Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible has no contradictions
John
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 221 (33975)
03-09-2003 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by funkmasterfreaky
03-07-2003 2:36 PM


Re: 2 or 1?
Well, funk, lets just start with some general observations.
The text is full of catch-phrase statements -- things like 'so-called geological column.' This basic denial of evidence doesn't fill me with confidence. Read through it with a mind for finding the jabs at science.
Then there is the conspiracy-theory angle -- "Do they have any scientific basis for their doubts? Not really. Doubting criticism started on a large scale with G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), a German philosopher who taught that religion, like the rest of civilization, developed gradually." Read carefully. There is nothing to back up the initial statement-- that there is no scientific basis for doubt-- but instead the author just picks on Hegel. It doesn't matter who started the criticism. What matters is the issue of the scientific basis for doubt.
There are weird non sequitors like : "There is no real technical basis for not believing the Bible as it was written. Nowhere does the Biblical text mention anything that implies evolution, nor is there any Biblical incident that’s been proven definitely wrong."
Then utterly idiotic observations like this one. "The Mari archives contained actual names used in the BiblePeleg, Terah, Abram, Jacob, Laban, and others. These cannot be linked directly with Biblical characters, but they do show that these names were in use in those early days." Surely you see the comedy in this line of reasoning? You could find millions of references to my name and have none of them point to me. Yet this is evidence? This is the kind of trick you see in court room dramas on TV. A lawyer will draw a conclusion that favors his client. The other lawyer objects that the claim is baseless. The claim gets stricken from the record, but it cannot be stricken from the jurors' memories.
And, except for the one book mentioned that the article seems intended to promote, there isn't one real citation for the 'archealogical evidence' they make such a fuss about.
Now....
The real argument of the article is that the early books of the Bible were written on clay tablets by people who witnessed the events first hand. These tablets were latter compiled into the books as they now stand.
1) There are no clay tablets. The authors criticise the documentary hypothesis because "there has never been any trace of the documents they refer to (Jehovist, Elohist, Deuteronomic, and Priestly)..." I level the same criticism. Also remember that the JEDP hypothesis doesn't require that there be actual documents. The hypothesis is that there were several traditions, not texts. So this criticism is a bit misleading. Whereas the clay tablets MUST have existed, and there is no evidence of them at all.
2) What eye-witness wrote Gen. 1? The authors claim that God dictated it to Adam or that God wrote it with his own fingers. This is evidence?
3) Another issue is language. Assuming a creation date of nearly 6000 years ago, and assuming the Isrealites were writing on clay tablets from the get go as they must have been, why is the earliest writing, from around 5500 bce, 1) not Hebrew and 2) in the Indus valley? It doesn't add up. Also consider, why does the earliest Hebrew script appear to be derived from Phoenician? The Hebrew should be the original.
4) Look at what the authors call tablet 3-- Gen 5:1 to Gen 6:9, supposedly written by Noah who according to the theory was an eye-witness of the events described. Isn't it then peculiar that Noah was not born until verse 5:29 and so could not have been an eye-witness of 29 verses?
5) None of these eye-witness accounts read in the first person as one would expect, or even give any internal indication that they are eye-witness accounts.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 03-07-2003 2:36 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Brian, posted 03-09-2003 5:14 PM John has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 32 of 221 (33988)
03-09-2003 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by John
03-09-2003 10:53 AM


Re: 2 or 1?
Hi John
Just an obeservation that I am sure you know about.
'The authors criticise the documentary hypothesis because "there has never been any trace of the documents they refer to (Jehovist, Elohist, Deuteronomic, and Priestly)..."
Welhausen's documentary hypothesis implies that the separate sources are contained within the bible as we have it today, these are names given to different accounts that were collated by editors and made into the composite accounts of the bible books we have now, the editors simply tried to bring some continuity and uniformmity to the texts, but they left some ragged edges. The four sources don't even have to be documents, they can be different oral traditions.
To say that there is no trace of the documents is to show pure ignorance of the hypothesis. The evidence is in the Bible texts, such as the various different names for God, the two different creation myths, the amalgamation of two flood stories, the different accounts given of the military conquest of Canaan, and of course the two different genealogies of Adam that Conspirator seems incapable of replying to.
Welhaussen wasn't the first person to notice these different strands woven into one account. The famous 'Astruc's Clue' of Jean Astruc (died 5 May, 1766) was a forerunner of the documentary hypothesis. He noticed in Exodus 6:2-3 that there were different names used for God:
'God also said to Moses, "I am the LORD (YHWH) I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty,(EL SHADDAI) but by my name the LORD (YWHW) I did not make myself known to them.
Also, to say that there are no original documents that have been found that come from these sources is a bit hypocritical as there are no original Bible texts in existence and hardly a book in the entire Bible that we know the author of.
As archaeology is a very large part of my research I also had to laugh at the Mari reference. I have read similar claims hundreds of times in pro-bible literature, things like 'Moses is an Egyptian name, this is evidence that the Israelites were indeed in Egypt.'
The authors seem to think that just because the names are widely used
then everything else is true, they obviously haven't read a historical fiction book, like Tranter's 'Wallace', that has authentic names and places but the events are from the author's imagination.
The link to the Tablet Theory is a great example of the desparate lengths that some people will go to in order to make the Bible something it isn't, some of the claims verge on the hysterical LOL.
My fav could be this one:
'Enough archaeological confirmation has been found so that many historians now consider the Old Testament, at least that part after about the eleventh chapter of Genesis, to be historically correct. It seems strange that seminary professors often still teach the old doubtful criticism theories, even though the basis on which they were started has now been thoroughly discredited.'
The author doesn't name any archaeological evidence, he mentions the finds at Mari, Ebla and Nuzi but deosn't go into any detail at all, what is the evidence and what does it CONFIRM, he says himself that the names in the Mari texts 'cannot be linked directly with Biblical characters.' He also doesn't mention who these 'many historians' are that accept Genesis 11 as historically correct.
Also I doubt that this author has ever been in a seminary to see what is taught there, and this piece of garbage he has written certainly doesn't discredit anything, except maybe the guy that wrote it.
Best Wishes.
Brian.
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by John, posted 03-09-2003 10:53 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 03-10-2003 2:52 AM Brian has not replied

Bible-belt
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 221 (33998)
03-09-2003 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Conspirator
03-06-2003 10:04 AM


Conspirator
I have a number of Bible contradictions I would like answers to I will give you one at a time
In Matthew 12:40 Jesus states, For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Mark 15:42-45 says that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon, and Mark 16:9 tells us that he left the tomb sometime on Saturday night or Sunday morning. That’s not three days and three nights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Conspirator, posted 03-06-2003 10:04 AM Conspirator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by John, posted 03-10-2003 8:25 AM Bible-belt has not replied
 Message 36 by Brian, posted 03-10-2003 9:48 AM Bible-belt has not replied
 Message 99 by judge, posted 03-19-2003 10:45 PM Bible-belt has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 34 of 221 (34019)
03-10-2003 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Brian
03-09-2003 5:14 PM


Re: 2 or 1?
quote:
My fav could be this one:
'Enough archaeological confirmation has been found so that many historians now consider the Old Testament, at least that part after about the eleventh chapter of Genesis, to be historically correct. It seems strange that seminary professors often still teach the old doubtful criticism theories, even though the basis on which they were started has now been thoroughly discredited.'
The author doesn't name any archaeological evidence, he mentions the finds at Mari, Ebla and Nuzi but deosn't go into any detail at all, what is the evidence and what does it CONFIRM, he says himself that the names in the Mari texts 'cannot be linked directly with Biblical characters.' He also doesn't mention who these 'many historians' are that accept Genesis 11 as historically correct.
It is also either untrue or very badly out of date. Archaeologists have pretty much rejected all of the books from Exodus to Joshua as being in any way reliable, Judges is regarded as largely legend although possibly containing some useful information and there are now serious doubts over whether Saul, David or Solomon ruled over anything more than Judah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Brian, posted 03-09-2003 5:14 PM Brian has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 221 (34040)
03-10-2003 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Bible-belt
03-09-2003 7:12 PM


I started a thread on this subject a while back. Maybe you'll find some of the discussion interesting.
EvC Forum: the day the lord died
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Bible-belt, posted 03-09-2003 7:12 PM Bible-belt has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 36 of 221 (34047)
03-10-2003 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Bible-belt
03-09-2003 7:12 PM


A Muslim friend of mine actually uses this reference to support the belief that Jesus wasn't dead when he was inthe tomb for three days (if he actually was).
My friend claims, quite correctly, that Jonah wasnt dead when he was in the whale/big fish, so as Jesus cannot lie, then Jesus wasn't dead in the tomb.
Just a thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Bible-belt, posted 03-09-2003 7:12 PM Bible-belt has not replied

Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 221 (34049)
03-10-2003 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by John
03-09-2003 8:29 AM


quote:
Lilith does appear numerous times in the Talmud. That seems sufficient to qualify her as part of Jewish tradition, even if as a late addition.
That's very weak, and I'm not convinced. But that is to be expected.
quote:
The evidence points to Babylon as the origin of the creation myth anyway, so why exclude Lilith because she is Babylonian?
Babylon = Origin of the creation account? The secular academic mindset is clear.
And how are you so certain it's a myth? That is a matter of opinion.
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by John, posted 03-09-2003 8:29 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by John, posted 03-11-2003 9:41 AM Satcomm has replied

ME2
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 221 (34057)
03-10-2003 1:53 PM


Conspirator
a few points
1. clam down
2. you didn't answer of why the two creations of "MAN"...WHAT YOU ANSWERD WAS ABOUT THE ANIMALS..there is a difference..
3.you don't tell me where i do and don't belong...
4.MY PARENTS A NO LONGER WITH ME...SO I WILL APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD KEEP THEM OUT OF YOUR MOUTH AND BOARD DISCUSSIONS...THERE IS NO NEED OR PLACE FOR IT....
i'm not a keyboard bad azzz so i don't waste time on threats i can't back up...
so just do me that one little favor...keep my parents out of your mouth....
[This message has been edited by ME2, 03-10-2003]

ME2
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 221 (34058)
03-10-2003 2:16 PM


now..to get back to some intelligence....
funkmaster freaky..
lilith is mentioned as being adams first wife in the KJV of the bible.i have heard people use passages from the booke to prove a point of their...and that cool...but my sticking point is that the KJV is shun and disreguarded by these same people when it come to the adam and eve issue..
it is a common thread betwwen most of the christians that i have ran into on the bbs and in person to take the bible word for word in one instance...but in instances that show inconsistances..they will not take it word for word..
it all comes down to using it to fit you purpose...
these same people will teach the kids about the caveman and dinosaur (which existed millions of years ago) but tell them that adam and eve were the first two "humans" on earth...a event that only goes back a few thousand
this period of the caveman and dinosuar was either before adam and eve or before noah..
it doesn't add up.....dose it...

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Karl, posted 03-10-2003 3:55 PM ME2 has not replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 221 (34063)
03-10-2003 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by ME2
03-10-2003 2:16 PM


Minor quibble
Lilith is not mentioned in the KJV, or indeed any other version of the Christian Bible.
If you know different, the chapter and verse would help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ME2, posted 03-10-2003 2:16 PM ME2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Brian, posted 03-11-2003 2:01 PM Karl has not replied

ME2
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 221 (34074)
03-10-2003 4:58 PM


karl
for now..i have to stand in error....but i remember reading that...maybe i got something crossed...i will have to retrace my steps...
but for now ...you're right...

John
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 221 (34117)
03-11-2003 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Satcomm
03-10-2003 9:56 AM


quote:
That's very weak, and I'm not convinced. But that is to be expected.
The Talmud is WEAK evidence of Jewish tradition? LOL..... that speaks volumes.
Maybe you don't realize that Jewish tradition is vastely wider than the OT?
No book has been more influential in shaping the Jewish world view than the Talmud ( דומלת). Objectively speaking, even the Bible itself has not had the same degree of influence. Since the completion of the editing of the Talmud in about the year 500 CE, it has been the primary source of Jewish law, lore, theology, and philosophy. No book has served as the basis of more literature than the Talmud: commentaries, codes, responsa, theoretical treatises. No book has ever come close to the Talmud as the primary focus of Jewish education.
Guess that is weak....
quote:
Babylon = Origin of the creation account?
'fraid so. Or perhaps both stem from a parent myth. It seems most likely that the chain of descent went something like Sumerian, Babylonian and then Isrealite. Of course there is bound to have been influence from the many other tribes preaching very similar mythology.
quote:
The secular academic mindset is clear.
This is a bad thing?
quote:
And how are you so certain it's a myth?
How? ... the same reasons you are certain that 'all those other mythologies' are mythologies. If it were anything but the Bible, there would be no question.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Satcomm, posted 03-10-2003 9:56 AM Satcomm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Satcomm, posted 03-11-2003 11:58 AM John has replied

Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 221 (34122)
03-11-2003 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by John
03-11-2003 9:41 AM


quote:
The Talmud is WEAK evidence of Jewish tradition? LOL..... that speaks volumes.
No, you misunderstood me. I was referring to your point in this debate. That was weak. But, like I said, that is to be expected.
I'd like to point out a couple things for emphasis: 1) Lilith was a late addition. 2) The Talmud does not equal OT scripture, nor is it God's defining word. (Which is irrelevant to you, but relevant to me and my beliefs.) Your point is equivalent to equating the New Testament with the Catechism and sacred traditions of the Catholic church. The Catholic traditions have all sorts of additives that were never a part of the scriptures or of God. I say stick with the scriptures and stick to Jesus Christ. There are no other absolutes.
Just a side note: The example above about the Catholic church was merely pointed out as an example. I didn't intend it to be an attack of any kind.
quote:
Maybe you don't realize that Jewish tradition is vastely wider than the OT?
Which is why Jesus challenged the pharisees...
quote:
Guess that is weak....
As well as most of secular academia these days.
quote:
'fraid so. Or perhaps both stem from a parent myth. It seems most likely that the chain of descent went something like Sumerian, Babylonian and then Isrealite. Of course there is bound to have been influence from the many other tribes preaching very similar mythology.
I admit, this is a fascinating theory among the "comparitive religion" types, but it's not what I believe. Just seems to me that secular education is trying to redefine history to fit their equation.
quote:
This is a bad thing?
Lol.
quote:
How? ... the same reasons you are certain that 'all those other mythologies' are mythologies. If it were anything but the Bible, there would be no question.
Ok, that sounds reasonable. However, one can examine some of the common traits of actual "myths" and then compare them with the accounts from biblical scripture and notice several differences. Sad to see that it's all been blended together by the intellectual majority.
EDIT: Fixed some spelling and added a side note.
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?
[This message has been edited by Satcomm, 03-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by John, posted 03-11-2003 9:41 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 03-11-2003 12:59 PM Satcomm has replied
 Message 54 by John, posted 03-12-2003 10:50 AM Satcomm has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 44 of 221 (34124)
03-11-2003 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Satcomm
03-11-2003 11:58 AM


Satcomm writes:
Ok, that sounds reasonable. However, one can examine some of the common traits of actual "myths" and then compare them with the accounts from biblical scripture and notice several differences. Sad to see that it's all been blended together by the intellectual majority.
What qualities do the Biblical accounts possess that differentiates them from the myths of other cultures? These would have to be differences that somehow indicate that the events of the Bible actually happened and that those of other myths are fictional.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Satcomm, posted 03-11-2003 11:58 AM Satcomm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Satcomm, posted 03-11-2003 2:18 PM Percy has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 45 of 221 (34129)
03-11-2003 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Karl
03-10-2003 3:55 PM


Re: Minor quibble
Hi Karl,
You can find Lilith in some Christian Bibles, for example,
Darby Bible
Isaiah 34:14
And there shall the beasts of the desert meet with the jackals, and the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; the lilith also shall settle there, and find for herself a place of rest.
New American Bible
Isaiah 34:14
Wildcats shall meet with desert beasts, satyrs shall call to one another; There shall the lilith repose, and find for herself a place to rest.
The KJV translates the Hebrew word 'Lilith' as 'Screech Owl'.
Best Wishes
Brian
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Karl, posted 03-10-2003 3:55 PM Karl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by John, posted 03-12-2003 10:03 AM Brian has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024