|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2515 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biblical Tall Tales | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:I understand the point you are making but pointing out the larger body of Christian scholarship is merely pointing to common sense. It's not like it's a possibly incorrect statement. The fact is they have reasons for why they interpret the words they do the way they do and their scholarship goes all the way back to when these words were common language too. So it's not like early Christians would not know the difference between a young Mary and a virgin mary. That understanding was then passed on to later Christians. We have ambiguities in English too. But we usually understand what is meant and usally also don't even notice them. Why would the early Christians be the exception? This message has been edited by idontlikeforms, 01-02-2006 11:28 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idontlikeforms Inactive Member |
quote:Then why don't they merely deny the inerrancy of the Bible, rather than doing this AND attacking the reliability of its preserved original meaning?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6518 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Then why don't they merely deny the inerrancy of the Bible, rather than doing this AND attacking the reliability of its preserved original meaning? Who are they? Most scholars I have read/seen take the bible at face value. They see it as part history part mythology. When discussing the bible in a historical contexts, scholars tend to discard the implausible/supernatural elements, disregard historical claims for which there exists no external coroborations, and keep everything else as valuable historical info. As a record of a cultures beliefs, the bible is invaluable. As a historicaly significant text that has had wide implications on our culture, of cousre it is of interest! But, when folks claim that it is supernatural, either directly or indirectly, then you have a big problem. Suppose I start claiming the Illiad really happened and that Athena really did swoop people off the battlefield and zeus really did watch over his favorights in battle? I mean, we found troy! Dozens of other greek texts speak about the trojan wars and the gods (not to mention the facts that many ancient greeks viewd Homer's epic as a bible unto it'self). Why not say it's infallible and 'inspired'? This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-02-2006 11:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3918 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
preserved original Which though? the preserved or the original? or the mythical Septuagint? This year's critical text or next year's? Nestle-Aland or Westcott&Hort? The closest approximation of the autographs some reefer-addled old commie in evangelical bible college can think of today, or the actual text-type that was close-copied and charmed to burn other books up? You can't have the original and you won't accept the preserved, what are you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5614 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Yaro, Sorry, No points for you!
This message has been edited by The Golfer, 01-02-2006 11:45 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6518 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Plenty. You fail to show how an overglorified crossword puzzle proves anything about a text's 'specialness'. Isn't it kind of telling how you have to search for something you ALREADY know about in order to find a hit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Also a LOT of messages yesterday and today. My babble fest detector is buzzing.
Going to close this topic. If someone wants it reopened, make your case at the "Thread Reopen Requests" topic, link below. Adminnemooseus This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-02-2006 11:57 PM New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13023 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.0 |
...but only for on-topic posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Normally I would expect that ALL are copies except the one original. Why assume more than one original? How many would have had the ability to write it all down anyway? That was the work of those trained for it. So such a record wouldn't have been set to parchment by just anyone.
This is percisely why I'd assume that there was more than one original. We're talking about a time when parchment (if there even was any) was extremely rare. Isn't that odd reasoning? Its being so rare should mean that one original would be quite enough, and copies would be made only as the original wore out. I haven't read up on all this enough but I think this work was kept among the prophets and priests, and wasn't for informing people but for keeping a record, which records got read to the people on some occasions. But there was no temple in the time of Samuel so I don't know how this all worked out.
News of the victory would have to spread all across the land. It would not be spread by people writing down messages and sending them, especially if so few people could read and write. It would be spread by messangers who ride out and tell people what happened. Or by caravans travelling to remote places to trade good and bringing the news along with them. That's how oral traditions spread. Well in this case it probably just traveled by ordinary word of mouth rather than special messenger. But that wouldn't have been the basis for the written report in any case. The writing would have been done from eyewitness accounts.
6 feet makes no sense no matter what. Especially not if King Saul was 6 ft tall.
I assume you are getting this from 1 Samuel 9:2 - "His son Saul was the most handsome man in Israel--head and shoulders taller than anyone else in the land." Probably from some memory of some commentator's having worked it all out.
Was Saul 6ft? Maybe. Was he the most handsome man in Israel? Maybe. Do people tend to exagerate the heroes and villans when they are telling stories absolutely. In this case there is a lesson in Saul's height and good looks, about how people will choose such superficial qualities for their king instead of spiritual qualities, and Saul ends up being a complete failure from God's point of view. It's not your typical hero tale by any means, {abe: or a hero tale at all, but a teaching ABOUT hero tales, and ultimately an exposure of the clay feet of this "hero" and of the foolishness of hero worship itself.} How tall he was depends upon how tall the average man was, and none of this is known, but that he was taller from the shoulders up than all the people there is no reason to doubt.
Did they hold a beauty contest where they brought every man in Israel together and judged that Saul was the prettiest? I certainly don't think so. Scripture says God Himself chose him, Nugg, {abe: by directing him into the hands of Samuel the prophet, whom God had prepared to recognize him as the king He had chosen} and this was to demonstrate ultimately that what the people value is not what He values, as Saul had no aptitude whatever for being a godly king, though he made a good warrior.
In oral traditions height = power. Look to Greek mythology as an example. All the heroes and monsters are taller than normal people. That would figure. God knew what would please the taste of the people as to how their king should look.
Saul could have been 5'5", in legend he's still going to be "heads and shoulders" above the rest. Uh huh. Well, if this were legend I'd agree with you, but this is reality and God knew what would make the people happy, a tall handsome king. That's the way people are, right? But it isn't what God wants, and that's the point of the whole thing. This message has been edited by Faith, 01-03-2006 04:39 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 634 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
And how do you know that it is the 'preserved original meaning'? What IS the "Preserved original meaning"? So many different groups have different ideas about what that it, how can you say if any one is right or not? They all CLAIM they are the one that is inspired by god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DorfMan Member (Idle past 6103 days) Posts: 282 From: New York Joined: |
quote: The plan of salvation has remained unaltered and will stay unaltered. I'm tempted to ask if you know what that is. You may tell me, if you wish. As for the several churches that do NOT hold the same views I do? I count it as blessings.Talmud vs. Torah - I'll take Torah Sacred tradition vs. Scripture - I'll take scripture. I'll take scripture based on my believe that the omnipotent God I serve is just that. Please contemplate on what is worthless to you is someone else's treasure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 634 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Now, what does the torah say about Salvation.
How does the Torah justify the CHristian concept of Salvation? Since the Jewish faith does not believe in the Christian concept of Salvation, what is the justification you have for salvation? YOu say you will take the 'Torah' over the Talmud. Do you understand what the Talmud is? If so, can you describe your understanding of what the Talmud is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DorfMan Member (Idle past 6103 days) Posts: 282 From: New York Joined: |
quote: There are Christians who consider themselves Israelites (spiritual Israel) who acknowledge Genesis 3:15 to be the first messianic prophecy.
quote: The Torah - actually all of the OT, tells of the coming Messiah.
quote: The Jewish faith is very much so interested in a Messiah, just not in mine.
quote: The Talmud is commentary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 634 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: I am sure. Why does so many people disagree? How can you justify that from the text itself, rather than reading into the text.
quote:Does it? Can you justify it from the texts themselves , rather than using the New Testament to read into the text? Discuss chapter and verse , without resorting to later writings. quote:Not all Jewish sects think there will be a 'star' messiah. The concept of what the messiah will be is also very different in Judaism than in Christainity. quote:Not a very complete response. Do you really understand what it is? Expand on the concept, and be a bit more exact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3918 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
This has been fun, but you guys know the cubit isn't an exact measurement right? it's half an arm. If they had shorter arms then, it would be less modern inches.
Let's say people nowadays are getting up toward 6 feet tall, whereas they were running about 5. So then 5/6 = 15 inches, a (hand) span is only 5 inches instead of 6, and Goliath comes out 7 foot 11. Classical acromegaly too, there's a commonplace in the text that matches the case descriptions (Why did he have his helmet open? He can't see so good.) * typo This message has been edited by Iblis, 01-04-2006 12:08 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024