address or - I suspect - to really consider. Sitting with hands over your eyes is not a valid method by which to assess the evidence.

You've made up your mind. Whatever. You're now using up my time, and - as a wise prophet once said, "bored now".



Okay.

Maybe it's more obvious in the Hebrew. Maybe you just didn't 'get' the stories.

Whatever. Like I said, not interested any more.

Your little comments like "the jewish, um, project", or your other fave "jew-ish" speak of an agenda beyond anything I'm willing to discuss. I'll debate the material, I won't indulge (what appears to be) a 'virtual' pogrom.

For someone who claims to not believe in God you are putting a lot of effort in defending the fabricated religion and its alternative history.

1. Where are the (far older) Mesopotamian accounts of the Flood? Why is the (later) Jewish account different form the earlier accounts?
2. Is this an attempt to drown us in text?

1. To the best of my knowledge the Hebrew's took the story, not the text. The Documentary Hypothesis is about who wrote which parts of the Torah (and probably Joshua too); the question of where the original themes came from is an interesting one, but not of direct relevance to the current debate.

2. My own post is less than one A4 page in Word format. You can skip over the transcription of the Genesis Flood story if you're prepared to believe me when I say they match up, but I thought that people might like to read it for themselves.

For someone who claims to not believe in God you are putting a lot of effort in defending the fabricated religion and its alternative history.

I don't believe in god/gods... but I'm honest about it. There is no agenda, and when your argument is bullshit, I'll say it's bullshit. I don't care if you're an atheist... a Christian.. or the Pope.

You make a fundamental error. Seriously, it's gradeschool stuff. You assume lack of evidence equates to evidence of lack. If you don't like being called on it, do the bookwork.

1. To the best of my knowledge the Hebrew's took the story, not the text.Well, they changed it considerably.

2. My own post is less than one A4 page in Word format. You can skip over the transcription of the Genesis Flood story if you're prepared to believe me when I say they match up, but I thought that people might like to read it for themselves.I'm reading it. But what's the significance?

I don't believe in god/gods... but I'm honest about it. There is no agenda, and when your argument is bullshit, I'll say it's bullshit. I don't care if you're an atheist... a Christian.. or the Pope.

You make a fundamental error. Seriously, it's gradeschool stuff. You assume lack of evidence equates to evidence of lack. If you don't like being called on it, do the bookwork.Lack of evidence? Are you kidding? Is the Bible all that has come out of the Middle East in the past 5000 years or what? The Bible tells one story, but all other sources tell a different story. You put the scribbling of a handful of Hebrews over the abundance of literature of Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks, Hittites, Phoenicians, etc ?

Neither does lack of lack of eveidence PROVE the event happened.

What's more, I'd say that given the circumstances a lack of evidence is very strong evidence for the Exodus being fiction (at least on the scale portrayed in the Bible). For the best part of a century hordes of 'Biblical Archaeologists' (both professionals and amateurs) have been scouring the Middle East for any evidence which might support the Biblical narrative, and as a result the Sinai is one of the most thoroughly excavated areas in the world. Despite this, no trace has been found of the horde of wandering Hebrews coming out of Egypt: no signs of encampment, no artifacts, no enormous pits of human excrement; all we've got is a piece of rock from the Red Sea, courtesy of Ron Wyatt, which looks a bit like a chariot wheel if you turn your head and squint.

If the Exodus had happened then we would expect evidence to be found, and if evidence was found then it would be trumpeted by thousands of Christian and Jewish groups around the world. The fact that this has yet to happen speaks volumes.

What's more, I'd say that given the circumstances a lack of evidence is very strong evidence for the Exodus being fiction (at least on the scale portrayed in the Bible). For the best part of a century hordes of 'Biblical Archaeologists' (both professionals and amateurs) have been scouring the Middle East for any evidence which might support the Biblical narrative, and as a result the Sinai is one of the most thoroughly excavated areas in the world. Despite this, no trace has been found of the horde of wandering Hebrews coming out of Egypt: no signs of encampment, no artifacts, no enormous pits of human excrement; all we've got is a piece of rock from the Red Sea, courtesy of Ron Wyatt, which looks a bit like a chariot wheel if you turn your head and squint.

If the Exodus had happened then we would expect evidence to be found, and if evidence was found then it would be trumpeted by thousands of Christian and Jewish groups around the world. The fact that this has yet to happen speaks volumes.

Ron Wyatt? The dude claiming that Sinai is in Arabia?

There is no need to doubt the Exodus as such, but there is every reason to reject the idea that the Jew-ish god had anything to do with it.

Well, they changed it considerably.

Quite possibly. I don't know enough to make an informed judgement so I won't comment.

I'm reading it. But what's the significance?

It was posted in response to a guy who was misrepresenting the Documentary Hypothesis (not intentionally I'm sure) in his attempts to critique it. I presented a brief summary of the DH, gave an example of how parts of the text are broken down, and explained why the evidence suggests multiple authors rather than Moses.

People here don't take too kindly to ignorance.

Even though they practice it fervently?

The New Testament stands to the Old Testament in the relation of fulfillment to promise. If the Old Testament records what "God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets," the New Testament records that final word which he spoke in his Son, in which all the earlier revelation was summed up, confirmed, and transcended. The mighty works of the Old Testament revelation culminate in the redemptive work of Christ; the words of the Old Testament prophets receive their fulfillment in him. But he is not only God's crowning revelation to man; he is also man's perfect response to God--the high priest as well as the apostle of our confession (Heb. 3:1). If the Old Testament records the witness of those who saw the day of Christ before it dawned, the New Testament records the witness of those who saw and heard him in the days of his flesh, and who came to know and proclaim the significance of his coming more fully, by the power of his Spirit, after his resurrection from the dead.

Even though they practice it fervently?

Ouchouchoochouchowieoucharggghouchowie

Wha-ahahahaha!!! Hohohohahaha*snort*hahahaheeehehehahahaha!!!!

John 12:48 [Jesus speaking]: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."


Heh. Sure. Don't take it badly or anything if someone might just prove you wrong, repeatedly, and in a severely personal and humiliating fashion.

OK, then, if I'm so "wrong", then prove it to me.

Go ahead, give me even one piece of proof that corroborates the THEORY of evolution and/or the non-existence of God.

Ouchouchoochouchowieoucharggghouchowie

What is THAT supposed to mean? :confused:

What is THAT supposed to mean? :confused:

I don't know, but it's a more constructive contribution to the debate than the post it was replying to...

I don't know, but it's a more constructive contribution to the debate than the post it was replying to...

No, it's NOT. People on NSG are very ignorant of the Bible, and obsessed with evolution and insisting that God does not exist; they are willingly ignorant of Him.

"Ouchouchoochouchowieoucharggghouchowie" is NOT at all constructive, or even relevant. You just say it is because you want to make fun of me.

John 12:48 [Jesus speaking]: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."

fb;dc

OK, then, if I'm so "wrong", then prove it to me.

Go ahead, give me even one piece of proof that corroborates the THEORY of evolution and/or the non-existence of God.

Use of a lack of understanding of science and scientific terms in a failed attempt to bolster a shoddy argument.

...ahhh...I haven't had the joy of pointing that out in ages. Thanks, kiddo. I owe you one.

fb;dc

Okay, what does THAT mean? :headbang:

Use of a lack of understanding of science and scientific terms in a failed attempt to bolster a shoddy argument.

...ahhh...I haven't had the joy of pointing that out in ages. Thanks, kiddo. I owe you one.

Oh, scientific terms? You mean doublespeak invented for the purpose of either LYING or CHARGING MONEY to learn the "tradesman's teminology"?

And besides, my so-called "lack of understanding of science and scientific terms" does NOT prove evolution or the non-existence of God. It just means I haven't been educated out of my sanity like Darwinian evolutionisis have been.

I'm still waiting for conclusive proof of evolution and the non-existence of God.

Use of a lack of understanding of science and scientific terms in a failed attempt to bolster a shoddy argument.

...ahhh...I haven't had the joy of pointing that out in ages. Thanks, kiddo. I owe you one.
I think we really need a new word the replace "theory" when referring to science. I'm thinking, "super-well-proved-statement-that-is-true-and-there-is-little-to-know-doubt-in-scientists'-mind -that-this-is-true-and-to-believe-otherwise-is-to-be-very-silly-indeed." I look forward to seeing people say, "But remember, evolution is only a super-well-proved-statement-that-is-true-and-there-is-little-to-know-doubt-in-scientists'-mind -that-this-is-true-and-to-believe-otherwise-is-to-be-very-silly-indeed."

No, it's NOT. People on NSG are very ignorant of the Bible, and obsessed with evolution and insisting that God does not exist; they are willingly ignorant of Him.

Grave is very knowledgable on the Bible, as is UB from what I've seen. While we and others have been discussing textual analysis and the historicity of the Biblical narrative you've contributed nothing but unsupported assertions and insults. I think that speaks for itself in terms of your knowledge.

"Ouchouchoochouchowieoucharggghouchowie" is NOT at all constructive, or even relevant. You just say it is because you want to make fun of me.

Yep, but considering that you just accused everyone on NS (which would presumably include me) of ignorance I hardly see that you can complain.

Use of a lack of understanding of science and scientific terms in a failed attempt to bolster a shoddy argument.

...ahhh...I haven't had the joy of pointing that out in ages. Thanks, kiddo. I owe you one.

Feel free to take over, I'm off to bed. :):p

No it isn't, and for future reference, don't rely on the "out of context" argument to qualify biblical incidence. Think about that for a second.

So you're going to prove something just by finding a part, where God and evil are used in the same sentence, and it doesn't matter at all that the people deserved this "evil*"?

*Which, by the way, wasn't defined in any way in your exerpt.

It shows a lack of discerning judgment on God's part, obviously.

So? One of the central teachings of christianity is that one can try to persuade God to change His mind through prayer.

That's why you should look at all the other translations, eh? So you can put it into context, as you put it.

No, that's why you should look at the original. Generally, there is no reason to assume one translation to be better than another. The original, although not necessarily perfect either, is less corrupted by the human errors that inevitably happen during translation.

It is, of course, where people will argue that it's either the inerrant word of God, or divinely inspired STILL the word of God., or divinely inspired words by men to reflect the actions and intent of God, for which, there is a context for the text provided.

Yes, some people take the Bible more literally than others. So? I have no reason to believe that the Bible is inerrant, at least not certain popular translations. This is because of the other translation errors I've mentioned.

You said "you" wouldn't call "God" evil, whereas obviously beings who knew him better than yourself did,

I'm sure Moses knew God better than I do. I'm not so sure about the guy, who wrote the Exodus down after it being passed orally down from a generation to the next for possibly hundreds, if not thousands of years, nor about the guy, who translated it into the King James Version.

or at least his actions.

...and here we go. The question to which this entire debate comes down. Even if we assume that you're correct about God's plans being evil in that instance, there's no reason to assume that a good being wouldn't be able to commit evil deeds to achieve greater good. The greater good in this case being having the people punished for committing an evil deed.

Well, i would certainly expect hatred to be an acceptable personality trait for what is supposed to be an all-loving, all-knowing, and just and right god. :rolleyes:

According to the Bible, humans were created in God's image. Humans are capable of feeling hatred. Therefore God is capable of feeling hatred. A father can be royally pissed of at his children if they misbehave, but that doesn't mean that he stops loving them.

I should point out that the translation in question didn't say that God hated the people itself, just the act they did.

Are you asking me to check for you about translations?

I'd never do such a thing. I'm asking you to check for yourself about translations. After all, it was you who claimed that according to the Bible, God can be evil. It is your job to provide support for that argument. I congratulate you for finding it in KJV, but as I've mentioned, it's not close enough.

Further, you're gonna have to decide on which "translations" match your interpretation, since you won't really get any proof of which one is actually "true" anyway.

Optimally, I'd rely on the originals, but since I don't speak Hebrew, Ancient Greek, or the other languages they used, then yeah. I'm not saying that it's impossible for KJV having gotten this one right, but it will need some outside support.

Okay, what does THAT mean? :headbang:

From Bible; Don't Care



Oh, scientific terms? You mean doublespeak invented for the purpose of either LYING or CHARGING MONEY to learn the "tradesman's teminology"?

And besides, my so-called "lack of understanding of science and scientific terms" does NOT prove evolution or the non-existence of God. It just means I haven't been educated out of my sanity like Darwinian evolutionisis have been.

I'm still waiting for conclusive proof of evolution and the non-existence of God.

Oh deary dear. So my tuition is going towards learning a few terms? Whatever will I do when I end up in grad school, learning even MORE terms.
I take it this means that, to you, the Uncertainty Principle has something to do with you not knowing where around your parent's basement you left your bag of cheese doodles?

I'm still waiting for the conclusive proof that God, god, gOd, Gahod, and Geeeeeeod, exist. Go figure.

Grave is very knowledgable on the Bible, as is UB from what I've seen. While we and others have been discussing textual analysis and the historicity of the Biblical narrative you've contributed nothing but unsupported assertions and insults. I think that speaks for itself in terms of your knowledge.


OK, fine: many people on NSG are ignorant of God and the Bible, not necessarily everybody. I never meant to say that LITERALLY EVERYBODY was ignorant.

Yep, but considering that you just accused everyone on NS (which would presumably include me) of ignorance I hardly see that you can complain.

Being made fun of is not what I'm objecting to; it's incomprehensible crap like "Ouchouchoochouchowieoucharggghouchowie", and the double standard practiced by atheists on NS that allows their kind "carte blanche" to make fun of Bible-believing Christians, but not vice versa, i.e. "They dish it out, but they shouldn't have to take it."

Feel free to take over, I'm off to bed. :):p

You Brits and your "sleeping." Off with ya now, lad. I'll handle this :)

From Bible; Don't Care

Well at least you answered my question, instead of ignoring me and making fun of me for asking it. That's more than can be said for your next reply:

Oh deary dear. So my tuition is going towards learning a few terms? Whatever will I do when I end up in grad school, learning even MORE terms.
I take it this means that, to you, the Uncertainty Principle has something to do with you not knowing where around your parent's basement you left your bag of cheese doodles?

I'm still waiting for the conclusive proof that God, god, gOd, Gahod, and Geeeeeeod, exist. Go figure.

1. I don't live in my parents' basement; I live in my own house
2. My parents' house doesn't even HAVE a basement
3. The earth and universe are so delicately balanced that the odds against it all happening by accident are so great that it would take more faith to believe it did than it would to believe that a Supreme Being created it. This is what is known as "Intelligent Design".

That alone (#3) is proof that God, or Allah, or SOME form of Higher Power, whatever you call him/her/it/them, exists.

Lack of evidence? Are you kidding? Is the Bible all that has come out of the Middle East in the past 5000 years or what? The Bible tells one story, but all other sources tell a different story. You put the scribbling of a handful of Hebrews over the abundance of literature of Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks, Hittites, Phoenicians, etc ?

those sources all tell exactly the same story?

Ron Wyatt? The dude claiming that Sinai is in Arabia?

There is no need to doubt the Exodus as such, but there is every reason to reject the idea that the Jew-ish god had anything to do with it.

so you believe that the family of jacob moved to egypt in a time of drought, stayed on and prospered until they were so numerous that the egyptians enslaved them, then some time later a hebrew baby who had been adopted by the pharoah's daughter ended up leading them to freedom and wandering 40 years in the desert?

its all true except things like the plagues, the parting of the red sea and mana from heaven?

Lack of evidence? Are you kidding? Is the Bible all that has come out of the Middle East in the past 5000 years or what? The Bible tells one story, but all other sources tell a different story. You put the scribbling of a handful of Hebrews over the abundance of literature of Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks, Hittites, Phoenicians, etc ?

From what I recall, Mesopotamian literature singularly fails to address Torah, Talmud or midrash texts.

Am I putting "the scribbling of a handful of Hebrews" (yet more derogatory phrasing, this is really showing your true colours, you realise) over the "abundance of literature of Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks, Hittites, Phoenicians, etc"?

No - I don't believe ANY of their texts. They are all very pretty, and all, but they are fairly obviously also evolutionary stages in a continued process. The Hebrew scripture wasn't the last evolution. One can assume Ubaid temples weren't actually the first evolution, either.

You seem to be assuming there is no god, based on a lack of evidence. That's not a logical position.

You are claiming there is no pre-written Hebrew tradition, based on a lack of evidence. That's equally illogical.

so you believe that the family of jacob moved to egypt in a time of drought, stayed on and prospered until they were so numerous that the egyptians enslaved them, then some time later a hebrew baby who had been adopted by the pharoah's daughter ended up leading them to freedom and wandering 40 years in the desert?

its all true except things like the plagues, the parting of the red sea and mana from heaven?
I think he was referring specifically to the Exodus, that is, the Jews leaving Egypt. It's entirely possible that happened.

I think he was referring specifically to the Exodus, that is, the Jews leaving Egypt. It's entirely possible that happened.

while that makes logical sense, when it comes to UB you just cant know until he confirms it.

No, it's NOT. People on NSG are very ignorant of the Bible,


I believe that RLI already pointed out this might not be true. (For which I owe thanks). I've more than a passing familiarity with the material. Keruvalia (who is rare, but, I believe back in action) more than equals me in a number of areas. UB (whom I ridicule, admittedly) knows more than many.

Jocabia, Dempublicents, Smunkeeville... a sampling of some of the Christians that are quite well acquainted.

Upwardthrust, Ashmoria... I could keep going. (Any exceptions are laziness on my part, not deliberate slights, or insinuations of lack of knowledge).

In my experience, you couldn't be more wrong... NSG is one of the places internet or otherwise, where I have encountered the most people that are 'not ignorant' of the Bible.


...and obsessed with evolution


Who? I'm certainly not. It's a theory... and a particularly well-supported one, at that.


...and insisting that God does not exist;


Again - who? I certainly do not 'insist that god does not exist'. Far from it - I consider that an entirely illogical argument.


...they are willingly ignorant of Him.


How can one be willingly ignorant of something that is (apparently) willingly absent?

I think he was referring specifically to the Exodus, that is, the Jews leaving Egypt. It's entirely possible that happened.

Is it? And yet, no one chose to record it...

Well at least you answered my question, instead of ignoring me and making fun of me for asking it. That's more than can be said for your next reply:



1. I don't live in my parents' basement; I live in my own house
2. My parents' house doesn't even HAVE a basement

*shrug* dc.

3. The earth and universe are so delicately balanced that the odds against it all happening by accident are so great that it would take more faith to believe it did than it would to believe that a Supreme Being created it. This is what is known as "Intelligent Design".

That alone (#3) is proof that God, or Allah, or SOME form of Higher Power, whatever you call him/her/it/them, exists.

Not really. First you'd have to prove that they are balanced, and delicately (on what, pray tell, as I think Atlas is on vacation at the moment and Zeus could never lift it on his own, much less balance it all).

In fact, the "odds" of it happening randomly don't really matter, since the "odds" of getting a particular arrangement of 52 cards in a deck of 52 cards after a fair and even shuffle is something on the order of 10^reallyfuckinglarge. If you want the actual number, look up the Life in the AI thread here on NSG, as I'm not calculating it a second time just to prove a point. The suggestion, then, that Jesus had to put those cards in that particular order because it's SO UNLIKELY for them to get that way naturally is, I hope you'll agree, patent bullshit.

And if you don't agree, well I suppose there's not much hope for you.

*shrug* dc.



Not really. First you'd have to prove that they are balanced, and delicately (on what, pray tell, as I think Atlas is on vacation at the moment and Zeus could never lift it on his own, much less balance it all).

In fact, the "odds" of it happening randomly don't really matter, since the "odds" of getting a particular arrangement of 52 cards in a deck of 52 cards after a fair and even shuffle is something on the order of 10^reallyfuckinglarge. If you want the actual number, look up the Life in the AI thread here on NSG, as I'm not calculating it a second time just to prove a point. The suggestion, then, that Jesus had to put those cards in that particular order because it's SO UNLIKELY for them to get that way naturally is, I hope you'll agree, patent bullshit.

And if you don't agree, well I suppose there's not much hope for you.

Or - in one-line format:

The odds of an already-existent event having happened are... 1 in 1.

In other words, probability is irrelevent once a thing has happened.

Is it? And yet, no one chose to record it...
I claim no knowledge. However, I'm sure the Egyptians had slaves, and its very possible there were slaves from Israel. It's also very popular the slaves left Egypt, and went to Israel.
As for records, isn't that what the Book of Exodus is?

Or - in one-line format:

The odds of an already-existent event having happened are... 1 in 1.

In other words, probability is irrelevent once a thing has happened.

You know...I'm not insanely pissed that I spent the amount of time I spent calculating out the probability of occurrence of a particular arrangement of cards in a 52 card deck, just to prove a point to Good Lifes.

And it took me a while, too.

I believe that RLI already pointed out this might not be true. (For which I owe thanks). I've more than a passing familiarity with the material. Keruvalia (who is rare, but, I believe back in action) more than equals me in a number of areas. UB (whom I ridicule, admittedly) knows more than many.

Jocabia, Dempublicents, Smunkeeville... a sampling of some of the Christians that are quite well acquainted.

Upwardthrust, Ashmoria... I could keep going. (Any exceptions are laziness on my part, not deliberate slights, or insinuations of lack of knowledge).

In my experience, you couldn't be more wrong... NSG is one of the places internet or otherwise, where I have encountered the most people that are 'not ignorant' of the Bible.



Who? I'm certainly not. It's a theory... and a particularly well-supported one, at that.



Again - who? I certainly do not 'insist that god does not exist'. Far from it - I consider that an entirely illogical argument.



How can one be willingly ignorant of something that is (apparently) willingly absent?

im thinking that ohshucks got off on the wrong track because of the sucky way this thread started. he may not have noticed that the "christianity sucks and only idiots believe it" crowd have moved on and left only serious posters.

how else could he have missed that his own flame resulted in a "ouch that stung" sarcastic response and that he spent significant time dissing us?

I claim no knowledge. However, I'm sure the Egyptians had slaves, and its very possible there were slaves from Israel. It's also very popular the slaves left Egypt, and went to Israel.
As for records, isn't that what the Book of Exodus is?

The Egyptians did have slaves. At various times, throughout several thosaund years of history. Think about that scope of time.

However, they didn't have slaves throughout the WHOLE history. Any more than they had multiple gods.

So - when we discuss 'Exodus'... there is no really accurate way to date the thing. Most conventional attempts seem to place 'Moses' during the reign of Ramses II... which would make the visiting Hebrew people more likely to be guest-workers than slaves.

I guess that doesn't look as good when you write it down though. "And, yay, Lord Jehovah did set his people free from the tedium of the 9 to 5 schedule, and did break the chains of acceptable-pay-and-condiitions-but-no-pension. And, verily, did His people go on a bit of a jaunt, for truly was it vacation time".

So - when do we set the story? If Ramses II is out... what about during the time Egyptian records DO catalogue a semitic people dwelling in Egypt, and leaving?

Only problem is - that semitic people were conquerors, not slaves.

Again - it doesn't look so good when you write it down. "And truly did the heathen Egyptian princes kick out the children of Israel, for they had been naughty in the site of God. With wailing and gnashing of teeth did the exiled believers flee with their tails between their legs."


So - is there ANY way to date Exodus from other sources? There are no 'Moses' records... although there is a likely candidate about 500 years earlier, but he a desert-wandering hero to Israel... OR a slave - he was a leader of the Egyptian army, and spent his time bashing Ethiopians (Cushites, at that time) on the noggin.


So - the question is - why blindly accept one biased account, when there is no evidence to support it... and a lot of evidence that suggests we really SHOULD know if it had been true? (Egyptians were meticulous... there are still records that detail trivia like how many jars of wine were opened at feaasts).

You know...I'm not insanely pissed that I spent the amount of time I spent calculating out the probability of occurrence of a particular arrangement of cards in a 52 card deck, just to prove a point to Good Lifes.

And it took me a while, too.

Time well spent, methinks. :D

Time well spent, methinks. :D

I'm feeling exceedingly grumpy right now.

The New Testament has been accepted by the great majority of Christians, for the past 1,600 years, as comprising twenty-seven books. These twenty-seven fall naturally into four divisions: (1) the four gospels, (2) the Acts of the Apostles, (3) twenty-one letters written by apostles and "apostolic men," and (4) Revelation. This order is not only logical, but roughly chronological so far as the subject matter of the documents is concerned; it does not correspond, however, to the order in which they were written.

I apologize for retrieving questions from many pages ago... so I'll keep it to a minimum, but the topic and accusations are recurring ones so it still seems to have a place in this thread even if the thread topic has bounced around for several pages since I last read it.


I've already pointed out that there is significant divergence between the lexis and style of Paul's epistles and that of the Pastorals; most scholars consider this to be sufficient evidence when combined with other apparent discrepencies.

This seems to be a good time to use an argument of example instead of just quoting some other paper. Here are two samples of writings, but the same author. Of similar size but of entirely different styles even though the topic is shared, that of reading books and reading tastes is covered in both, to some degree…

SAMPLE 1
In this essay I propose to try an experiment. Literary criticism is traditionally employed in judging books. Any judgement it implies about men’s reading of books is a corollary from its judgement on the books themselves. Bad taste is, as it were by definition, a taste for bad books. I want to find out what sort of picture we shall get by reversing the process. Let us make our distinction between readers or types of reading the basis, and our distinction between books the corollary. Let us try to discover how far it might be plausible to define a good book as a book which is read in one way, and a bad book as a book which is read in another.
I think this worth trying because the normal procedure seems to me to involve almost continually a false implication. If we say that A likes (or has a taste for) the women’s magazines and B likes (or has a taste for) Dante, this sounds as if likes and taste have the same meaning when applied to both; as if there were a single activity, though the objects to which it is directed are different. But observation convinces me that this, at least usually, is untrue.
Already in our schooldays some of us were making our first responses to good literature. Others, and these the majority, were reading, at school, The Captain, and, at home, short-lived novels from the circulating library. But in was apparent then that the majority did not ‘like’ their fare in the way we ‘liked’ ours. It is apparent still. The difference leap to the eye.

SAMPLE 2
The name of the graduate looks like KNIONAN, but this can hardly be right! It is embarrassing that as may own hand gets worse I also get worse at reading everyone else’s.
I am very sorry you have had no luck yet with the M.G. But many a book that afterwards succeeded has been rejected by several publishers.
I read Butterfield and gave it exactly the same mark as you; and am glad of your support, for most even of my Christian friends think it bad. All good wishes for St. Bernard.
My book with Professor Tolkien – any book in collaboration with that great but dilatory and unmethodical man – is dated, I fear, to appear on the Greek Kalends!
I don’t quite know about those American veterans, Nearly all the books we shd. Want to send are published in U.S.A. and there is a bad book famine in England.
Term begins on Sat. and there is a cruel mail to-day, so I am suffering incessant temptation to uncharitable thoughts at present: one of those black moods in which nearly all one’s friends seem to be selfish or even false. And how terrible that there shd. Be even a kind of pleasure in thinking evil. A ‘mixed pleasure’ as Plato wd. Say, like scratching?
yours sincerely
C.S. Lewis


The same arguments used to say the author of the epistles in not the author of the Pastorals could be used to say the two samples above did not come from the same hand. But the fact is that the same person writes with different styles and words and mannerisms depending on their intended reader, it is nothing new (all of us do it to some degree I'm sure). The argument could be made in a thousand years from now that the two samples above could not have come from the same source but someone that intended to implicate the author of sample 1 as the author of sample 2. But then the counter argument would be, “but it doesn’t sound anything like the same, it's not a very good 'copy of mannerisms' and not a very good impersonation if that was their intention then, is it?!”

The different styles from a single person reflect the different purposes of the two types of works, it is an intentional alterations of form by the author (pastorals or epistles are as dissimilar from each other as a published essay on criticism is different and uses a different style and language than a personal letter of correspondence does.

With that in mind, the argument that Paul could not have written 2 Timothy because the style and wordage is different is stale and does not ring of truth for many of us.

(sample 1 is from: An Experiment in Criticism and Sample 2 is from, The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume 3. I've attempted to leave in short hand and spellings, even mispellings if American vs. English are compared, but my typing is not good enough to suggest that I didn't add typos to the samples from my poor skills...)

Again, I've already pointed out that second century theologians got quite a lot wrong. Do you think that Matthew was the first Gospel and was written in Hebrew? Do you think that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (including the account of his death and the reference to places which didn't exist until long after his death)? A few credible scholars still hold to the former, but barely any still accept the latter over the Documentary Hypothesis.

I have not attempted to associate OT books and timetables with Paul's writings, the association of the different topics by you here is inaccurate of my opinion. As to what do I personally believe, I agree that the Pentateuch seems to be a compilation work, it seems self evident. As to Matthew, I’ve always thought of it as being written for the Hebrew/Jewish reader, but I’ve recently been exposed to a pretty good argument that it was written for the Roman reader… I know enough to know that I don’t know which language it first appeared in. I believe Mark was written before Matthew though, but I’m open to archaeological finds on the matter, I’ve not set my feet in stone on the issue.

And I think I've shown that the people who argue for Pauline authorship are usually wingnuts rather than mainstream scholars; I personally wouldn't consider any 'scholar' worthy of the name if they began their argument with an appeal to ecclesiastical inerrancy.

Again, an ad hominem attack on them instead of rebuttals of their arguments is poor form. If their arguments are so bad, since they are wingnuts and all, I'm sure you can debunk them without insulting their religious position and calling them wingnuts, as if that in itself means they have nothing to say on the subject matter.

I apologize for retrieving questions from many pages ago... so I'll keep it to a minimum, but the topic and accusations are recurring ones so it still seems to have a place in this thread even if the thread topic has bounced around for several pages since I last read it.



This seems to be a good time to use an argument of example instead of just quoting some other paper. Here are two samples of writings, but the same author. Of similar size but of entirely different styles even though the topic is shared, that of reading books and reading tastes is covered in both, to some degree…

SAMPLE 1
In this essay I propose to try an experiment. Literary criticism is traditionally employed in judging books. Any judgement it implies about men’s reading of books is a corollary from its judgement on the books themselves. Bad taste is, as it were by definition, a taste for bad books. I want to find out what sort of picture we shall get by reversing the process. Let us make our distinction between readers or types of reading the basis, and our distinction between books the corollary. Let us try to discover how far it might be plausible to define a good book as a book which is read in one way, and a bad book as a book which is read in another.
I think this worth trying because the normal procedure seems to me to involve almost continually a false implication. If we say that A likes (or has a taste for) the women’s magazines and B likes (or has a taste for) Dante, this sounds as if likes and taste have the same meaning when applied to both; as if there were a single activity, though the objects to which it is directed are different. But observation convinces me that this, at least usually, is untrue.
Already in our schooldays some of us were making our first responses to good literature. Others, and these the majority, were reading, at school, The Captain, and, at home, short-lived novels from the circulating library. But in was apparent then that the majority did not ‘like’ their fare in the way we ‘liked’ ours. It is apparent still. The difference leap to the eye.

SAMPLE 2
The name of the graduate looks like KNIONAN, but this can hardly be right! It is embarrassing that as may own hand gets worse I also get worse at reading everyone else’s.
I am very sorry you have had no luck yet with the M.G. But many a book that afterwards succeeded has been rejected by several publishers.
I read Butterfield and gave it exactly the same mark as you; and am glad of your support, for most even of my Christian friends think it bad. All good wishes for St. Bernard.
My book with Professor Tolkien – any book in collaboration with that great but dilatory and unmethodical man – is dated, I fear, to appear on the Greek Kalends!
I don’t quite know about those American veterans, Nearly all the books we shd. Want to send are published in U.S.A. and there is a bad book famine in England.
Term begins on Sat. and there is a cruel mail to-day, so I am suffering incessant temptation to uncharitable thoughts at present: one of those black moods in which nearly all one’s friends seem to be selfish or even false. And how terrible that there shd. Be even a kind of pleasure in thinking evil. A ‘mixed pleasure’ as Plato wd. Say, like scratching?
yours sincerely
C.S. Lewis


The same arguments used to say the author of the epistles in not the author of the Pastorals could be used to say the two samples above did not come from the same hand. But the fact is that the same person writes with different styles and words and mannerisms depending on their intended reader, it is nothing new (all of us do it to some degree I'm sure). The argument could be made in a thousand years from now that the two samples above could not have come from the same source but someone that intended to implicate the author of sample 1 as the author of sample 2. But then the counter argument would be, “but it doesn’t sound anything like the same, it's not a very good 'copy of mannerisms' and not a very good impersonation if that was their intention then, is it?!”

The different styles from a single person reflect the different purposes of the two types of works, it is an intentional alterations of form by the author (pastorals or epistles are as dissimilar from each other as a published essay on criticism is different and uses a different style and language than a personal letter of correspondence does.

With that in mind, the argument that Paul could not have written 2 Timothy because the style and wordage is different is stale and does not ring of truth for many of us.

(sample 1 is from: An Experiment in Criticism and Sample 2 is from, The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume 3. I've attempted to leave in short hand and spellings, even mispellings if American vs. English are compared, but my typing is not good enough to suggest that I didn't add typos to the samples from my poor skills...)


The argument isn't usually that Paul couldn't have written Second Timothy... but that he appears not to have. It isn't just a matter of 'style', there is also the use of language - which is actually much harder to cover-up.

In the same way that the evolving Hebrew language suggests a timeline through the OT, one can use different usages of Greek to trace authors through the NT... which is one reason why many scholars believe the 'John' of Revelation is very unlikely to have been even remotely involved in the writing of the Gospel of John.

Is it foolproof? Probably not... maybe some anonymous author wrote ALL of the NT texts, by himself, over the course of something like 50 years. The result might be about the same.

But - it could also be that different authors did... and it seems more reasonable to assume that, where it looks like texts are written by different authors, they probably are.

Sitting on a (horse) race track, if one hears hoofbeats, one does not assume zebras.

I believe that RLI already pointed out this might not be true. (For which I owe thanks). I've more than a passing familiarity with the material. Keruvalia (who is rare, but, I believe back in action) more than equals me in a number of areas. UB (whom I ridicule, admittedly) knows more than many.

Jocabia, Dempublicents, Smunkeeville... a sampling of some of the Christians that are quite well acquainted.

Upwardthrust, Ashmoria... I could keep going. (Any exceptions are laziness on my part, not deliberate slights, or insinuations of lack of knowledge).

In my experience, you couldn't be more wrong... NSG is one of the places internet or otherwise, where I have encountered the most people that are 'not ignorant' of the Bible.

Again - who? I certainly do not 'insist that god does not exist'. Far from it - I consider that an entirely illogical argument.

Apparently you didn't read a subsequent post of mine:
OK, fine: many people on NSG are ignorant of God and the Bible, not necessarily everybody. I never meant to say that LITERALLY EVERYBODY was ignorant.

I thought I made it clear that I did not mean literally everybody. I'm sure there are some on NSG that know the Bible very well; but I find it hard to believe they're in the majority on NSG.

The first New Testament documents to be written were the earlier epistles of Paul. These (together, possibly, with the Epistle of James) were written between A.D. 48 and 60, before even the earliest of the Gospels was written. The four Gospels belong to the decades between 60 and 100, and it is to these decades too that all (or nearly all) the other New Testament writings are to be assigned. Whereas the writing of the Old Testament books was spread over a period of a thousand years or more, the New Testament books were written within a century.

The bible is not against hot lesbians. So it stands in good with me.

Seriously though, religious texts, like all texts, are empty vessels into which we can pour our own prejudice and preconceived notions. Is it really worth scrabbling around in them to justify our own bad behavior simply because that is what we believed some dead guy said thousands of years ago?

It's not even good art.

The suggestion, then, that Jesus had to put those cards in that particular order because it's SO UNLIKELY for them to get that way naturally is, I hope you'll agree, patent bullshit.

And if you don't agree, well I suppose there's not much hope for you.

As a matter of fact, i DON'T agree. Are you saying that the universe just happened by accident on its own without being created by some form of higher power? If so, I don't think there's any hope for YOU.

im thinking that ohshucks got off on the wrong track because of the sucky way this thread started. he may not have noticed that the "christianity sucks and only idiots believe it" crowd have moved on and left only serious posters.

how else could he have missed that his own flame resulted in a "ouch that stung" sarcastic response and that he spent significant time dissing us?

Flame? What did I say that was a "flame"? :confused:

And no, I really truly don't know.

If I "flamed" anybody, I apologize for it. I was not intending to "flame"; I was intending to respond to those "christianity sucks and only idiots believe it" people.

The New Testament writings were not gathered together in the form which we know immediately after they were penned. At first the individual Gospels had a local and independent existence in the constituencies for which they were originally composed. By the beginning of the second century, however, they were brought together and began to circulate as a fourfold record. When this happened, Acts was detached from Luke, with which it had formed one work in two volumes, and embarked on a separate but not unimportant career of its own.

Apparently you didn't read a subsequent post of mine:

I thought I made it clear that I did not mean literally everybody. I'm sure there are some on NSG that know the Bible very well; but I find it hard to believe they're in the majority on NSG.

I read your posts. But, if you are going to say something dumb, expect to get picked up on it.

Maybe the majority on NSG are not Bible-conversant... but you're probably in the presence of more people 'with a clue' here, than at any other time or place.

As a matter of fact, i DON'T agree. Are you saying that the universe just happened by accident on its own without being created by some form of higher power? If so, I don't think there's any hope for YOU.

Your argument was (or at least, seems to be) that the universe NEEDS god, because it would be 'too unlikely' to form without divine intervention.

The problem with that assertion is - probability is irrelevent. It has happened, by whatever means, so talking about how likely or unlikely, is meaningless.

If I flip a coin a hundred times, and it comes down heads EVERY time... can I just pretend it didn't happen, because it is unlikely?

Paul's letters were preserved at first by the communities or individuals to whom they were sent. But by the end of the first century there is evidence to suggest that his surviving correspondence began to be collected into a Pauline corpus, which quickly circulated among the churches--first a shorter corpus of ten letters and soon afterwards a longer one of thirteen, enlarged by the inclusion of the three Pastoral Epistles. Within the Pauline corpus the letters appear to have been arranged not in chronological order but in descending order of length. This principle may still be recognized in the order found in most editions of the New Testament today: the letters to churches come before the letters to individuals, and within these two subdivisions they are arranged so that the longest comes first and the shortest last. (The only departure from this scheme is that Galatians comes before Ephesians, although Ephesians is slightly the longer of the two.)

As a matter of fact, i DON'T agree. Are you saying that the universe just happened by accident on its own without being created by some form of higher power? If so, I don't think there's any hope for YOU.
Ohmigosh whatever will i do without hope? Especially if you don't think there's any for me!?
http://www.luc.edu/depts/history/dennis/Visual_Arts/10-Express_Munch_The-Scream.jpg
Oh woe, woe wo-ugh. Guess i'll get on with my life like i always have, not worrying so much about hope-based initiatives.
:rolleyes:

The Egyptians did have slaves. At various times, throughout several thosaund years of history. Think about that scope of time.

However, they didn't have slaves throughout the WHOLE history. Any more than they had multiple gods.

So - when we discuss 'Exodus'... there is no really accurate way to date the thing. Most conventional attempts seem to place 'Moses' during the reign of Ramses II... which would make the visiting Hebrew people more likely to be guest-workers than slaves.

I guess that doesn't look as good when you write it down though. "And, yay, Lord Jehovah did set his people free from the tedium of the 9 to 5 schedule, and did break the chains of acceptable-pay-and-condiitions-but-no-pension. And, verily, did His people go on a bit of a jaunt, for truly was it vacation time".

So - when do we set the story? If Ramses II is out... what about during the time Egyptian records DO catalogue a semitic people dwelling in Egypt, and leaving?

Only problem is - that semitic people were conquerors, not slaves.

Again - it doesn't look so good when you write it down. "And truly did the heathen Egyptian princes kick out the children of Israel, for they had been naughty in the site of God. With wailing and gnashing of teeth did the exiled believers flee with their tails between their legs."


So - is there ANY way to date Exodus from other sources? There are no 'Moses' records... although there is a likely candidate about 500 years earlier, but he a desert-wandering hero to Israel... OR a slave - he was a leader of the Egyptian army, and spent his time bashing Ethiopians (Cushites, at that time) on the noggin.


So - the question is - why blindly accept one biased account, when there is no evidence to support it... and a lot of evidence that suggests we really SHOULD know if it had been true? (Egyptians were meticulous... there are still records that detail trivia like how many jars of wine were opened at feaasts).

The Exodus happened under the reign of king Dudimose (Manetho’s Tutimaos). Prince Moses (Mousos, Hapimoses, Moshe) was raised at the courts of Khaneferre Sobekhotep 4 (Manetho's Khenepheres) in Itj-Tawy and Auaris. Moses led a campaign against invading Kushites of Kerma (under a king Piori/Perehu) and successfully pushed them back, after which they removed their capital to Napata and after which the defeated king's daughter Tjarbit (Tharbis) was given into marriage with Moses.
The 12th and 13th Dynasties is the only era in Egyptian history that has a considerable number of Aamu (includiong Apiru) living and working in Egypt (in the 13th Dyn over 50% of the labor force in the eastern Delta, even the royal household was partially Aamu). The excavations at Auaris show that a highly egyptianized Aamu population lived there prior to a sudden abandonment of the settlement followed by a gradual resettlement by a non-egyptianized population from the southern Levant (Amalekties), the very first wave of the Early Hyksos (who were Semites unlike the following waves of Hyksos who were Indo-Europeans).

Flame? What did I say that was a "flame"? :confused:

And no, I really truly don't know.

If I "flamed" anybody, I apologize for it. I was not intending to "flame"; I was intending to respond to those "christianity sucks and only idiots believe it" people.

here something to keep in mind in order to stay on the good side of the moderators here

its still flaming if you give as good as you got. you will get warned for answering back in kind when someone posts something insulting.

so, as i supposed, you were angered by the.... less than constuctive...posts at the beginning of this thread and making as snippy a post as they had in defense of your position. its still flaming. AND you ended up insulting people who were interested in a serious discussion rather than your intended target.

The Exodus happened under the reign of king Dudimose (Manetho’s Tutimaos). Prince Moses (Mousos, Hapimoses, Moshe) was raised at the courts of Khaneferre Sobekhotep 4 (Manetho's Khenepheres) in Itj-Tawy and Auaris. Moses led a campaign against invading Kushites of Kerma (under a king Piori/Perehu) and successfully pushed them back, after which they removed their capital to Napata and after which the defeated king's daughter Tjarbit (Tharbis) was given into marriage with Moses.
The 12th and 13th Dynasties is the only era in Egyptian history that has a considerable number of Aamu (includiong Apiru) living and working in Egypt (in the 13th Dyn over 50% of the labor force in the eastern Delta, even the royal household was partially Aamu). The excavations at Auaris show that a highly egyptianized Aamu population lived there prior to a sudden abandonment of the settlement followed by a gradual resettlement by a non-egyptianized population from the southern Levant (Amalekties), the very first wave of the Early Hyksos (who were Semites unlike the following waves of Hyksos who were Indo-Europeans).


Not sure where you are going with this... simply showing that the common conception of the Exodus story fails - because it would require the 18th dynasty and 13th dynasty to occur simultaneously?

Not sure where you are going with this... simply showing that the common conception of the Exodus story fails - because it would require the 18th dynasty and 13th dynasty to occur simultaneously?
What does the 18th Dynasty have to do with the Exodus? You mean that since casting Ramses 2 or Seti 1 as the pharaoh of the Exodus has become unsupportable, now some folks are trying to (ab)use Akhenaten for that end?

The Bible is at least Historically Correct in terms of the Old Testament. Many archaeologists will tell you that many great discoveries have been made based on the History that is written the Bible. If you cannot substantiate your claims or write something constructive please do not post insulting comments.
:headbang:I beg to differ. While the Bible does contain, in part, portions of History, it is for the most part a collection of poetry, prose, fiction, non-fiction and fantasy. It's interesting reading but that's about it.
-Preacher's Kid

What does the 18th Dynasty have to do with the Exodus? You mean that since casting Ramses 2 or Seti 1 as the pharaoh of the Exodus has become unsupportable, now some folks are trying to (ab)use Akhenaten for that end?

Ramses II has long been the favourite. Others have occassionaly argued for others... like Dudimose. (You mentioned Dudimose, remember?)

In order to make the dating given in the Hebrew texts about right, we have to place Exodus during the 12th or 13th dynasty. In order to reconcile 'Mousos' with Moses, we have to place Exodus during the 18th or 19th dynasty.

Seriously, I don't think I'm being as obscure as you seem to be making out.

In order to make the dating given in the Hebrew texts about right, we have to place Exodus during the 12th or 13th dynasty.Agreed, but there is no need to "make" the dates right. Once you start building an Egyptian chronology from scratch everything just happens to fall into place quite neatly. The problem so far has been that most of Egyptology still dwells on one or two unsupportable biblical synchronisms for building their chronological framework.

In order to reconcile 'Mousos' with Moses, we have to place Exodus during the 18th or 19th dynasty.??

As a matter of fact, i DON'T agree. Are you saying that the universe just happened by accident on its own without being created by some form of higher power? If so, I don't think there's any hope for YOU.

Heh, I see. I take it you're the sort who thanks god every time he gets a full house in poker.

We're done here.

Heh, I see. I take it you're the sort who thanks god every time he gets a full house in poker.

We're done here.

i always thank the card gods when i make my flush on the river.

i always thank the card gods when i make my flush on the river.

I've thanked them a time or two, when a 7/2 off-suit, or something equally sucky, got me a win over rockets.

I've thanked them a time or two, when a 7/2 off-suit, or something equally sucky, got me a win over rockets.

unfortunately the card gods are fickle. no matter how dedicated you are to them they will not consistently stack the deck in your favor.

sigh.

unfortunately the card gods are fickle. no matter how dedicated you are to them they will not consistently stack the deck in your favor.

sigh.

You just have to pray harder :D PRAY HARDER. The power of Jesus Ferguson compels you!

You just have to pray harder :D PRAY HARDER. The power of Jesus Ferguson compels you!

my sister and i had a bit of a plan for a while to make little poket poker shrines that people could take to the casino with them or put by their computer at home. little shrines to the poker gods not completely unlike the little jujus that old women take to bingo halls with them.

but why help out our competitors in the race for favor with the card gods?

With the Gospel collection and the Pauline corpus, and Acts to serve as a link between the two, we have the beginning of the New Testament Canon as we know it. The early church, which inherited the Hebrew Bible (or the Greek version of the Septuagint) as its sacred Scriptures, was not long in setting the new evangelic and apostolic writings alongside the Law and the Prophets, and in using them for the propagation and defense of the gospel and in Christian worship. Thus Justin Martyr, about the middle of the second century, describes how Christians in their Sunday meetings read "the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets" (Apology 1.67). It was natural, then, that when Christianity spread among people who spoke other languages than Greek, the New Testament should be translated from Greek into those languages for the benefit of new converts. There were Latin and Syriac versions of the New Testament by A.D. 200, and a Coptic one within the following century.

my sister and i had a bit of a plan for a while to make little poket poker shrines that people could take to the casino with them or put by their computer at home. little shrines to the poker gods not completely unlike the little jujus that old women take to bingo halls with them.

but why help out our competitors in the race for favor with the card gods?

Makes sense. It's like shooting yourself in the foot. Or...carding yourself in the foot. Crucifying your foot? :confused:

*wanders off*

With the Gospel collection and the Pauline corpus, and Acts to serve as a link between the two, we have the beginning of the New Testament Canon as we know it. The early church, which inherited the Hebrew Bible (or the Greek version of the Septuagint) as its sacred Scriptures, was not long in setting the new evangelic and apostolic writings alongside the Law and the Prophets, and in using them for the propagation and defense of the gospel and in Christian worship. Thus Justin Martyr, about the middle of the second century, describes how Christians in their Sunday meetings read "the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets" (Apology 1.67). It was natural, then, that when Christianity spread among people who spoke other languages than Greek, the New Testament should be translated from Greek into those languages for the benefit of new converts. There were Latin and Syriac versions of the New Testament by A.D. 200, and a Coptic one within the following century.

And??

What do you mean by "Greek version of the Septuagint"? The Septuagint was written in Greek, which was then translated into Hebrew.

As a matter of fact, i DON'T agree. Are you saying that the universe just happened by accident on its own without being created by some form of higher power? If so, I don't think there's any hope for YOU.

I say there's no way in hell that one person, one thing, one 'being' created all this. Anything anyone has ever done in their life, has had help from someone. And there's no disproving that, it's a fact. Look at your own life. You've never done anything by yourself if you think about it.

Thank you Beleriand, perhaps the construct of my statement was flawed.

And you know what's funny about all this, I'm probably the least educated on the bible, cuz I've never read it and never plan to except for some ammunition against people that piss me off...But then again i was never subjected to getting brainwashed when I was young and vulnerable either.

The Bible has played, and continues to play, a notable part in the history of civilization. Many languages have been reduced to writing for the first time in order that the Bible, in whole or in part, might be translated into them in written form. And this is but a minor sample of the civilizing mission of the Bible in the world.

The Bible has played, and continues to play, a notable part in the history of civilization. Many languages have been reduced to writing for the first time in order that the Bible, in whole or in part, might be translated into them in written form. And this is but a minor sample of the civilizing mission of the Bible in the world.

Not really. Unless the written form of those languages have some use other than religious indoctrination, you are, if anything, reducing how civilized they are by making them believe in magical sky fairies.

I'm not quite sure how to put this,
I would like to know from the Christians here, what church you go to and how your church interprets the Bible. I am a christian from the Potter's House Christian Church in Australia and we believe the Bible is the word of God and it is truth.

I know other Churches/Denominations believe the Bible is less literal and is written as fictional stories which provide lessons for life. I would lik to know about other peoples churches and how you believe the Bible is to be translated/Interpretated?



i view it like you. to me the bible is never just a story. just like Christ dying wasn't just a death. all of those things happened. ...happened. no matter how gory or simple they are. it all is just so relatable. Peter in the new testament could be a complete air head...but at the same time we're all like "i know exactly what you mean"
that's why it's real. Because if it's not real, we all look like idiots. worse than Peter and hopelessly undeniablly lost.

b/c a reason for me for believing is to have something...safe. a relatable term. a common ground. a hideout.
a place to fit in. someone to love you. never being forgotten.
and sometimes...all of that just seems ridiculously unreal. not possible. past the horizon that doesn't exsist. but if those stories can be real, why can't i? what makes the people in the bible so...super human as to have that unreachable thing.
but.........the only explainable reaosn....is that their not. they're not superman. i can be an air-head. but i'm not hopeleslsy lost.
it give a person a hope.

you try living one day, just one day, w/o any hope of life in the next minute....and tell me how that works out. just. tell me.

because i've been there. and after that, you would do anythign not to be there again. anything.

I, along with my church, stand frim in the belief that the bible and all in it, are real events, with real people, real dates, real stories. and no matter how many posts go against this one.......that's just what is.... to me.

i think there's so much controversy because everyone NEEDS to see it differently. it just can't be the same thing. people have different dreams, different hopes, different goals, fears, you name it. i need to see those stories as a reason to live.
some people need to see them as an encouragement.
just...everything.

we have to make the realization that not everything can be defined. and most things....weren't meant to be.

This civilizing mission is the direct effect of the central message of the Bible. It may be thought surprising that one should speak of a central message in a collection of writings that reflects the history of civilization in the Near East over several millennia. But a central message there is, and it is the recognition of this that has led to the common treatment of the Bible as a book, and not simply a collection of books--just as the Greek plural biblia (books) became the Latin singular biblia (the book).

This civilizing mission is the direct effect of the central message of the Bible. It may be thought surprising that one should speak of a central message in a collection of writings that reflects the history of civilization in the Near East over several millennia. But a central message there is, and it is the recognition of this that has led to the common treatment of the Bible as a book, and not simply a collection of books--just as the Greek plural biblia (books) became the Latin singular biblia (the book).

Except that you're not really civilizing. Historically, Christian missionaries have been responsible for the destruction of many cultural and historical artifacts central to the civilizations they encounter and Christianize (i.e. indoctrinate and subjugate). So really, it's not a civilizing mission, as much as it's a cultural imperialist manifesto.

i view it like you. to me the bible is never just a story. just like Christ dying wasn't just a death. all of those things happened. ...happened.


Or they didn't.

There aren't even any independent, contemporary accounts of a literal 'Jesus'.


b/c a reason for me for believing is to have something...safe. a relatable term. a common ground. a hideout.
a place to fit in. someone to love you. never being forgotten.
and sometimes....
it give a person a hope.
because i've been there. and after that, you would do anythign not to be there again. anything.


I'm glad it is nice for you. But - just because it gives you warm fuzzies, don't make it true.


I, along with my church, stand frim in the belief that the bible and all in it, are real events, with real people, real dates, real stories. and no matter how many posts go against this one.......that's just what is.... to me.


It's not about the posts that go against - it's about the simple fact that you are choosing to take literally a text that flies directly in the face of all evidence to the contrary.


i think there's so much controversy because everyone NEEDS to see it differently.

No - there's a controversy because the evidence opposes the text. There's a controversy because people try to get their pet story imposed on others. There's a controversy because people who base their lives on a book that may or may not be 'real', would change the laws for others.

And??

What do you mean by "Greek version of the Septuagint"? The Septuagint was written in Greek, which was then translated into Hebrew.

You're argument is still baseless.

Just because there is no extant text, doesn't mean it never existed.

Absence of proof =/= proof of absence.

Or they didn't.

There aren't even any independent, contemporary accounts of a literal 'Jesus'.



I'm glad it is nice for you. But - just because it gives you warm fuzzies, don't make it true.



It's not about the posts that go against - it's about the simple fact that you are choosing to take literally a text that flies directly in the face of all evidence to the contrary.



No - there's a controversy because the evidence opposes the text. There's a controversy because people try to get their pet story imposed on others. There's a controversy because people who base their lives on a book that may or may not be 'real', would change the laws for others.

okay.. you're beliefs are perfectly fine with me. i think that i did an okay job of saying that this is how I feel. you can believe whatever. but i did not insult your beliefs so don't insult mine.
religious debates often give the religion a bad name b/c people end up bashing each other in all CAPS and looking like idiots. so as best as possible: can we jsut keep it civil?

Not really. Unless the written form of those languages have some use other than religious indoctrination, you are, if anything, reducing how civilized they are by making them believe in magical sky fairies.

At the risk of sounding bitter, that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. It might make sense if there were any non-theist civilizations to compare, but there weren't.
Of course, the scenario you set up hardly exists anyway. "Unless the written form of those languages have some use other than religious indoctrination.." Well, most written forms of languages have many uses. Cyrillic was an entire alphabet created to write Slavic languages by Christian missionaries, and it is now used for everything.
In other words, you are criticizing a situation that doesn't exist, that you have nothing to compare even if it did.

The Bible's central message is the story of salvation, and throughout both Testaments three strands in this unfolding story can be distinguished: the bringer of salvation, the way of salvation, and the heirs of salvation. This could be reworded in terms of the covenant idea by saying that the central message of the Bible is God's covenant with men, and that the strands are the mediator of the covenant, the basis of the covenant, and the covenant people. God himself is the Savior of his people; it is he who confirms his covenant-mercy with them. The bringer of salvation, the mediator of the covenant, is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The way of salvation, the basis of the covenant, is God's grace, calling forth from his people a response of faith and obedience. The heirs of salvation, the covenant people, are the Israel of God, the church of God.

You're argument is still baseless.

Just because there is no extant text, doesn't mean it never existed.

Absence of proof =/= proof of absence.But then again, there is also the aspect of who wrote the Septuagint and under what circumstances.
There is no reason to trust those people, as they had a political/ideological agenda. Which Jewish scholar would not grasp such a one-in-a-million chance to officially rewrite Hebrew and Israelite history to make it Jew-ish?

And btw such complete absence of evidence with not even a single snippet of text dug up anywhere comes down to evidence of absence.

This thread is still going quite well.
Perhaps it is a hope-based initiative after all *rubs stones*

But then again, there is also the aspect of who wrote the Septuagint and under what circumstances.
There is no reason to trust those people, as they had a political/ideological agenda. Which Jewish scholar would not grasp such a one-in-a-million chance to officially rewrite Hebrew and Israelite history to make it Jew-ish?

And btw such complete absence of evidence with not even a single snippet of text dug up anywhere comes down to evidence of absence.

i wish you would just come out and say what you are getting at.

are you suggesting that there was no judaism before some greek guy wrote up the septuagint? that he made up the whole jewish thing "in a day" and the rest of the greek/roman/whatever world not to mention those hebrews and israelites who lived in the middle east fell for it hook line and sinker?

The continuity of the covenant people from the Old Testament to the New Testament is obscured for the reader of the common English Bible because "church" is an exclusively New Testament word, and he naturally thinks of it as something which began in the New Testament period. But the reader of the Greek Bible was confronted by no new word when he found ekklesia in the New Testament; he had already met it in the Septuagint as one of the words used to denote Israel as the "assembly" of the Lord's people. To be sure, it has a new and fuller meaning in the New Testament. The old covenant people had to die with him in order to rise with him to new life--a new life in which national restrictions had disappeared. Jesus provides in himself the vital continuity between the old Israel and the new, and his faithful followers were both the righteous remnant of the old and the nucleus of the new. The Servant Lord and his servant people bind the two Testaments together.

The bible is an archaic rag full of lies and deciet. There is no savior or Biblical God...

You asked for it.



EDIT:

I claim this thread for the Atheist Church of the Vatican City. (Smile and pretend that made sense.)

im smileing ok so how do i jion this antaist church:D

okay.. you're beliefs are perfectly fine with me. i think that i did an okay job of saying that this is how I feel. you can believe whatever. but i did not insult your beliefs so don't insult mine.
religious debates often give the religion a bad name b/c people end up bashing each other in all CAPS and looking like idiots. so as best as possible: can we jsut keep it civil?

I don't think I did insult your belief... I also think I was being civil.

To the skeptic, it seems fairly obvious that religion would be the perfect artifact... it can make people feel good a bout a big scary world, and it requires no externally verifiable justifications.

To me - your religion looks like a crutch. A way to deal with the world, because it's comfy. To me, religion looks like a tool for those who can't deal with reality.

But then - they could be right. I could be wrong. That's why I admit that I simply lack belief. I don't say there IS no god, I say I don't believe in any gods.

But then again, there is also the aspect of who wrote the Septuagint and under what circumstances.


Who did it? Under what circustance. We just don't know. You can make guesses, though.

Of course, they have all the value one should attach to guesses.


There is no reason to trust those people, as they had a political/ideological agenda.


I don't intrinsically believe anything. I doubt just about everything I didn't see, and half of what I did.

On the other hand, an agenda isn't actually a good reason to completely ignore a source - it should just be considered alongside the material, and corroboration sought before it is accepted as gospel.


Which Jewish scholar would not grasp such a one-in-a-million chance to officially rewrite Hebrew and Israelite history to make it Jew-ish?


Are you really going to engage in this mental masturbation charade again?

I have no interest in your 'Jew-ish' agenda. Please quit wasting my time with it. If you have something worthwhile to say, spit it out.

If your question is: "Which scholar would not grasp such a one-in-a-million chance to officially rewrite and history"... well, most of them, I suspect. As a historian, I have no interest in pretendeing the past is otherwise than it was.

On the other hand... specifically talking about Israel... what would be the POINT of trying to rewrite the history? The oral tradition would contradict the written form, so the 'new text' would be ignored by the faithful.


And btw such complete absence of evidence with not even a single snippet of text dug up anywhere comes down to evidence of absence.

I didn't say evidence. I said proof. There is evidence that suggests you are an anti-Semite. But, I can't prove it.

I don't think I did insult your belief... I also think I was being civil.

To the skeptic, it seems fairly obvious that religion would be the perfect artifact... it can make people feel good a bout a big scary world, and it requires no externally verifiable justifications.

To me - your religion looks like a crutch. A way to deal with the world, because it's comfy. To me, religion looks like a tool for those who can't deal with reality.

But then - they could be right. I could be wrong. That's why I admit that I simply lack belief. I don't say there IS no god, I say I don't believe in any gods.

thank you! that was an awesome post and i'm glad someone finally sad it.
religion is viewed as so many different things and sometimes it can definitely be used as a crutch w/o any real belief.
and FINALLY somebody admitting that they don't know everything and saying that they don't believe in a God. that's amazing. it's so freaking amazingly true. and it was time somebody said it.

and FINALLY somebody admitting that they don't know everything and saying that they don't believe in a God.

of course, if you hold some belief and your reasons for holding it are justified and that belief is true, then you actually do know...

of course, if you hold some belief and your reasons for holding it are justified and that belief is true, then you actually do know...

but nobody can prove that. now i'm a believer so i'm not saying that b/c i'm anti-christian or anything. i have just learned to know that you can't know

but nobody can prove that. now i'm a believer so i'm not saying that b/c i'm anti-christian or anything. i have just learned to know that you can't know

proof has never been needed for knowledge

proof has never been needed for knowledge

i can see that somebody is challenged in the head region

i can see that somebody is challenged in the head region

prove that the outside world exists. prove that induction works. prove that you aren't dreaming.

go.

The message of the Bible is God's message to man, communicated "at many times and in various ways" (Heb. 1:1) and finally incarnated in Christ. Thus "the authority of the holy scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God" (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.4).

The message of the Bible is God's message to man, communicated "at many times and in various ways" (Heb. 1:1) and finally incarnated in Christ. Thus "the authority of the holy scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God" (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.4).

how delightfully circular.

i wish you would just come out and say what you are getting at.

are you suggesting that there was no judaism before some greek guy wrote up the septuagint? that he made up the whole jewish thing "in a day" and the rest of the greek/roman/whatever world not to mention those hebrews and israelites who lived in the middle east fell for it hook line and sinker?I am suggesting that Judaism has/was developed in the two centuries leading up to the Septuagint being written down. By and at the time (i.e. during the Persian rule of the Levant) Israel had long disappeared and Samaria had been settled by others (who did not speak Hebrew), and when the tribe of Judah returned from the "Babylonian Captivity" they took what they had experienced there (Mesopotamian religion(s), but also Zoroastrianism) and made their own new religion. They dumped the gods except one, or alternatively merged them into one. Yhvh is an amalgam of Ea/Eya/Yah, Enlil/Ellil/El(-ohim?), El-shaddai (Il-Amurru), Asherah, Baal, and a whole menagerie of other deities that were worshiped in the region. And when the new Macedonian pharaoh of Egypt wanted the Jews to write their history down they did and took the chance to change what nobody at the time could falsify.
Anything else goes unsupported by the archaeological and historical record. The *only* source to suggest that Hebrews and Israelites and even Amorites and Sumerians had worshiped Yhvh in the manner that Jews later did (you know, as if they were Jews or Jew-ish), while all other sources don't mention it at all or tell otherwise. It's a lot like Christians claiming that Old-Testament-prophecies and events and actions did in fact occur in the context of Jesus.

I am suggesting that Judaism has/was developed in the two centuries leading up to the Septuagint being written down. By and at the time (i.e. during the Persian rule of the Levant) Israel had long disappeared and Samaria had been settled by others (who did not speak Hebrew), and when the tribe of Judah returned from the "Babylonian Captivity" they took what they had experienced there (Mesopotamian religion(s), but also Zoroastrianism) and made their own new religion. They dumped the gods except one, or alternatively merged them into one. Yhvh is an amalgam of Ea/Eya/Yah, Enlil/Ellil/El(-ohim?), El-shaddai (Il-Amurru), Asherah, Baal, and a whole menagerie of other deities that were worshiped in the region. And when the new Macedonian pharaoh of Egypt wanted the Jews to write their history down they did and took the chance to change what nobody at the time could falsify.
Anything else goes unsupported by the archaeological and historical record. The *only* source to suggest that Hebrews and Israelites and even Amorites and Sumerians had worshiped Yhvh in the manner that Jews later did (you know, as if they were Jews or Jew-ish), while all other sources don't mention it at all or tell otherwise.

do the religious practices of these source religions mirror those of the jews? do they have strict dietary laws, circumcision, and similar purification rites?

do the religious practices of these source religions mirror those of the jews? do they have strict dietary laws, circumcision, and similar purification rites?Some do (at least for the priests), but in what way is that significant to who they worshiped as "God" or who their ancestors had worshiped before?

Some do (at least for the priests), but in what way is that significant to who they worshiped as "God" or who their ancestors had worshiped before?

you take what is a kind of "cross polination" of religious thought and turn it into a massive 2600 year old conspiracy to dupe the rest of the world.

It's a lot like Christians claiming that Old-Testament-prophecies and events and actions did in fact occur in the context of Jesus.

what is that supposed to mean. of course it all has corrolition to Jesus. everything involving God (such as the old testament) involves Jesus.

and although we can't prove our way, you can't prove yours either. sorry..but unless you have some transcript written proof where all the jews signed there name and proclaimed that on "___ we are going to change history b/c we feel like it"

you don't have anything to walk on either.

if the bible is ment to be taken non literally, then you might as well read mother goose. im an athiest btw

what is that supposed to mean. of course it all has corrolition to Jesus. everything involving God (such as the old testament) involves Jesus.

and although we can't prove our way, you can't prove yours either. sorry..but unless you have some transcript written proof where all the jews signed there name and proclaimed that on "___ we are going to change history b/c we feel like it"

you don't have anything to walk on either.


How can you possibly say it all was writen about jesus? did you wite it or even know who wrote it? have you looked back and proven that they were even writen by anyone that was alive when the venets happened? to say that the bible was writen about jesus is to say that the universe started knowing earth would be here.

How can you possibly say it all was writen about jesus? did you wite it or even know who wrote it? have you looked back and proven that they were even writen by anyone that was alive when the venets happened? to say that the bible was writen about jesus is to say that the universe started knowing earth would be here.

yes that is exactly what i am saying. no it wasn't all written directly ABOUT jesus, but love of God is love of Christ is love of Jesus. that's just the way it goes.

and yes. the universe started knowing the earth would be here. that makes perfect sense to me. i am a firm believer in Christ and i am not here to bash whatever belief you have (or lack there of), but i belive that God has a plan and purpose for everythign. therefor i also believe that he created the universe. and he created the earth. and he created the first humans (Adam and Eve) and we did not evolve....from anything. i believe he has a plan and a purpose and nothing with him, happens, just to happen.

Western civilization is in a severe "authority crisis," not confined solely to the realm of religious faith, nor specially or uniquely threatening to Bible believers. Parental authority, marital authority, political authority, academic authority, and ecclesiastical authority are all deeply questioned. Not only particular authorities--the authority of Scripture, of the pope, of political rulers, and so on--but the concept of authority itself is vigorously challenged. Today's crisis of biblical authority thus reflects a waning civilizational consensus on issues of sovereignty and submission.

Oh no they won't

I was not trying to be insulting, just stating my honest opinion. Christianty (all religion really) is a basis for division in the world.

Sure the bible may be historically correct in some instances, but I was merely stating my opinion on the religious merit of the bible. All the religious stuff in the bible (Genesis in particular) is bullshit in the extreme.

The usual 'Historical Fact' that the baarble bashers quote is the flood myth and its commonality throughout the world. Sure, every civilisation has it's flood myth, early human civilisations were invariably located in the fertile, alluvial valleys of major river flood plains. That was the best place to grow food crops. It is, therefore, inevitable that periodical flooding will occur with some floods being worse than others. Stories of 'The Great Flood' will exist with the usual human tendency to exaggeration.:cool:

I say there's no way in hell that one person, one thing, one 'being' created all this. Anything anyone has ever done in their life, has had help from someone. And there's no disproving that, it's a fact. Look at your own life. You've never done anything by yourself if you think about it.

I never said I did anything without help from anybody else. That is irrelevant. The point is that the universe did not just happen by accident, of its own volition, but it had to be brought into existence by a higher power that is powerful enough that YES, he/she/it/they/whatever COULD create all this WITHOUT any help from anybody else. Whether or not I (or you or anybody either of us knows) could do anything without help from someone else is irrelevant. This 'being' (commonly known as "God") needed no help from anyone, because:

1. He is all-powerful by Himself

2. Nobody else was there to help Him create the universe, so if He were unable to do it by Himself, it would never have gotten done; but here we are, so obviously He is capable of creation by Himself without assistance from anyone.

When you say "Anything anyone has ever done in their life, has had help from someone", you mean any human being, and THAT is true, because we human beings are not God.

I never said I did anything without help from anybody else. That is irrelevant. The point is that the universe did not just happen by accident, of its own volition, but it had to be brought into existence by a higher power that is powerful enough that YES, he/she/it/they/whatever COULD create all this WITHOUT any help from anybody else. Whether or not I (or you or anybody either of us knows) could do anything without help from someone else is irrelevant. This 'being' (commonly known as "God") needed no help from anyone, because:

1. He is all-powerful by Himself

2. Nobody else was there to help Him create the universe, so if He were unable to do it by Himself, it would never have gotten done; but here we are, so obviously He is capable of creation by Himself without assistance from anyone.

When you say "Anything anyone has ever done in their life, has had help from someone", you mean any human being, and THAT is true, because we human beings are not God.
...and who or what created this deity of yours...or did he drop out of his own arse?:headbang:

I never said I did anything without help from anybody else. That is irrelevant. The point is that the universe did not just happen by accident, of its own volition, but it had to be brought into existence by a higher power that is powerful enough that YES, he/she/it/they/whatever COULD create all this WITHOUT any help from anybody else. Whether or not I (or you or anybody either of us knows) could do anything without help from someone else is irrelevant. This 'being' (commonly known as "God") needed no help from anyone, because:

1. He is all-powerful by Himself

2. Nobody else was there to help Him create the universe, so if He were unable to do it by Himself, it would never have gotten done; but here we are, so obviously He is capable of creation by Himself without assistance from anyone.

When you say "Anything anyone has ever done in their life, has had help from someone", you mean any human being, and THAT is true, because we human beings are not God.
...and who or what created this deity of yours...or did he drop out of his own arse?:headbang:

The bible is the only way to live God sved my life and and he loves me and I am forever grateful he also died for you and he loves you

I never said I did anything without help from anybody else. That is irrelevant. The point is that the universe did not just happen by accident, of its own volition, but it had to be brought into existence by a higher power that is powerful enough that YES, he/she/it/they/whatever COULD create all this WITHOUT any help from anybody else. Whether or not I (or you or anybody either of us knows) could do anything without help from someone else is irrelevant. This 'being' (commonly known as "God") needed no help from anyone, because:

1. He is all-powerful by Himself

2. Nobody else was there to help Him create the universe, so if He were unable to do it by Himself, it would never have gotten done; but here we are, so obviously He is capable of creation by Himself without assistance from anyone.

When you say "Anything anyone has ever done in their life, has had help from someone", you mean any human being, and THAT is true, because we human beings are not God.

if i grant the dubious supposition that "someone" had to start the universe will you tell me why that "someone" has to be the christian god and why he has to have been working alone?

i fail to see the connection between the universe needing a starter and it being proof of the existence of a particular starter.

In some respects the contemporary questioning of authority has a legitimate moral basis and is highly commendable. The recent century has witnessed the rise of ruthless and arbitrary tyrants imposing totalitarian dictates upon politically enslaved citizenries. In the United States political power was misused during the so-called Watergate era. Corporate power has been manipulated to institutional advantage both by huge business conglomerates and by massive labor unions.

Judge of men and nations, the self-revealed God wields unlimited authority and power. All creaturely authority and power is derived from that of God. As the sovereign Creator of all, the God of the Bible wills and has the right to be obeyed. The power God bestows is a divine trust, a stewardship. God's creatures are morally accountable for their use or misuse of it. In fallen human society God wills civil government for the promotion of justice and order. He approves an ordering of authoritative and creative relationships in the home by stipulating certain responsibilities of husbands, wives, and children. He wills a pattern of priorities for the church as well: Jesus Christ the head, prophets and apostles through whom redemptive revelation came, and so on. The inspired Scriptures, revealing God's transcendent will in objective written form, are the rule of faith and conduct through which Christ exercises his divine authority in the lives of Christians.

The bible is the only way to live Erm, wrong.
God sved my lifeDidn't God *give* you life?
and and he loves meTough love?
and I am forever gratefulGood.
he also died for youSo Nietsche IS right?
and he loves youI don't got none of that, unless you mean :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL4L4Uv5rf0
Which'd be cool. But where's the dog?

Revolt against particular authorities has in our time widened into a revolt against all transcendent and external authority. The widespread questioning of authority is condoned and promoted in many academic circles. Philosophers with a radically secular outlook have affirmed that God and the supernatural are mythical conceptions, that natural processes and events comprise the only ultimate reality. All existence is said to be temporal and changing; all beliefs and ideals are declared to be relative to the age and culture in which they appear. Biblical religion, therefore, like all other, is asserted to be merely a cultural phenomenon. The Bible's claim to divine authority is dismissed by such thinkers; transcendent revelation, fixed truths, and unchanging commandments are set aside as pious fictions.

you take what is a kind of "cross polination" of religious thought and turn it into a massive 2600 year old conspiracy to dupe the rest of the world.in what way is the projection of current beliefs into the past a cross pollination of religious thought? i see that more as a presumptuous attempt to re-write (religious) history. and that's what i reject.

what is that supposed to mean. of course it all has corrolition to Jesus. everything involving God (such as the old testament) involves Jesus. that's just christian arrogance.

Many things in the bible simply cannot be taken for their literal worth. However, whether you like it or not, the parables in the bible have a great effect on many literary works written post bible.

We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)
We should love God (Matthew 22:37)
There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18)

Okay.

The bible is the only way to live God sved my life and and he loves me and I am forever grateful he also died for you and he loves you

Does he love me enough to let me have sex with him on the first date? :p

what is that supposed to mean. of course it all has corrolition to Jesus. everything involving God (such as the old testament) involves Jesus.

Parallels between Jesus & Horus, an Egyptian God (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm)

Many things in the bible simply cannot be taken for their literal worth. However, whether you like it or not, the parables in the bible have a great effect on many literary works written post bible.

We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)
We should love God (Matthew 22:37)
There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18)

Okay.

"But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Jesus) Mat 5:22

"You fools!" (Jesus) Luke 11:40
"You blind fools!" (Jesus) Mat 23:17
"How foolish you are" (Jesus) Luke 24:25

"But God said to him, 'You fool!' " (Jesus) Luke 12:20

"You foolish Galatians!" (St. Paul) Galatians 3:1
"You foolish man" James 2:20

The bible is the only way to live God sved my life and and he loves me and I am forever grateful he also died for you and he loves you

Jesus is noble because he was willing to die a (horrible) death under the conditions that he:
1. Would be revived in 3 days
2. Would get to sit at Gods side as the second most powerful being in the universe
3. Would cleanse every single humans soul from original sin; a rule that daddy made up

Hmm. So what is a fireman who enters a blazing building to save a single child without all those benefits ?
I personally think Jesus got a very, very good deal...

http://lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page Is all I'm going to say. :D

I was not trying to be insulting, just stating my honest opinion. Christianty (all religion really) is a basis for division in the world.

Sure the bible may be historically correct in some instances, but I was merely stating my opinion on the religious merit of the bible. All the religious stuff in the bible (Genesis in particular) is bullshit in the extreme.

Come off your high horse.

I am not a particularly religious person, but what you are sating is patently ridiculous. Religion is a basis for division in the world.

Why yes it is. I will not disagree there. But so are ethnicity, political affiliation, the concept of the Nation State, gender, the list goes on. The only way one could ever eliminate division and all live in peace and harmony would be say if we exterminated everyone who wasn't a white, atheist, american male who votes Republican (or a South african Zulu female adherent to animist traditions; you get my point, make everyone the same) and then cloned this peculiar breed.

Unfortunately though, even then people would find excuses to hate each other based on money, so we'd have to kill all the poor people as well.

Embrace my vision of Utopia! I'm sure it coincides with your own.

Religion is not the sum cause of human evil. Humans themselves are. Religion is just a nice handy excuse, if it wasn't there we'd have something else; Justinian V of the Chuck Norris Appreciation Society: "Chuck Norris has decreed we must go to Palestine and liberate Jerusalem!"

Crusading Horde: "Chuck Norris is great he will protect us!"

Come on atheists, you supposedly have this amazing power of reasoning and were supposedly born without all those prejudices those horrible religious people have; lets see these amazing qualities come through once in a while.

Come off your high horse.

I am not a particularly religious person, but what you are sating is patently ridiculous. Religion is a basis for division in the world.

Why yes it is. I will not disagree there. But so are ethnicity, political affiliation, the concept of the Nation State, gender, the list goes on. The only way one could ever eliminate division and all live in peace and harmony would be say if we exterminated everyone who wasn't a white, atheist, american male who votes Republican (or a South african Zulu female adherent to animist traditions; you get my point, make everyone the same) and then cloned this peculiar breed.

Unfortunately though, even then people would find excuses to hate each other based on money, so we'd have to kill all the poor people as well.

Embrace my vision of Utopia! I'm sure it coincides with your own.

Religion is not the sum cause of human evil. Humans themselves are. Religion is just a nice handy excuse, if it wasn't there we'd have something else; Justinian V of the Chuck Norris Appreciation Society: "Chuck Norris has decreed we must go to Palestine and liberate Jerusalem!"

Crusading Horde: "Chuck Norris is great he will protect us!"

Come on atheists, you supposedly have this amazing power of reasoning and were supposedly born without all those prejudices those horrible religious people have; lets see these amazing qualities come through once in a while.
Nobody is born religious, or prejudiced, unless in a minor way such as liking their mother.
Chuck Norris is a complete idiot.
And religion is quite a nice tool of propaganda. Almost every fascist or dictatorial regime has used it, from Hitler's countless speeches about how God justifies his actions to the Russian Communist posters portraying Stalin as a 'God'.
So while it's true that humans are evil, religion is in itself a man-made concept, and quite possibly made to give one human power over another.
For example, the bit of Hinduism on worshiping cows... Why? So that in famines the farmers and workers wouldn't eat their owner's cows.

You can make the bible say whatever you want it to say. There are things in there justifying slavery, sexism, racism and homophobia and it also contradicts itself several times.

in what way is the projection of current beliefs into the past a cross pollination of religious thought? i see that more as a presumptuous attempt to re-write (religious) history. and that's what i reject.

its what people DO. its what ALL people do. its what they have always done.

they latch onto a new religious idea and make it their own. if it takes then pretty soon its what they have "always believed".

you seem to think that the ancient israelites are the only ones who have ever developed new religious beliefs after being exposed to the ideas of some other group.

it happened and is still happening all over the world.

so why be so pissed at the jews for it?

http://lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page Is all I'm going to say. :D

Since we're plugging the lolcat bible
http://lolcatbible.com/User:Ifreann

Since we're plugging the lolcat bible
http://lolcatbible.com/User:Ifreann

also - yay, my translation of job 1 is still up on the main page as a thing to model future efforts against.

In the name of man's supposed "coming of age," radical secularism champions human autonomy and creative individuality. Man is his own lord and the inventor of his own ideals and values, it is said. He lives in a supposedly purposeless universe that has itself presumably been engendered by a cosmic accident. Therefore, human beings are declared to be wholly free to impose upon nature and history whatever moral criteria they prefer. In such a view, to insist on divinely given truths and values, on transcendent principles, would be to repress self-fulfillment and retard creative personal development. Hence, the radically secular view goes beyond opposing particular external authorities whose claims are considered arbitrary or immoral; radical secularism is aggressively hostile to all external and objective authority, viewing it as intrinsically restrictive of the autonomous human spirit.

its what people DO. its what ALL people do. its what they have always done.
they latch onto a new religious idea and make it their own. if it takes then pretty soon its what they have "always believed".
you seem to think that the ancient israelites are the only ones who have ever developed new religious beliefs after being exposed to the ideas of some other group.
it happened and is still happening all over the world.
so why be so pissed at the jews for it?

Hell, by all accounts Hinduism, one of the largest religions in the world today, came about in ancient times (at least in the oldest known form) as a collision between two separate and distinct cultures and religious traditions that then merged (after warfare).
I still think it's fairly silly to base the validity of a religious tradition on how old it is.

Any reader of the Bible recognizes rejection of divine authority and of a definitive revelation of what is right and good as an age-old phenomenon. It is not at all peculiar to contemporary man to "come of age"; it was found already in Eden. Adam and Eve revolted against the will of God in pursuit of individual preference and self-interest. But their revolt was recognized to be sin, not rationalized as philosophical "gnosis" at the frontiers of evolutionary advance.

Any reader of the Bible recognizes rejection of divine authority and of a definitive revelation of what is right and good as an age-old phenomenon. It is not at all peculiar to contemporary man to "come of age"; it was found already in Eden. Adam and Eve revolted against the will of God in pursuit of individual preference and self-interest. But their revolt was recognized to be sin, not rationalized as philosophical "gnosis" at the frontiers of evolutionary advance.

You know adam and eve weren't real people, right?

its what people DO. its what ALL people do. its what they have always done.
they latch onto a new religious idea and make it their own. if it takes then pretty soon its what they have "always believed".
you seem to think that the ancient israelites are the only ones who have ever developed new religious beliefs after being exposed to the ideas of some other group.
it happened and is still happening all over the world.
so why be so pissed at the jews for it?Hell, by all accounts Hinduism, one of the largest religions in the world today, came about in ancient times (at least in the oldest known form) as a collision between two separate and distinct cultures and religious traditions that then merged (after warfare).
I still think it's fairly silly to base the validity of a religious tradition on how old it is.
Well, this has nothing to do with the age of a religion as such. It is about who steals from who and then claims to have always had it. Judaism in ancient times, an ideology held by a very tiny minority, tells all the great cultures of the entire world that they and their peoples are worthless before their god, and that the achievements of early humanity were all Jew-ish in a way. It claims the origin of mankind for itself, it claims the great city builders of Mesopotamia for itself, it claims the Flood hero for itself, it claims what Hebrews and Israelites have done for itself, it claims that all these things had happened in the context of Judaism and the Jewish religion and ultimately in the context of the Jewish God. Why could they not just say "OK, we take one god out of the Middle-Eastern pantheon and worship only this one while we ignore but still respect the others". Just that? Why do they have to declare other gods invalid and in fact inexistent (calling them idols) ? Why do they have to claim that only their god is the real and right one while the rest of humanity is living their lives wrong? It is this exclusiveness that made Judaism and subsequently all the abrahamic religions so different from all other, earlier faiths.

You know adam and eve weren't real people, right?How do you know? Maybe they were real people, but had different roles?

so why be so pissed at the jews for it?

because the sumerians don't secretly rule the world. duh.

Well, this has nothing to do with the age of a religion as such. It is about who steals from who and then claims to have always had it. Judaism in ancient times, an ideology held by a very tiny minority, tells all the great cultures of the entire world that they and their peoples are worthless before their god, and that the achievements of early humanity were all Jew-ish in a way. It claims the origin of mankind for itself, it claims the great city builders of Mesopotamia for itself, it claims the Flood hero for itself, it claims what Hebrews and Israelites have done for itself, it claims that all these things had happened in the context of Judaism and the Jewish religion and ultimately in the context of the Jewish God. Why could they not just say "OK, we take one god out of the Middle-Eastern pantheon and worship only this one while we ignore but still respect the others". Just that? Why do they have to declare other gods invalid and in fact inexistent (calling them idols) ? Why do they have to claim that only their god is the real and right one while the rest of humanity is living their lives wrong? It is this exclusiveness that made Judaism and subsequently all the abrahamic religions so different from all other, earlier faiths.



because they are monotheistic?

why do you care? would it be so much better for the western world to be worshipping a dozen different non existent gods instead of just one?

because the sumerians don't secretly rule the world. duh.

the sumerians dropped that ball 4500 years ago. someone had to pick it up.

because the sumerians don't secretly rule the world. duh.

or do they?

maybe the illuminati are actually the ancient sumerians in the modern world.

because they are monotheistic?

why do you care? would it be so much better for the western world to be worshipping a dozen different non existent gods instead of just one?

Perhaps. It would at least make people realise their favourite god is not worshipped by everyone.
On the other hand things fundamentalism and movements like the creationists would still exist, just in a different shape. Hindus for instance also have such problems.

If one takes a strictly developmental view, which considers all reality contingent and changing, what basis remains for humanity's decisively creative role in the universe? How could a purposeless cosmos cater to individual self-fulfillment? Only the biblical alternative of the Creator-Redeemer God, who fashioned human beings for moral obedience and a high spiritual destiny, truly preserves the permanent, universal dignity of the human species. The Bible does so, however, by a demanding call for personal spiritual decision. The Bible sets forth man's superiority to the animals, his high dignity ("little less than God," Ps. 8:5) because of the divine rational and moral image that he bears by creation. In the context of universal human involvement in Adamic sin, the Bible utters a merciful divine call to redemptive renewal through the mediatorial person and work of Christ. Fallen humanity is invited to experience the Holy Spirit's renewing work, to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, and to anticipate a final destiny in the eternal presence of the God of justice and justification.

You can make the bible say whatever you want it to say. There are things in there justifying slavery, sexism, racism and homophobia and it also contradicts itself several times.

oh do please: enlighten us.

Contemporary rejection of biblical tenets does not rest on any logical demonstration that the case for biblical theism is false; it turns rather on a subjective preference for alternative views of "the good life."

You know adam and eve weren't real people, right?

IIRC, isn't there some connection between the character Eve and some ancient fertility goddess with a similar name from that area of the world? I remember hearing something like that, but I don't tend to concern myself with information about the Middle East of antiquity.

Perhaps. It would at least make people realise their favourite god is not worshipped by everyone.
On the other hand things fundamentalism and movements like the creationists would still exist, just in a different shape. Hindus for instance also have such problems.

It's not really ever an issue of how many gods you have, but how crazy some of your believers are. *nod*

How do you know? Maybe they were real people, but had different roles?

Because I've done some research. It isn't entirely impossible that adam and eve refer to actual people... but it is far, far better probability that they are entirely a plot device.

I assume, then, that you have never read the scripture in Hebrew?

The Hebrew: 'adam is (the) red (clay). Chavvah is (the breath of) life.

In the context of Genesis, we have yet another retelling of the formation of man, by the 'marriage' of 'clay' and 'life'. Probably held over from an earlier creation story.

The Bible is not the only significant reminder that human beings stand daily in responsible relationship to the sovereign God. The Creator reveals his authority in the cosmos, in history, and in inner conscience, a disclosure of the living God that penetrates into the mind of every human being (Rom. 1:18-20; 2:12-15). Rebellious suppression of that "general divine revelation" does not succeed in wholly suspending a fearsome sense of final divine accountability (Rom. 1:32). Yet it is the Bible as "special revelation" that most clearly confronts our spiritually rebellious race with the reality and authority of God. In the Scriptures, the character and will of God, the meaning of human existence, the nature of the spiritual realm, and the purposes of God for human beings in all ages are stated in propositionally intelligible form that all can understand. The Bible publishes in objective form the criteria by which God judges individuals and nations, and the means of moral recovery and restoration to personal fellowship with him.

Because I've done some research. It isn't entirely impossible that adam and eve refer to actual people... but it is far, far better probability that they are entirely a plot device.

I assume, then, that you have never read the scripture in Hebrew?

The Hebrew: 'adam is (the) red (clay). Chavvah is (the breath of) life.

In the context of Genesis, we have yet another retelling of the formation of man, by the 'marriage' of 'clay' and 'life'. Probably held over from an earlier creation story.
Don't dwell to much on your Hebrew. I have read parts of Genesis in Hebrew.
I know of the red ochre man and his spouse.
And I know of earlier creation stories where man was made from clay and the blood of a slain god (cf. Atrahasis Epic).

The Bible is not the only significant reminder that human beings stand daily in responsible relationship to the sovereign God. The Creator reveals his authority in the cosmos, in history, and in inner conscience, a disclosure of the living God that penetrates into the mind of every human being (Rom. 1:18-20; 2:12-15). Rebellious suppression of that "general divine revelation" does not succeed in wholly suspending a fearsome sense of final divine accountability (Rom. 1:32). Yet it is the Bible as "special revelation" that most clearly confronts our spiritually rebellious race with the reality and authority of God. In the Scriptures, the character and will of God, the meaning of human existence, the nature of the spiritual realm, and the purposes of God for human beings in all ages are stated in propositionally intelligible form that all can understand. The Bible publishes in objective form the criteria by which God judges individuals and nations, and the means of moral recovery and restoration to personal fellowship with him.Are you in some kind of feedback loop?

why do you care? would it be so much better for the western world to be worshipping a dozen different gods instead of just one?Yes.
the sumerians dropped that ball 4500 years ago. someone had to pick it up.Who dropped which ball?
And who picked it up in your understanding?

Not even the Bible says there is a Bible God It might all be God or The LORD in the King James but the traditional Christian is a different version anyway and the original gives quite different names. Christian founders like St. Paul were quite direct about this - go through Scripture (that is, the Jewish Torah and Mishnah and Midrash of the day) and then, whatever matches up to love, tolerance, understanding, co-operation, making the world a better place to live in than the Roman Empire or umpteen Jewish sects not so different from today's radical Muslims - that's from the god, the Foundation and ideal of a harmonious universe; everything else is kings and bigots justifying themselves and excusing their failures by projecting their own ego onto some cosmic madman demanding blind obedience and blasting all and sundry if somebody forgot to grovel to him.

I wouldn't call myself a Christian because I think Christianity has as little to do with anything Christians really taught as suicide bombers do with the Caliph leaving a Christian church to pray so that his followers would not turn it into a mosque in his honor.

Religion is a conservative force that seeks to hold back change, maintain the status quo and justify inequality. Marx described it as "the opium of the poor" as it numbed the pain of poverty preventing them rebelling. The Catholic church for example interprets the bible as saying that poverty is divinely ordained, convenient how the pope is divinely prescribed extravagant wealth. The Protestant reformation supported capitalist divides in its belief that a symbol you were going to heaven could be found in your success on earth, the more prosperous you are the more likely it is god has chosen you. Religion is also a force of division, and a product of guilt, people need to feel they will be forgiven for things they perceive to be wrong, you my have just murdered somebody but at least god will forgive you. The bible, as do most religious texts, does provide some very few useful morals that are conveniently convenient to the consensus and reproduction of social values, however religious texts are also outdated and change so constantly through revision, interpretation and translation that their original context is lost. Also be careful if you're reading a bible in English the odd grammar isn't because it old it's because when the bible was first translated out of Latin it was translated directly without changing the grammar to how it would be in German and later English, so as to maintain the rhythm and flow, personally think that was a mistake and it made it sound rather pretentious, so the grammar was just as odd 500 years ago as it is now, therefore meaning the original context is lost, the bible is also convenient for fundamentalist as you can find justification for any crime within the bible that even the most psychotic person can think off (funnily enough the bible is the book most influential to violent serial murderous rapists in establishing their link between sex and violence, followed closely behind by "true crime" magazines).

Adding to my last post:

Regard for the Bible is therefore decisive for the course of Western culture and in the long run for human civilization generally. Intelligible divine revelation, the basis for belief in the sovereign authority of the Creator-Redeemer God over all human life, rests on the reliability of what Scripture says about God and his purposes. Modern naturalism impugns the authority of the Bible and assails the claim that the Bible is the Word of God written, that is, a transcendently given revelation of the mind and will of God in objective literary form. Scriptural authority is the storm center both in the controversy over revealed religion and in the modern conflict over civilizational values.

I'm not here for an argument <SNIP>

You came to the wrong forum then.

maybe the illuminati are actually the ancient sumerians in the modern world.

or so the jooooos would have you believe...

Only a heathen worries about "interpreting" God-given Word. Them, and hermeneuticians. Both deserve to die excruciating deaths.

How do you know? Maybe they were real people, but had different roles?

You mean, like "The safety word is 'banana'" ? :p

*runs away*

Many things in the bible simply cannot be taken for their literal worth. However, whether you like it or not, the parables in the bible have a great effect on many literary works written post bible.

We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)
We should love God (Matthew 22:37)
There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18)

Okay.

Nice, very nice. *bows*

Howdy Orleannia.

Jesus is noble because he was willing to die a (horrible) death under the conditions that he:
1. Would be revived in 3 days
2. Would get to sit at Gods side as the second most powerful being in the universe
3. Would cleanse every single humans soul from original sin; a rule that daddy made up

Hmm. So what is a fireman who enters a blazing building to save a single child without all those benefits ?
I personally think Jesus got a very, very good deal...

zOuchouchoochouchowieouch

oh do please: enlighten us.

oh please has that only been done once in some obscure fashion here or what, praytell? :rolleyes:

IIRC, isn't there some connection between the character Eve and some ancient fertility goddess with a similar name from that area of the world? I remember hearing something like that, but I don't tend to concern myself with information about the Middle East of antiquity.

Lilith, perhaps?

or so the jooooos would have you believe...
True. Are you one of them? You sound depraved and stupid enough.

You came to the wrong forum then.

That's not just saying "No, it isn't"

The Bible is not the only significant reminder that human beings stand daily in responsible relationship to the sovereign God. The Creator reveals his authority in the cosmos, in history, and in inner conscience, a disclosure of the living God that penetrates into the mind of every human being (Rom. 1:18-20; 2:12-15). Rebellious suppression of that "general divine revelation" does not succeed in wholly suspending a fearsome sense of final divine accountability (Rom. 1:32). Yet it is the Bible as "special revelation" that most clearly confronts our spiritually rebellious race with the reality and authority of God. In the Scriptures, the character and will of God, the meaning of human existence, the nature of the spiritual realm, and the purposes of God for human beings in all ages are stated in propositionally intelligible form that all can understand. The Bible publishes in objective form the criteria by which God judges individuals and nations, and the means of moral recovery and restoration to personal fellowship with him.

Or alternatively it is all a form of epilepsy combined with conditioning.


The key, Ramachandran speculates, may be the limbic system, which comprises interior regions of the brain that govern emotion and emotional memory, such as the amygdala and hypothalamus. By strengthening the connection between the temporal lobe and these emotional centers, epileptic electrical activity may spark religious feeling.

To seal the case for the temporal lobe’s involvement, Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Ontario sought to artificially re-create religious feelings by electrically stimulating that large subdivision of the brain. So Persinger created the “God helmet,” which generates weak electromagnetic fields and focuses them on particular regions of the brain’s surface.

In a series of studies conducted over the past several decades, Persinger and his team have trained their device on the temporal lobes of hundreds of people. In doing so, the researchers induced in most of them the experience of a sensed presence—a feeling that someone (or a spirit) is in the room when no one, in fact, is—or of a profound state of cosmic bliss that reveals a universal truth. During the three-minute bursts of stimulation, the affected subjects translated this perception of the divine into their own cultural and religious language—terming it God, Buddha, a benevolent presence or the wonder of the universe.

Persinger thus argues that religious experience and belief in God are merely the results of electrical anomalies in the human brain. He opines that the religious bents of even the most exalted figures—for instance, Saint Paul, Moses, Muhammad and Buddha—stem from such neural quirks. The popular notion that such experiences are good, argues Persinger in his book Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs (Praeger Publishers, 1987), is an outgrowth of psychological conditioning in which religious rituals are paired with enjoyable experiences. Praying before a meal, for example, links prayer with the pleasures of eating. God, he claims, is nothing more mystical than that.

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=434D7C62-E7F2-99DF-37CC9814533B90D7

Yes.

i dont see the benefit.



Who dropped which ball?
And who picked it up in your understanding?

just going along with free soviet's joke.

if you didnt get it, i think my explaining it to you might constitute flaming.

True. Are you one of them? You sound depraved and stupid enough.

what, a sumerian?

Lilith, perhaps?

Doubtful. From all indications the concept of Lilith was thrown into religious texts some time during the Middle Ages as a result of a particular interpretation of certain snippets of the Old Testament. The wikipedia article on it, as of sometime last year, was rather thorough on the subject.

what, a sumerian?

You do have that Sumerian look to you.

what, a sumerian?
A Jew.

You do have that Sumerian look to you.

don't you go judging me by the styling of my beard

Don't dwell to much on your Hebrew. I have read parts of Genesis in Hebrew.
I know of the red ochre man and his spouse.


And, your point?

Don't read the Hebrew scripture in Hebrew? Got to be better than reading a perverted English translation... most of the English-speaking readership actually thinks 'adam' and 'eve' are the names of people, even if they don't accept them as literal and 'real'.

And I know of earlier creation stories where man was made from clay and the blood of a slain god (cf. Atrahasis Epic).

And? Your point?

That has absolutely no impact on anything I've just said. I hope you enjoyed typing it, because it was a complete waste of time, for me.

don't you go judging me be the styling of my beard

its the tshirt. the cuneiform motto gives you away every time.

nazi or just unfunny? an exercise left to the reader.

troll.

check out his other posts in other threads. he is best ignored.

A Jew.

nazi or just unfunny? an exercise left to the reader.

And, your point?

Don't read the Hebrew scripture in Hebrew? Got to be better than reading a perverted English translation... most of the English-speaking readership actually thinks 'adam' and 'eve' are the names of people, even if they don't accept them as literal and 'real'.I am not most of the English-speaking readership and I read "Hebrew" scripture in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, French, Spanish, German, or English, depending on which translation I read. What's your point again? And btw, non-Hebrew scripture is so much more informative and entertaining.

And? Your point?

That has absolutely no impact on anything I've just said. I hope you enjoyed typing it, because it was a complete waste of time, for me.You refered to earlier creation stories. I refered you to one. But be careful to read it in the original language and not in some perverted English translation...

Discussion of biblical authority has been shadowed in the recent century both by sweeping claims for higher criticism from nonevangelical critics and by extravagant claims of what scriptural authority requires and implies from evangelical polemicists.

Discussion of biblical authority has been shadowed in the recent century both by sweeping claims for higher criticism from nonevangelical critics and by extravagant claims of what scriptural authority requires and implies from evangelical polemicists.

Stop posting intelligent stuff. ;)

Doubtful. From all indications the concept of Lilith was thrown into religious texts some time during the Middle Ages as a result of a particular interpretation of certain snippets of the Old Testament. The wikipedia article on it, as of sometime last year, was rather thorough on the subject.

Whom, then? I need to know what to start nicknaming a few people i know.

Skepticism toward the reliability of Scripture seems to survive in many academic circles despite the repeated collapse of critical theories. One still finds a disposition to trust secular writers whose credentials in providing historical testimony are often less adequate than those of the biblical writers. Not long ago many scholars rejected the historicity of the patriarchal accounts, denied that writing existed in Moses' day, and ascribed the Gospels and the Epistles to second-century writers. But higher criticism has sustained some spectacular and even stunning reverses, mainly through the findings of archaeology. No longer is it held that the glories of King Solomon's era are a literary fabrication, that "Yahweh," the redemptive God of the Hebrews, was unknown before the eighth-century prophets, or that Ezra's representations about the Babylonian captivity are fictional. Archaeologists have located the long-lost copper mines of Solomon's time. Tablets discovered at Ebla near Aleppo confirm that names similar to those of the patriarchs were common among people who lived in Ebla shortly before the events recorded in the later chapters of Genesis took place.

Stop posting intelligent stuff. ;)

it might be intelligent but since he never responds to any discussion of what he posts or gives credit to the author (maybe he did in his first post and thinks we can remember this long?) its just SPAM.

I've made numerous reponses and have presented new topics for discussion, I feel. Please accept my apologies if you feel annoyance with my posts, Ashmoria.

Skepticism toward the reliability of Scripture seems to survive in many academic circles despite the repeated collapse of critical theories. One still finds a disposition to trust secular writers whose credentials in providing historical testimony are often less adequate than those of the biblical writers. Not long ago many scholars rejected the historicity of the patriarchal accounts, denied that writing existed in Moses' day, and ascribed the Gospels and the Epistles to second-century writers. But higher criticism has sustained some spectacular and even stunning reverses, mainly through the findings of archaeology. ....

A few more examples:

During the past century or so, archeologists have found the first mention of Israel outside the Bible, in an Egyptian inscription carved by the Pharaoh Merneptah in the year 1207 BC. They have found mentions of Israelite kings, including Omri, Ahab, and Jehu, in neo-Assyrian inscriptions from the early first millennium BC. And they have found, most recently, a mention of the House of David in an inscription from northern Israel dating to the ninth century BC. These are conclusive pieces of evidence that these people and places once existed and that at least parts of the Bible are historically accurate.

Eric H. Cline is the author of "From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible." He is chair of the department of classical and Semitic languages and literature at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C. He is also associate director (USA) of the ongoing excavations at Megiddo (biblical Armageddon) in Israel. He can be reached at ehcline@gwu.edu. link (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/09/30/raiders_of_the_faux_ark/)


I've made numerous reponses and have presented new topics for discussion, I feel. Please accept my apologies if you feel annoyance with my posts, Ashmoria.

I for one like and read all of your posts. If some people fail to see the connection between your posts and the topic at the moment, I'm sorry to hear it.

But if I get a vote I vote that you keep posting.

I am not most of the English-speaking readership and I read "Hebrew" scripture in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, French, Spanish, German, or English, depending on which translation I read. What's your point again?


You made such a big deal boasting about the languages you read the book, that you forgot the point I made?

Personally, I'd say, if your not reading it in Hebrew, all you are doing is reading a book BASED ON the Hebrew scripture... not reading that scripture, at all.


And btw, non-Hebrew scripture is so much more informative and entertaining.


Not when the subject of discussion is the Hebrew scripture.


You refered to earlier creation stories.


No, I didn't.


I refered you to one. But be careful to read it in the original language and not in some perverted English translation...

For the most part, I have to rely on translations... but that's okay, since that's not really my area of expertise. Knowing roughly what is there... and being able to make closer examination where needed, suffices.

Thank you Balderdash, your posts are informative as well.

A few more examples:

During the past century or so, archeologists have found the first mention of Israel outside the Bible, in an Egyptian inscription carved by the Pharaoh Merneptah in the year 1207 BC. They have found mentions of Israelite kings, including Omri, Ahab, and Jehu, in neo-Assyrian inscriptions from the early first millennium BC. And they have found, most recently, a mention of the House of David in an inscription from northern Israel dating to the ninth century BC. These are conclusive pieces of evidence that these people and places once existed and that at least parts of the Bible are historically accurate.

Eric H. Cline is the author of "From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible." He is chair of the department of classical and Semitic languages and literature at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C. He is also associate director (USA) of the ongoing excavations at Megiddo (biblical Armageddon) in Israel. He can be reached at
-snip email-. link (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/09/30/raiders_of_the_faux_ark/)

Have they found evidence of several million people wandering around the desert for fourty years? No? Let me know when you do, it shouldn't be difficult given that archaeologists are capable of finding the remains of nomad camps occupied by only a dozen people. What's the big hold up?

This seems to be a good time to use an argument of example instead of just quoting some other paper. Here are two samples of writings, but the same author. Of similar size but of entirely different styles even though the topic is shared, that of reading books and reading tastes is covered in both, to some degree…

SAMPLE 1
In this essay I propose to try an experiment. Literary criticism is traditionally employed in judging books. Any judgement it implies about men’s reading of books is a corollary from its judgement on the books themselves. Bad taste is, as it were by definition, a taste for bad books. I want to find out what sort of picture we shall get by reversing the process. Let us make our distinction between readers or types of reading the basis, and our distinction between books the corollary. Let us try to discover how far it might be plausible to define a good book as a book which is read in one way, and a bad book as a book which is read in another.
I think this worth trying because the normal procedure seems to me to involve almost continually a false implication. If we say that A likes (or has a taste for) the women’s magazines and B likes (or has a taste for) Dante, this sounds as if likes and taste have the same meaning when applied to both; as if there were a single activity, though the objects to which it is directed are different. But observation convinces me that this, at least usually, is untrue.
Already in our schooldays some of us were making our first responses to good literature. Others, and these the majority, were reading, at school, The Captain, and, at home, short-lived novels from the circulating library. But in was apparent then that the majority did not ‘like’ their fare in the way we ‘liked’ ours. It is apparent still. The difference leap to the eye.

SAMPLE 2
The name of the graduate looks like KNIONAN, but this can hardly be right! It is embarrassing that as may own hand gets worse I also get worse at reading everyone else’s.
I am very sorry you have had no luck yet with the M.G. But many a book that afterwards succeeded has been rejected by several publishers.
I read Butterfield and gave it exactly the same mark as you; and am glad of your support, for most even of my Christian friends think it bad. All good wishes for St. Bernard.
My book with Professor Tolkien – any book in collaboration with that great but dilatory and unmethodical man – is dated, I fear, to appear on the Greek Kalends!
I don’t quite know about those American veterans, Nearly all the books we shd. Want to send are published in U.S.A. and there is a bad book famine in England.
Term begins on Sat. and there is a cruel mail to-day, so I am suffering incessant temptation to uncharitable thoughts at present: one of those black moods in which nearly all one’s friends seem to be selfish or even false. And how terrible that there shd. Be even a kind of pleasure in thinking evil. A ‘mixed pleasure’ as Plato wd. Say, like scratching?
yours sincerely
C.S. Lewis


The same arguments used to say the author of the epistles in not the author of the Pastorals could be used to say the two samples above did not come from the same hand. But the fact is that the same person writes with different styles and words and mannerisms depending on their intended reader, it is nothing new (all of us do it to some degree I'm sure). The argument could be made in a thousand years from now that the two samples above could not have come from the same source but someone that intended to implicate the author of sample 1 as the author of sample 2. But then the counter argument would be, “but it doesn’t sound anything like the same, it's not a very good 'copy of mannerisms' and not a very good impersonation if that was their intention then, is it?!”

The different styles from a single person reflect the different purposes of the two types of works, it is an intentional alterations of form by the author (pastorals or epistles are as dissimilar from each other as a published essay on criticism is different and uses a different style and language than a personal letter of correspondence does.

With that in mind, the argument that Paul could not have written 2 Timothy because the style and wordage is different is stale and does not ring of truth for many of us.

(sample 1 is from: An Experiment in Criticism and Sample 2 is from, The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume 3. I've attempted to leave in short hand and spellings, even mispellings if American vs. English are compared, but my typing is not good enough to suggest that I didn't add typos to the samples from my poor skills...)

A very poor comparison. Firstly, to suggest that the natural difference in style between an essay and a personal letter is comparable to that between two letters with different purposes is gross hyperbole. It also completely ignores the problem of the age of language used: if one of the documents used which only came into common usage over fifty years after Lewis's death then it would be eminently reasonable to suggest that he hadn't written it himself. I'd also point out that you're not even trying to address the textual analysis of Paul's writings, you're trying to discredit the entire field of textual criticism by saying that stylistic analysis is never valid. Is this really your position, given the libraries of books and papers which have been written on the discipline over the years?

I have not attempted to associate OT books and timetables with Paul's writings, the association of the different topics by you here is inaccurate of my opinion. As to what do I personally believe, I agree that the Pentateuch seems to be a compilation work, it seems self evident. As to Matthew, I’ve always thought of it as being written for the Hebrew/Jewish reader, but I’ve recently been exposed to a pretty good argument that it was written for the Roman reader… I know enough to know that I don’t know which language it first appeared in. I believe Mark was written before Matthew though, but I’m open to archaeological finds on the matter, I’ve not set my feet in stone on the issue.

It's an entirely appropriate argument. You tried to use an argument from authority (the Church Fathers) concerning the origins and authorship of the Canon, and I responded by pointing out several occasions where they turned out to be utterly wrong.

Again, an ad hominem attack on them instead of rebuttals of their arguments is poor form. If their arguments are so bad, since they are wingnuts and all, I'm sure you can debunk them without insulting their religious position and calling them wingnuts, as if that in itself means they have nothing to say on the subject matter.

Moving the goalposts already? Your original disagreement was with my statement that mainstream modern scholarship rejects Pauline authorship (a statement which I think I've demonstrated well, and which you have supported by being forced to cite mavericks and wingnuts as examples of scholars who support your view). Are you now accepting that most scholars reject Pauline authorship and wanting to discuss the arguments themselves? If you want to make an argument then please present it yourself instead of citing books, websites, or long copy and pastes. I have no interest in rebutting an endless stream of links. I see you're fairly new on this forum so I'd better warn you that there are very few people here who are willing to spend there time arguing against links, everyone is expected to argue for themselves here.

Oh, and as I think I've pointed out already in this thread (although I could be wrong), Ad Hominem arguments are valid when used against an argument from authority. This is the only circumstance in which they're valid, but it is a useful one.

Discussion of biblical authority has been shadowed in the recent century both by sweeping claims for higher criticism from nonevangelical critics and by extravagant claims of what scriptural authority requires and implies from evangelical polemicists.

What do you mean by this?

it might be intelligent but since he never responds to any discussion of what he posts or gives credit to the author (maybe he did in his first post and thinks we can remember this long?) its just SPAM.

Indeed. I haven't said anything because their replies are probably more relevant to the original topic of the thread than mine, but even so the rambling is starting to get annoying.

Have they found evidence of several million people wandering around the desert for fourty years? No? Let me know when you do, it shouldn't be difficult given that archaeologists are capable of finding the remains of nomad camps occupied by only a dozen people. What's the big hold up?

Furthermore, does anyone else find it strange how indifferent the Egyptians were to all this?

So, some random foreigner rises from slavery to become the second most powerful man in the country; he saves Egypt from unprecedented famine by interpreting the future; his family turns up and start to breed like rabbits to the extent that they have to be enslaved; the god of the slaves then goes on to wipe out all the crops, animals and firstborn children in Egypt; the water turns to blood and the Sun goes out; eventually they flee (taking much of Egypt's gold with them) and the Pharaoh and most of his army are drowned when the Red Sea falls on top of them.

And despite all this, the Egyptians didn't bat an eyelid: a civilisation which kept careful written-record of the number of loaves consumed at feasts didn't think any of these events were worthy of note. Not only this, but none of their neighbours noticed the Sun going out, and neither did they notice the unprecedented migration of starving Egyptians, whose crops and animals had been destroyed by the plagues, streaming into their country seeking food. They didn't notice the massive trading missions which must have taken place in order to feed Egypt and maintain it as a world power.

Of course, this was probably nothing out of the ordinary for them because none of them noticed that they and their civilisations were completely wiped out by the flood of Noah (continuous Egyptian records date back to before the putative date of the flood) and apparently they just carried on regardless. I guess it shows the power of positive thinking...

I'm addressing the subject of "higher criticism" here, RLI.

New Testament critic John T. Robinson conceded in Redating the New Testament that the late critical dating of New Testament books is wholly unpursuasive. Robinson argued that failure of the Gospels and Epistles to mention the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 is evidence that the writings were completed earlier, because otherwise that turn of events would have been used apologetically by the writers. It would be better, however, to arrive at dates of composition from what the writers teach and who they are rather than from what the writings do not contain; neither is it sound to be guided primarily by a supposed apologetic motivation that underlay their composition.

I'm addressing the subject of "higher criticism" here, RLI.

:)

New Testament critic John T. Robinson conceded in Redating the New Testament that the late critical dating of New Testament books is wholly unpursuasive. Robinson argued that failure of the Gospels and Epistles to mention the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 is evidence that the writings were completed earlier, because otherwise that turn of events would have been used apologetically by the writers.

I'm sorry? The references to the fall of Jerusalem are one of the reasons for late dating of the Gospels; the references are not explicit, but they are there. I'm sure there is a complete list somewhere, but I can think of two from memory in Mark (the earliest Gospel) alone:

-The bizarre story of Jesus and the two thousand pigs (Mark 5:1-20), the demons declare "Our name is legion for we are many". After the failure of the Jewish revolt, a Roman legion (numbering about two thousand) was stationed in Jerusalem. Its standard was in the image of a pig.

-Pilate's offer to release Jesus as part of a Passover tradition and the crowd's choice of Barabbas instead (Mark 15:6-15). Barabbas is often described as a robber or murderer in translations, but a better translation of the word used (lestai) would be 'freedom fighter' or 'guerrilla', basically someone who was fighting the Roman occupation. There is no record of Roman's releasing prisoners at Passover as a sign of goodwill, and they certainly wouldn't have released a violent revolutionary; the story makes no sense until you realise that the event never really happened, and the story represents the Jewish people choosing to trust in violence and the strength of men (by choosing Barrabas) rather than peace and the will of God (Jesus). The message is clear: The Jews chose to trust in their own stength through the Jewish Revolt and as a result they lost Jerusalem.

Luke 19:41-44 is far more explicit, and even describes the vast wooden walls which Vespasian and Titus built around the city:

As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."

These may seem to be overly veiled to our eyes (especially Mark's references), but people read religious texts differently in the time when the Gospels were written; look at Revelations if you don't believe me.

It would be better, however, to arrive at dates of composition from what the writers teach and who they are rather than from what the writings do not contain; neither is it sound to be guided primarily by a supposed apologetic motivation that underlay their composition.

Wait, you do know that the Synoptics are anonymous, right? The only exception is the Gospel of John which claims to have been written by the 'disciple who Jesus loved'.

You perhaps see the saying in a negative light? I see it in a positive light.

God gave us all free will, and the gift of life. Why should I deny Him?

Eris gave us the gift of freedom, why do you deny her?

"Sure the bible may be historically correct in some instances, but I was merely stating my opinion on the religious merit of the bible. All the religious stuff in the bible (Genesis in particular) is bullshit in the extreme."

I would say that anyone who has studied biology in any detail cannot honestly tell me that evolution or alien seeding of the earth is any less bullshit than creation. Whats more, if you believe the big bang theory of a spinning particle exploded and created the universe, I must say that if a spinning object breaks, the pieces will spin in the same way. How then is it that one of Uranus' poles points toward the sun?

And you can't tell me the universe has always been here, it is expanding and everything that grows or expands has a point at which it began expansion/growth, therefore it had to have a beginning.

"Science" requires more faith and less rational thought at some points than Christianity.

I wouldn't say evil. More like harsh.

I would, what with the repeated genocide and all . . .

The "documentary" view of Scripture has long been considered by nonevangelical scholars the most firmly established achievement of literary and historical criticism. The theory (that the Old Testament narratives are a product of "redaction" by editors who blended separate reports into a single narrative) has had--until recently--the support of almost every prestigious Old Testament scholar outside evangelical circles. But the theory, also known is the "J-E-P-D hypothesis" (the letters standing for the supposed separate documents), has been under mounting attack. Umberto Cassuto, who held the chair of Bible at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, repudiated the prevalent critical notion that the biblical accounts gained their unity through literary redaction (editing), but retained relatively late datings for the completion of the Pentateuch and of Isaiah (Biblical and Oriental Studies). In a Christianity Today interview, Cyrus H. Gordon, a distinguished Jewish scholar, rejected the notion that the use of Elohim and Yahweh as divergent names for God implies different literary sources ("Higher Critics and Forbidden Fruit").

The "documentary" view of Scripture has long been considered by nonevangelical scholars the most firmly established achievement of literary and historical criticism. The theory (that the Old Testament narratives are a product of "redaction" by editors who blended separate reports into a single narrative) has had--until recently--the support of almost every prestigious Old Testament scholar outside evangelical circles.

It still does: there are variations within the Documentary Hypothesis but the challenges to it are largely refinements rather than outright challenges to the multiple source theory. For example, modern scholarship places the Deuteronomist after the Priestly source, wheras Wellhausen had them the other way around when he first proposed the theory; modern scholarship has also broken D down into D1 (pre-exile) and D2 (during exile), although both parts are generally agreed to have been written by the same author.

But the theory, also known is the "J-E-P-D hypothesis" (the letters standing for the supposed separate documents), has been under mounting attack. Umberto Cassuto, who held the chair of Bible at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, repudiated the prevalent critical notion that the biblical accounts gained their unity through literary redaction (editing), but retained relatively late datings for the completion of the Pentateuch and of Isaiah (Biblical and Oriental Studies).

So one scholar represents mounting pressure? I suppose for the fundies it's a novelty to find even one serious scholar who agrees with them on anything...

In a Christianity Today interview, Cyrus H. Gordon, a distinguished Jewish scholar, rejected the notion that the use of Elohim and Yahweh as divergent names for God implies different literary sources ("Higher Critics and Forbidden Fruit").

This sounds like a crude strawman attack on the DH. There are far more distinctions between the writings of J and E than their names for God: their focus on different geographical regions (E on northern Israel, J on the south) and their different ideas on the nature of god (E's god is fairly withdrawn and impersonal, while J's is much more anthropic) to name just two.

Why don't you try to argue a sustained case rather than just posting disconected soundbites and ignoring rebuttals?

Have they found evidence of several million people wandering around the desert for fourty years? No? Let me know when you do, it shouldn't be difficult given that archaeologists are capable of finding the remains of nomad camps occupied by only a dozen people. What's the big hold up?

trying to get someone to prove a negative as proof that something didn't happen? Nice.

How about you show me the campsite evidence from the Alps that an army with elephants once passed there, then you can talk about all the elephant camp sites in Italy where Hannibal stayed at various times over the fifteen years with his 38,000 infantry, 8,000 cavalry, and 37 war elephants... I mean really, it's a thousand years more recent, how hard could it be?

In other words; the argument you presented here isn't really an argument at all, it's what they call a strawman.

I would say that anyone who has studied biology in any detail cannot honestly tell me that evolution or alien seeding of the earth is any less bullshit than creation.

Not only will anyone with any grounding in Biology tell you that Creationism is vacuous, so will any half-way competent Geologist, Palaeontologist or Physicist.

Whats more, if you believe the big bang theory of a spinning particle exploded and created the universe, I must say that if a spinning object breaks, the pieces will spin in the same way. How then is it that one of Uranus' poles points toward the sun?

You don't understand the Big Bang theory. I could try to explain, but I'm not a Physicist by training and I'd rather wait for DM or GnI to turn up rather than screw it up myself.

And you can't tell me the universe has always been here, it is expanding and everything that grows or expands has a point at which it began expansion/growth, therefore it had to have a beginning.

If, as many eminent scientists believe, time began with the Big Bang, then considering that 'always' means 'for all time' it's impossible for the Universe not to have existed forever.

"Science" requires more faith and less rational thought at some points than Christianity.

How many aeroplanes are kept airborne on scientific principles, compared to the number which are supported by the hand of God?

How many international oil companies search for oil based on scientific, old-earth principles and how many search based on 'flood geology' and Biblical principles? Which are more successful? (I'll give you a clue, I'm only aware of one oil company which works on Biblical principles and they're not one of the big seven...)

How many diseases have been elimated by scientific vaccination programmes compared to the number which have been eliminated by prayer?

Find out the answers to these questions and then think about what you've said.

A very poor comparison. Firstly, to suggest that the natural difference in style between an essay and a personal letter is comparable to that between two letters with different purposes is gross hyperbole. It also completely ignores the problem of the age of language used: if one of the documents used which only came into common usage over fifty years after Lewis's death then it would be eminently reasonable to suggest that he hadn't written it himself. I'd also point out that you're not even trying to address the textual analysis of Paul's writings, you're trying to discredit the entire field of textual criticism by saying that stylistic analysis is never valid. Is this really your position, given the libraries of books and papers which have been written on the discipline over the years?

There is no natural difference in style between an essay (for a several people to read) and a personal letter and that between two letters with different intended targets because it's exactly the same. One is intended for many people to read and the other was directed at one person, the same for both examples.

As to stylistic lingustic challenges...

*The linguistic problem. Since this is the objection which for the most critics tips the balance against Pauline authorship of the Pastorals it is important to see the problem in its right perspective. It must be studied against a background not only of Paul's own usage but also of the literary atmosphere in which he was brought up and which throughout his life he breathed. The occurrence of so many Hapaxes (175) in these three epistles will certainly constitute a problem if Paul is allowed only a percentage increase in number of new words he may be expected to use in any new writing. The basis of the objection brought by Harrison is that the Pastorals show a considerably greater number of these Hapaxes per page than any of the other Pauline Epistles, which while showing some variation nevertheless keep within a closely related and gradually ascending series. But numerical calculations cannot with the limited data available from Paul's letters take into account differences of subject-matter, differences of circumstances and differences of addresses, all of which may be responsible for new words. Although there is less reliance than at one time on the mere computation of Hapaxes, yet the phenomena the Pastoral Hapaxes still exercises a subtle and powerful influence upon the many minds, leading them to reject the Pauline authorship.

The contention of Harrison that the author of the Pastorals speaks the language of the second century, based largely on his investigation of the occurrence of the Hapaxes during that period, cannot be maintained for the following reasons. (1) Nearly all the words in question were known in Greek literature by the middle of the first century. (2) Nearly half of them occur in the LXX, with which it may reasonably be supposed Paul was very acquainted. (3) Many of the Hapaxes occurring in the apostolic Fathers and apologists occur only in those writings and cannot fairly be claimed as evidence of current usage. (4) The appeal to the writers of the second century including secular writers, to suggest the literary provenance of the Pastoral Epistles is not valid unless it can be shown that the words could not have been used in the first century, but this cannot be established. The Hapaxes do not, in fact, offer any substantial grounds for maintaining that the author speaks the language of the second century any more than the first.

There are also a considerable number of words which the Pastorals share with the other New Testament books but which are not found elsewhere in Paul. Harrison applies the same methods and suggests that these too support his contention that the Pastorals' language is second century, because of the frequency of their occurrence in second-century writings. But the fact that they occur in other New Testament books show that they were current also in the first century, and the only real difficulty (if such it is) is to find a reason for Paul's failure to use them elsewhere in his writings. But the difficulty vanishes altogether when once the notion that confines Paul's vocabulary to that used in the ten other Epistles is abandoned. Certainly these non-Pauline words shared with other New Testament writers can contribute nothing to the theory that the Pastorals' language is second century on the ground that the majority of them occur in the ecclesiastical writings of the second century, since the same line of argument would show that all the Pauline Epistles belonged to the same period. The only conclusion to which these considerations can lead is that the language for the most part is of both the first and second centuries.

Other linguistic arguments brought by Harrison against the authenticity of the Pastorals: (1) the noticeable absence from the Pastorals of characteristic Pauline words and characteristic groups of words; and (2) the use of Pauline words with different meanings and the use of different words to express thoughts found in Paul. But the words that Harrison appeals to in section (1) are words frequently used in other parts of the New Testament and indeed in the second-century writers and are not expressions peculiar to the apostle Paul. A reasonable explanation of their absence from the Pastorals is that Paul had no occasion to use them. His subject-matter led him to other words. Little importance can be attached to objection (2) since Paul himself frequently used words with different meanings, in which case any change of expression can hardly be evidence of non-Pauline authorship.

But many writers who are prepared to concede the possibility of changes in Paul's vocabulary are reluctant to do so for Paul's style. The large number of particles, pronouns and prepositions which can be collected from the other Pauline Epistles but are absent from the Pastorals (Harrison collates 112) seems to indicate a different hand. But this evidence is not quite as impressive as it at first seems, as Colossians and 2 Thessalonians have very few of them (less than twenty) and there is considerable variation within the other Pauline Epistles. Harrison not only uses this evidence to support non-Pauline authorship but he compares a similar tendency to dispense with them in the apostolic Fathers from whose writings 21 are missing. But unfortunately for his argument, the Captivity Epistles of Paul lack no less than 59 of the same words, which should indicate on the basis of Harrison's method of deduction an even greater tendency to dispense with them within the other ten Pauline Epistles. Moreover, there are a number of Pauline particles, pronouns and prepositions which are found in the Pastorals and when they are taken into consideration it can be shown that these Epistles are not very different from some of the other Paulines. It may seriously be challenged whether this method of assessing style is a valid one. Harrison mentioned also the absence from the Pastorals of many of Paul's characteristic uses of the article and of the particle hos, but these again are not uniform throughout his Epistles and it is evident that Paul's style was subject to considerable variation, no doubt owing to his mood of the moment. (Guthrie, pp. 596-610)

*In spite pf the acknowledged differences between the Pastorals and Paul's other Epistles, the traditional view that they are authentic writings of the apostle cannot be said to be impossible, and since there are greater problems attached to the alternative theories it is most reasonable to suppose that the early Church was right in accepting them as such.

Two other suggestions, which do not attribute authorship to Paul in the sense that the finished products as they have been preserved are not his work, are worthy of mention. One is that Timothy and Titus themselves edited Pauline material after his death and produced the Epistles in their present form. This is an attempt to attribute the form of the letters to a non-Pauline source in order to obviate the difficulties felt over full Pauline authorship. But it is difficult to believe that either Timothy or Titus would have framed the material in the form of letters addressed to themselves unless the material had already existed in this form. There would have been no motive for their doing so. It might perhaps be contended that the peculiarities are attributable to an amanuensis and in this case Timothy and Titus might be considered as good a guess as any. Another suggestion with perhaps greater probability is that Luke was the author since many similarities exist between the language of Luke and the linguistic peculiarities of the Pastorals. There is enough evidence not only that amanuenses were frequently given considerable liberty in writing up manuscripts but that Paul himself was in the habit of employing an amanuensis. The major problem is the degree of liberty which a man like Paul would have been prepared to grant. While these editing theories may eliminate some of the lesser objections to Pauline authorship, they do not remove objections on late dating. The idea of a publication by ‘a Pauline school’ appealed to some scholars, but is not without considerable difficulties. It assumes a dramatization of existing material for which no clear parallels exists in the first century of our era. The only form of such a theory which seems at all tenable is that which admits that at least some of the existing material had been addressed to Timothy and Titus and that the editing process was therefore confined to the language and perhaps some of the ideas. But such a theory would be unnecessary if the language and ideas are shown to be not incompatible with authorship by Paul himself. (pp. 620-622)


defense of Pauline authorship from NT scholar Donald Guthrie's New Testament Introduction, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove IL., third edition (revised) in one volume December 1970


It's an entirely appropriate argument. You tried to use an argument from authority (the Church Fathers) concerning the origins and authorship of the Canon, and I responded by pointing out several occasions where they turned out to be utterly wrong.

It is no more an appropriate argument then it would be for me to start accusing various secular sources as frivolously disparaging evidences because they wrongly accused the epistles of being written to fight the gnostic (which has since been proven to be wrong) because of for their own personal prejudices and insecurities they misled themselves. They have a secular agenda to uphold so they dismiss all evidences to the contrary out of hand because they’ve staked their careers on incorrect assumptions.

But of course, that would not be a fair nor accurate portrayal of the evidences for and against the topic at hand.

Moving the goalposts already? Your original disagreement was with my statement that mainstream modern scholarship rejects Pauline authorship (a statement which I think I've demonstrated well, and which you have supported by being forced to cite mavericks and wingnuts as examples of scholars who support your view). Are you now accepting that most scholars reject Pauline authorship and wanting to discuss the arguments themselves? If you want to make an argument then please present it yourself instead of citing books, websites, or long copy and pastes. I have no interest in rebutting an endless stream of links. I see you're fairly new on this forum so I'd better warn you that there are very few people here who are willing to spend there time arguing against links, everyone is expected to argue for themselves here.

My entire point, this whole time, has been to show that your personal and fixed conclusions on this topic is not the only ‘acceptable’ conclusion from the evidence nor the only view held by the scholars in the field. If you so choose to lambaste all the scholars and researchers that disagree with your preconceived notions, please feel free to continue doing so. For the rest of us though I will continue to share “the other side of the story.”

Oh, and as I think I've pointed out already in this thread (although I could be wrong), Ad Hominem arguments are valid when used against an argument from authority. This is the only circumstance in which they're valid, but it is a useful one.
Ad hominem attacks are not valid in this case because YOU TOO resort to authority for backing your position, but in your case, you cite yours and attack those that disagree with you and then try and paint a pretty picture around why you should be allowed to dismiss them because they do not share your religious beliefs. That’s sad.