NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Yay, someone knows who I am!

The Big Bang Theory says nothing about the spin properties of star systems and what they "must" be. However, I can see the fundamental flaw in this belief, and while I'm trying hard not to laugh, I'm trying in vain.

The boy said:
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?

This shows a total lack of understanding of the Big Bang Theory. The spinning particle did not "explode" as much as it expanded rapidly outwards from its point of origin. Amusingly enough, the Big Bang was neither Big, nor was it a Bang. In this expansion, the energy contained within the initial object, whatever it was (superparticle or otherwise) did not "break apart," like a grenade. It, rather, expanded outwards like a balloon being blown up from the inside, though in this case the force expanding it was its own instability and the forces immediately present in the universe at the time of this expansion, rather than an increase in pressure from air being blown in from outside, like in a balloon.

Interestingly, in the formation of the early solar system (an event necessarily caused by, but whose process was physically unrelated to, the Big Bang) the individual planets (or planetoids as they were forming at the time) would've most likely spun in the same direction. The present consensus is that the angle of Uranus' axis is the result of a collision of the planet with some other incredibly large object, similar to how there is presently a consensus that Earth's moon was kicked off of Earth some time during its lifespan by a similar collision.

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.

Sort of. It's true that, as far as we can tell, time, or something like it, did not exist before the Big Bang, and in this sense it has existed "forever" inasmuch as it has existed for as long as time has existed. However, time within the universe does not stretch back eternally, and so therefore the universe hasn't "really" been around forever. We do, for instance, have a theoretical time=0.[/quote]

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.

All too true. It's funny, but it always seems that the detractors of science neglect the great advances we've made in improving human lives through science, and that their silly statements don't occur in a vaccuum in which readers lack the ability to verify that their claims are horse shit.

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: *snip*

Don't you find it a little odd that we have been arguing about the dating of the epistles and as soon as a 70AD event is brought up you resort to attacking different books?

Why would the epsitles not mention the sacking of the temple? Nor the book of Acts? The event could have been used as evidence that the Jesus was the way, that the old way was gone etc., etc., etc. Obviously the book of Acts should have mentioned it if it had occured before the book was written. But the book of Acts (same author as Luke, which you cited), and of the epistles of Paul do NOT mention the event because Paul wrote the epistles and Luke wrote the book of Acts before 70AD.

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

This is incoherent. I'm not asking them to prove a negative, I'm asking them to prove a positive: positive evidence for a mass migration. Suppose I told you that a herd of elephants had stampeded down the main street of a small town a few hours ago, but when you arrived you found no smashed windows, no trampled cars, no injured people and no piles of elephant dung. It be reasonable to conclude that there hadn't been an elephant stampede based on the absense of evidence for one, no? Similarly, if several million people wandered around a desert for 40 years then we'd expect to find evidence of it, the fact that we haven't is strong evidence against it having happened.

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?

You know, it didn't take much googling to find an explanation of the problems of archaeology in the Alps. Firstly, nobody's sure which route Hannibal took so it's harder to look for evidence. Secondly, the Alps are dangerous to trek across, let alone excavate in (one researcher crossed 25 passes and broke 30 bones in the process). Thirdly, the topology has changed so extensively that it'd probably be necessary to rappel down precipices to look for artefacts, which would require the of expense that most institutions won't cough up unless they're confident of getting results. Now that archaeologists are starting to narrow down the possible routes, it's getting easier to find the funding they need but it's early days as yet.

Contrast this to the desert which the Hebrews are supposed to have wandered in, which is ideal for archaeological excavations and has been thoroughly searched by countless 'Biblical archaeologists' with no sucess.

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

I'm not sure if you understand what a strawman is because this conclusion doesn't follow on in the slightest from your post...

... to find an explanation of the problems of archaeology in the Desert. Firstly, nobody's sure which route Moses took so it's harder to look for evidence. Secondly, the region is dangerous to trek across, and forbidden in many areas by the various governments let alone to excavate in (many researchers have been killed in the attempts). ...

Fixed

...
Contrast this to the desert which the Hebrews are supposed to have wandered in, which is ideal for archaeological excavations and has been thoroughly searched by countless 'Biblical archaeologists' with no sucess.


Right, exactly like one small valley of the Kings, were, after a hundred years of research and study every single day by thousands of archaeologists over the years, they STILL find NEW stuff in new tombs and old tombs thought to be completely excavated already (like the recent find in the old King Tut’s Tomb.)

BTW: The strawman I accused you of was my mistake, your argument there was more of a red herring, not a strawman, my apologies for the confusion.

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.

There are countless stylistic differences between an essay and a personal letter: an essay uses more formal language and will never use the second person except in the most general sense to name just two.

As to stylistic lingustic challenges...

-snip-

Which part of (my bold):

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.

do you not understand? You didn't even answer my question:

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?

Do you reject the entirity of textual analysis?

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.

This makes no sense at all. You cited the Church Fathers' belief in Pauline authorship as evidence for it, and suggested that they were a reliable source because they were writing relatively soon after the event. I pointed out that they have been seriously wrong on many issues of authorship and origin of NT documents. You appealed to an authority (which isn't fallacious in this circumstance) and I showed that they aren't a reliable authority; the comparison to modern scholars is irrelevant.

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.

Rubbish. I've never said "Paul didn't write the Pastorals because the majority of scholars say he didn't"; I've said "the majority of scholars say Paul didn't write the Pastorals" and I've also said "I personally don't think that Paul wrote the Pastorals because..." but these are independent arguments. Nowhere did I appeal to authority.

As I've already pointed out to you, I do not ridicule them for being religious (there are many excellent Christian and Jewish scholars), I ridicule them for pretending to be scholars when they work at an institution where 'scholars' have to sign a document agreeing that the Bible is inerrant and all evidence to the contrary is wrong by default.

Fixed



Right, exactly like one small valley of the Kings, were, after a hundred years of research and study every single day by thousands of archaeologists over the years, they STILL find NEW stuff in new tombs and old tombs thought to be completely excavated already (like the recent find in the old King Tut’s Tomb.)

BTW: The strawman I accused you of was my mistake, your argument there was more of a red herring, not a strawman, my apologies for the confusion.

Here's your problem: you're trying to compare the 'fine tooth comb' archaeology of the Valley of Kings, where everything has to be done incredibly carefully and slowly to avoid damaging artefacts, to the "lets go looking for the remains of a camp housing several million people" kind of archaeology. It shouldn't be hard to find a semi-permanent camp the size of a small city. Even if the camp couldn't be found, where are the remains of millions of animal sacrifices? Where are the enormous latrine trenches? I like Farrell Till's summary of the absense of evidence for Exodus:

This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.

And on that note I'm off to bed. 'Night all. :)

Christianity:
The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree

Recent linguistic research supports the argument that stylistic variations reflect the pace and mood of the narratives; it is less likely that they identify supposed redactors. Robert Longacre has argued that "the assumption of divergent documentary sources" in the Flood story, for example, is unnecessary and "obscures much of the truly elegant structure of the story." Thus, older critical views that refer the teaching of Scripture not to the originally named recipients of divine revelation but to late editorial redactors are themselves coming under fresh criticism. Furthermore, Bernard Childs has argued persuasively against the view that there exists behind the canonical writings earlier and more reliable sources that the biblical writers mythologized in the interest of the Hebrew cult.

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.

really? i havent noticed any.

perhaps you would show me one. using the post number would be fine with me.

I settled this debate pages ago - there is no such thing as "interpretation" of the Bible. Only Divine commandments, that must be taken as given. Contradictions be damned, the Lord is above "logic".

There are countless stylistic differences between an essay and a personal letter: an essay uses more formal language and will never use the second person except in the most general sense to name just two.

Thank you. Exactly right, there are countless stylistic differences between an essay work, like a pastoral written for a community and a personal letter addressed to a single person or small group, such as an epistle like 2 Timothy is written to a singular person. An essay/pastoral DOES use a more formal language and will likely never use the familiar language of two friends who speak to each other with common background and different words. Entire language words and sentence structures could differentiate the two, just like they do between Paul's Pastoral writings to the community churches and his epistles to Timothy.

Do you reject the entirity of textual analysis?

I reject it as anything other than simple circumstantial evidence to be used and considered but it is not conclusive of any one theory of who wrote the epistles. It proves nothing on its own in the case of Paul's writings especially.

This makes no sense at all. You cited the Church Fathers' belief in Pauline authorship as evidence for it, and suggested that they were a reliable source because they were writing relatively soon after the event. I pointed out that they have been seriously wrong on many issues of authorship and origin of NT documents. You appealed to an authority (which isn't fallacious in this circumstance) and I showed that they aren't a reliable authority; the comparison to modern scholars is irrelevant.

You've been attacking ALL of the multiple sources I've cited, from Catholic sources to Protestant sources to Seminary papers about this very topic. As to the church fathers that you have asserted to be unreliable because they wrote of a Hebrew version of Matthew that we don't have today, so you submit that this proves they were wrong and therefore unreliable, I submit to you that you don't know that the researchers today who think they need a gospel called "Q" will have those questions ands needs answered and fulfilled by a discovery of “Q” which turns out to be nothing but a primitive version of Matthew recorded in Hebrew. To argue that there are no older versions of the gospel at the same time as the researchers are arguing that there must be an older version of the gospel, seems paradoxical at best and incongruous at worst, to me.


Rubbish. I've never said "Paul didn't write the Pastorals because the majority of scholars say he didn't"; I've said "the majority of scholars say Paul didn't write the Pastorals" and I've also said "I personally don't think that Paul wrote the Pastorals because..." but these are independent arguments. Nowhere did I appeal to authority.

We've been arguing about the Epistles, did you make a mistake here by saying Pastorals? If not, I'll begin defending the fact that it's commonly accepted that Paul did write the pastorals. But I think you meant to say epistles here, yes?

I settled this debate pages ago - there is no such thing as "interpretation" of the Bible. Only Divine commandments, that must be taken as given. Contradictions be damned, the Lord is above "logic".

Your slip is showing! :eek:
TG, btw.

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.What a rubbish. If you are reading Harry Potter in Russian it's still Harry Potter. Don't pretend there is anything hidden in the Hebrew (a pretty simple Hebrew at that) that escapes translation. Translating Hebrew is not any different from translating any other semitic language.
And why may Hebrew scripture not be in fact bad translation and re-interpretations of earlier non-Hebrew works? What's the value of your Hebrew then? What if the Hebrew scriptors stole traditions they encountered in Babylon and refashioned them as to represent their own tribal history? Why would you trust Hebrew scripture more than other scripture anyways?

Not when the subject of discussion is the Hebrew scripture.It isn't.

No, I didn't.Yes, you did. "Probably held over from an earlier creation story."

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.Your area of expertise is what?

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.

The Hannibal story could be verified if there were witness accounts of the arrival of his forces, one assumes.

So - if we can find the parallel witness testimonies of those seeing the arriving Exodites...?

What a rubbish. If you are reading Harry Potter in Russian it's still Harry Potter. Don't pretend there is anything hidden in the Hebrew (a pretty simple Hebrew at that) that escapes translation. Translating Hebrew is not any different from translating any other semitic language.


English is a technical language. Hebrew is nuanced. English letters are purely representations of word sounds. Hebrew carries connotation in each letter. English functions on a fairly direct policy of evolving or acquiring words without rhyme or reason but convenience. Hebrew has mathematical components (not always meaningful, but worth looking for).

If you honestly think there is no difference between translating a technical language like English, and translating a 'poetic' language like Hebrew, then I really have no further use for discussion with you. If you think you can take a passage like Genesis 1:1 and get an accurate measure of the text, in the same number of (English) words... you're clearly not at a level where you can respond.


And why may Hebrew scripture not be in fact bad translation and re-interpretations of earlier non-Hebrew works? What's the value of your Hebrew then? What if the Hebrew scriptors stole traditions they encountered in Babylon and refashioned them as to represent their own tribal history? Why would you trust Hebrew scripture more than other scripture anyways?


It isn't a matter of trust. We are debating 'the Bible'. While it is of interest to see the Mesopotamian influences as heavily pronounced as they are in flood or garden myths, it is neither necessary, nor even relevent, to THIS discussion.

Sure. The Hebrew scriptre seems to be heavily influenced by earlier texts. That is to be expected... just as Babylonian texts were informed by Sumerian precedents.


It isn't.


I think we have discovered the problem. You are having a different debate to everyone else. Good luck with that.


Yes, you did. "Probably held over from an earlier creation story."


Which doesn't even necessarily involve stepping outside of Hebrew traditions. Which is actually less important than the fact that - again - you are stepping outside the context of the debate.

Since I was discussing Adam and Eve (or, more specifically 'adam and chavvah), we were fairly clearly discussing the remaining evidence in the Hebrew scripture.

Recent linguistic research supports the argument that stylistic variations reflect the pace and mood of the narratives; it is less likely that they identify supposed redactors. Robert Longacre has argued that "the assumption of divergent documentary sources" in the Flood story, for example, is unnecessary and "obscures much of the truly elegant structure of the story." Thus, older critical views that refer the teaching of Scripture not to the originally named recipients of divine revelation but to late editorial redactors are themselves coming under fresh criticism. Furthermore, Bernard Childs has argued persuasively against the view that there exists behind the canonical writings earlier and more reliable sources that the biblical writers mythologized in the interest of the Hebrew cult.

"Robert Longacre" appears to have failed to notice that different eras of language use have stlistic characteristics that can be used to - if not identify them - at least separate them, one from another.

"Bernard Childs" appears to have failed to notice that there are easily datable sources that clearly are earlier than the earliest recorded Hebrew scripture, and that tell stories so much like (indeed, word for word, allowing for translation) the latter-day Hebrew scripture, that the idea that "biblical writers mythologized" is far more than just vaguely possible.


It looks like you are getting a lot of your arguments from a Christian apologetics site...

English is a technical language. Hebrew is nuanced. English letters are purely representations of word sounds. Hebrew carries connotation in each letter. English functions on a fairly direct policy of evolving or acquiring words without rhyme or reason but convenience. Hebrew has mathematical components (not always meaningful, but worth looking for).

If you honestly think there is no difference between translating a technical language like English, and translating a 'poetic' language like Hebrew, then I really have no further use for discussion with you. If you think you can take a passage like Genesis 1:1 and get an accurate measure of the text, in the same number of (English) words... you're clearly not at a level where you can respond.We are discussing the bible's content, not its grammatical features. How poetic Hebrew may be is of no relevance to interpreting what it has to say and compare it to other sources (which is always necessary in proper interpretations of texts that narrate events). It is also completely irrelevant to answering the question whether it's any god's own work.

It isn't a matter of trust. We are debating 'the Bible'. While it is of interest to see the Mesopotamian influences as heavily pronounced as they are in flood or garden myths, it is neither necessary, nor even relevent, to THIS discussion.

Sure. The Hebrew scriptre seems to be heavily influenced by earlier texts. That is to be expected... just as Babylonian texts were informed by Sumerian precedents.Since the bible is heavily influenced by earlier texts then how could you possibly exclude those sources from a proper interpretation of the biblical text, which surely needs to include an investigation into why earlier narratives were altered when they were incorporated into the bible.

I think we have discovered the problem. You are having a different debate to everyone else. Good luck with that.No, you try to focus on Hebrew scripture while everybody else focuses on the biblical story being the possible account given or inspired by God.

Which doesn't even necessarily involve stepping outside of Hebrew traditions. Which is actually less important than the fact that - again - you are stepping outside the context of the debate.A proper interpretation always involves stepping out of the text itself and investigating the circumstances that led to the text's creation.

Since I was discussing Adam and Eve (or, more specifically 'adam and chavvah), we were fairly clearly discussing the remaining evidence in the Hebrew scripture.Why stop there? Because that's how a believer would like it?

No, only men I know of with whom I'm in agreement along with my own studies.

No, only men I know of with whom I'm in agreement along with my own studies.What do you study?

The intelligible nature of divine revelation--the presupposition that God's will is made known in the form of valid truths--is the central presupposition of the authority of the Bible. Much recent neo-Protestant theology demeaned the traditional evangelical emphasis as doctrinaire and static. It insisted instead that the authority of Scripture is to be experienced internally as a witness to divine grace engendering faith and obedience, thus disowning its objective character as universally valid truth. Somewhat inconsistently, almost all neo-Protestant theologians have appealed to the record to support cognitively whatever fragments of the whole seem to coincide with their divergent views, even though they disavow the Bible as specially revealed corpus of authoritative divine teaching. For evangelical orthodoxy, if God's revelational disclosure to chosen prophets and apostles is to be considered meaningful and true, it must be given not merely in isolated concepts capable of diverse meanings but in sentences or propositions. A proposition--that is, a subject, predicate, and connecting verb (or "copula")--constitutes the minimal logical unit of intelligible communication. The Old Testament prophetic formula "Thus saith the Lord" characteristically introduced propositionally disclosed truth. Jesus Christ employed the distinctive formula "But I say unto you" to introduce logically-formed sentences which he represented as the veritable word or doctrine of God.

The intelligible nature of divine revelation--the presupposition that God's will is made known in the form of valid truths--is the central presupposition of the authority of the Bible. Much recent neo-Protestant theology demeaned the traditional evangelical emphasis as doctrinaire and static. It insisted instead that the authority of Scripture is to be experienced internally as a witness to divine grace engendering faith and obedience, thus disowning its objective character as universally valid truth. Somewhat inconsistently, almost all neo-Protestant theologians have appealed to the record to support cognitively whatever fragments of the whole seem to coincide with their divergent views, even though they disavow the Bible as specially revealed corpus of authoritative divine teaching. For evangelical orthodoxy, if God's revelational disclosure to chosen prophets and apostles is to be considered meaningful and true, it must be given not merely in isolated concepts capable of diverse meanings but in sentences or propositions. A proposition--that is, a subject, predicate, and connecting verb (or "copula")--constitutes the minimal logical unit of intelligible communication. The Old Testament prophetic formula "Thus saith the Lord" characteristically introduced propositionally disclosed truth. Jesus Christ employed the distinctive formula "But I say unto you" to introduce logically-formed sentences which he represented as the veritable word or doctrine of God.

Are you copying that from a website or scanning that from a book?

Are you copying that from a website or scanning that from a book?

according to google its one of 2 books. Tyndale Bible Dictionary or The Origin of the Bible

i dont know why vishay keeps posting someone else's thoughts without attribution.

according to google its one of 2 books. Tyndale Bible Dictionary or The Origin of the Bible

i dont know why vishay keeps posting someone else's thoughts without attribution.But you surely can imagine why.

according to google its one of 2 books. Tyndale Bible Dictionary or The Origin of the Bible

i dont know why vishay keeps posting someone else's thoughts without attribution.

Wouldn't be the first time someone plagiarized in the name of God :D

Wouldn't be the first time someone plagiarized in the name of God :DAnd not the first to do it thus shamelessly ... :eek:

There is a Biblical God.

In the Bible.

There is a Biblical God.

In the Bible.I know. But (un)fortunately he's faked.

Btw I can read white...

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.

Srry, you seem to have misunderstood me. I myself understand and agree with many parts of modern science. What I was saying when I posted: "Science in some parts requires more faith than Christianity" was that some theories which people call scientific cannot be proven (large parts of historical science) and many of them can be proven wrong with modern science which has been proven to be correct.

We are discussing the bible's content, not its grammatical features. How poetic Hebrew may be is of no relevance to interpreting what it has to say and compare it to other sources (which is always necessary in proper interpretations of texts that narrate events). It is also completely irrelevant to answering the question whether it's any god's own work.


The question of whether or not it was 'god's work' is irrelevent to the issue I was discussing - the hostoricity of Adam and Eve as 'real people'.

The specifics of the Hebrew language... it's very poetic nature, and lack of technicality, is totally relevent to that issue.


Since the bible is heavily influenced by earlier texts then how could you possibly exclude those sources from a proper interpretation of the biblical text, which surely needs to include an investigation into why earlier narratives were altered when they were incorporated into the bible.


Who said that external sources were being excluded? I'm aware of their existence, but they have little bearing on a discussion of that is 'internal' to the Hebrew scripture.


No, you try to focus on Hebrew scripture while everybody else focuses on the biblical story being the possible account given or inspired by God.


I was focusing on the Hebrew scripture. That was the topic I was discussing - the very historicity of a literal 'Adam and Eve' as described in the Hebew scripture. This is a thread on Interpretation of the Bible, I believe... which suggests we are talking about primarily the Herbew and Greek scriptures.

You seem intent on making this debate 'bigger' than it is. Knock yourself out, but it has nothing to do with the topic I have been discussing.


A proper interpretation always involves stepping out of the text itself and investigating the circumstances that led to the text's creation.


Utter wank. If the discussion is an entirely internal discussion, there is literally no space for discussing the greater context.

If we are talking about why Gollum bites off Frodo's finger, and we are assuming that the conversation is taking place entirely within the text... the debate over Tolkein's religious attitudes has no bearing.


Why stop there? Because that's how a believer would like it?

No. It's a weird little rule called 'staying on topic'. Look it up. You might want to try it some time.

I've noticed you pull the same trick a lot. The debate will be a discussion that assumes a certain perspective... 'assume the Bible is true'... and you'll come trolling in with your 'yeah, but it's not true' angle. It's totally unhelpful, and entirely off topic.

I know. But (un)fortunately he's faked.

Btw I can read white...

Obviously you can. Why would I write someone no one could read?
:p

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.

Gee, from what I was taught, that's backwards.

As far as I've heard, the New Testament is actually more historically accurate, at least regarding the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. Or at least, it's more accurate in the details. Most of the Bible before the books of Judges is largely myth or legend only partly based in fact to explain some theological principles and set rules. The factual sections in the Pentateuch, that we know of, are that the Isrealites appeared and settled in Canaan, then were forced out and made to work in Egypt until Moses led them out of there. They wandered in the desert for a time until "Joshua fit the Battle of Jericho, Jericho, Jericho...".
After that it gets more at least somewhat more accurate, but you cannot use the Bible as a history book. There's too much symbolism and gray area involved. It does give us some important pieces of historical fact and reflect other aspects of history, but it's just not 100%, especially not in the Old Testament. That's what you can do with a book based in oral history.

The factual sections in the Pentateuch, that we know of, are that the Isrealites appeared and settled in Canaan, then were forced out and made to work in Egypt until Moses led them out of there. They wandered in the desert for a time until "Joshua fit the Battle of Jericho, Jericho, Jericho...".


I'm not sure we actually know ANY of that, at all.

The factual sections in the Pentateuch, that we know of, are that the Isrealites appeared and settled in Canaan, then were forced out and made to work in Egypt until Moses led them out of there. They wandered in the desert for a time until "Joshua fit the Battle of Jericho, Jericho, Jericho...".

This is most certainly not factual. I wrote a few posts on the subject a while ago:

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.

Furthermore, does anyone else find it strange how indifferent the Egyptians were to the [events of Exodus]?

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. Neither did they 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...

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.What are you talking about? The end of the 13th Dynasty features exactly what the biblical narrative conveys.

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...Continuous Egyptian records do not date back to before the putative date of the flood (circa 3100 BCE). Egyptian culture was kick-started in the centuries after the Flood (Naqada II) by Mesopotamian traders and invaders who circumnavigated the Arabian peninsula. >chart< (http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/5218/chart00001895ot3.png)

Opiate of the Masses :headbang:

Where can I buy some? :rolleyes:

Really, this thread is just... it needs... Pastafarianism!

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/c/c9/Noodledoodle_bg3.jpg/600px-Noodledoodle_bg3.jpg