OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real
Offline In discussions with Caposkia on his thread regarding his recommended book (New Atheist Crusaders) we have mutually agreed to open a discussion on the OT discussing reality versus myth for stories in the OT. My position is that the OT is largely myths and legends with little basis in reality. There may be stories that may be considered literature as Rook has suggested though it still incorporates myths and legends as well in my opinion. The intent is to examine major stories and discuss the mythical components versus the interpretations by Christians and Jews that these events were real. Caposkia has indicated in many of his posts that he agrees that some of the stories are reality based and in those areas I'm interested in understanding his reasoning or any other believer for acceptance versus others where he does not consider them to be. It may be there are a few where we may find agreement as to a story being a myth or it being real though my inclination is little more is reality based other than kingdoms existed in Palestine that were called Israel and Judah and they interacted with other nations in some fashion.
Since the basis of Christian beliefs started with creation and the fall of man we'll begin there and attempt to progress through Genesis in some sort of logical order sort of like Sunday School for those of you that went. I’m not particularly concerned about each little bit of belief in these stories but I’m more interested in the mythology aspects. We could for pages argue over original sin or free will but that isn’t even necessary in my opinion as the text discredits itself with blatant assertions and impossibilities. Instead consider for example Eve is created in one version from Adam’s rib which can be directly compared to the Sumerian goddess of the rib called Nin-ti which Ninhursag gave birth to heal the god Enki. Other comparisons can be made to the Sumerian paradise called Dilmun to the Garden of Eden as well. These stories predate the OT by thousands of years and tell the tale of the ancient Annuna gods that supposedly created the world. Visit www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/# for more information and some of the translated stories, click on corpus content by number or category.
In order for salvation through Christ from our supposed sins against the God the events of Genesis must have occurred in some fashion. If the Genesis stories are largely mythical or they are simply a parable then this basis is poorly founded and weakens the entire structure of Christian belief. Caposkia claims I error at square one because I don't acknowledge a spiritual world. I suggest that he and other followers error by accepting that which there is no detectable basis. This is done by interpreting parables and myths by the ancients to be more than inadequate understanding by unknowing people that looked for an answer to why things were in the world they observed.
In Genesis 1 is the supposed creation of the world by God. In this account illogical explanations start immediately with the description of the Earth being without form and darkness was upon it. Light is then created and explained as day and night. Next God molded his creation into better detail by creating Heaven above meaning the sky and waters on the earth. He then caused dry land to appear calling it the Earth and the waters the Seas. On this same day he created vegetation with the requirement that it bring forth after its kind by duplication through seeds. The following day he created the heavenly bodies to divide day from night and to be signs for seasons and for years. He made the great light to rule the day and the lesser light the night as well as all the stars. On the 5th day he created all the life in the seas and air with the requirement they reproduce after their own kind. The 6th day he created all the land animals including man both male and female. The gods in this case made man after their image as male and female in their own likeness. He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth.
Problems start with this account immediately. The Earth according to science is leftover material from the forming of our star, the Sun. This material would have been a glowing mass of molten material. The land in any event would emerge first before water could exist as a liquid upon it due to the extreme heat. Light would already exist in the form of the Sun which according to current science is not as old as other stars in our galaxy not to mention in the Universe. The account mentions that day and night were made but this is not so except for a local event on the planet. An object not on the Earth would have no such condition or a different form of night and day. The account further errors in claiming the Sun, Moon, and stars were all formed following the creation of the Earth. In theories of planet formulation the star is formed first and planets afterwords. In the case of the moon multiple theories occur though not one where it zapped into the Universe suddenly. The statement that the heavenly bodies were created for signs and seasons is more evidence of a legend. The other planets and stars are purposeful in ways that aid in life existing or continuing to do so on Earth. Jupiter for example is a great big vacuum cleaner sucking into its gravitational field all sorts of debris that could eradicate life on Earth. Is this then a design by the god or just part of the situation that helped to allow life to progress as it did on the Earth? The observation of specific planets or stars in specific areas of the sky is just that, an observation no more and not placed there by a god to indicate the change of seasons.
One can also see some similarity between Genesis 1 and the Egyptian creation myth Ra and the serpent, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/StudTxts/raSerpnt.html . In this myth Ra is the first on the scene and he creates all the creatures himself doing so before he made the wind or the rain. Ra does not create man but the gods he created gave birth to the people of Egypt who multiplied and flourished.
Some Jewish sects as well as Catholic belief allow for evolution to have been the method for creation of life on Earth. This however is in contradiction to Genesis in that all vegetation and animals were to reproduce only after their own kind. If this is so, then evolution is not compatible with the creation story. Simply put the life could not alter and produce different versions not after its kind. Since obvious examples exist for variation in species such as evolution even as simple as fish in caves without eyes or color versus those that are in streams outside there is obvious adaption thus discrediting this part of Genesis as myth.
The creation of man in Genesis 1 also suggests multiple gods as man was created in their likeness male and female thus following Canaanite gods such as Yahweh and his Asherah or Ba'al and Athirat that may be a reflection of an older tradition from either Egypt or Sumer. Genesis 2 on the other hand has a slightly different version from a variant I'll discuss in a later post.
I consider Genesis 1 to be a myth, legend or a parable based on all the problems discussed with basis in ancient stories from Sumer and Egypt. I leave it to Caposkia and other believers to indicate where they accept parts of Genesis 1 as reality and to indicate their reasoning if they do so.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I just wanted to say, the biblical god is pretty freakin evil according to the bible. Between the global slaughter claimed in the flood, and claims of genocide at "sodom and gomorrah"...Hitler couldn't hold a candle up to that. On nearly any modern person's moral scale, I think that wiping out an entire planet of life fits in pretty much at the bottom.I suggest we go on by fast forwarding to the Flood.
Genocide huh. You're suggesting then a "Jonestown Tea" scenario. In other words people killing people?
Or could it be that God, who created life, was destroying that creation he himself started?
This of course can get into the whole dispute on whether it's right to end a murderer's life or let them rot in jail.
...which can stem into the severity of sin in general and branch even further into the severety of each sin.
quite a tangent if you ask me.
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Since all of the other ancient religions had multiple gods 2 + 2 = other gods, not angels. It is only later the angel beings are introduced not here. We obviously differ here substantially which shall remain unresolved.
Not to beat a dead horse, but just to clarify my point. What we have in hand is a lot of information from thousands of different followings. The differences in the followings... specifically Christian vs. other are quite clear and therefore haven't been easily confused by the researchers over the years.
With the information congruent with God Almighty "YHWH" and that following, there is nothing to suggest other beings.
Looking further into the history of a lot of extra-Judeo-Christian followings, demonic or idolic rituals usually were involved, which would indicate simply, demons posing as Gods.
Keep in mind also, the conversation at hand is in reference to God speaking to ... whoever before the fall. In that time, there were no demons. Or... well, those demons had not been kicked out of heaven yet. Call them Zeus if you wanted to, I guess if there is a specific fallen angel posing as Zeus, then it's very possible that God was talking with him among many others.
I didn't want to continue too much on this, just wanted to clarify. I felt that maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. It seems pretty cut and dry to me.
One of the things you bring up here, demons are completely unsubstantiated this early in the development of Hebrew god stories. In fact the supposed war or rebellion in Heaven where Satan falls away from God in rebellion is not to be found at all. So I take a dim view of demons except in discussions of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Not necessarily. Again, opinion and perception are not likely to be affected in our differing viewpoints.
Ok. It's interesting because that idea of "author's doing a poor job" one way or another seems to come up a lot on this site. If that's the case, I guess it's poor authorship that makes the world's best selling books. I'd beg to differ.
Also, for someone to be making this up and wanting people to follow it, they didn't really make it appealing to the person.
I don't think I have ever suggested that someone made up the stories of the OT or any other myths just for the purpose of gaining a following. Perhaps such was the case with Joseph Smith or Hubbard but in these myths (I include the OT as myth) people put forth that which that developed as explanations for the big wide world that was fascinating and unexplainable in their best understanding. Zeus or Yahweh threw lightning bolts. Gods or angels (Genesis 6 or Enoch) had sex with humans causing the mighty men of renown or such. I see it as attempts to explain in ways that seem logical to them at the time but today we know there are no sea monsters eating ships nor are they falling off the edge of the earth where all the water runs off.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:My point is to truly understand the writing of the Bible one must look to extra-Biblical sources. When one does so, many of the OT stories are seen for what they are, stories or at best parables and are not real world at all.
Right, if you want to really analyze the stories and claims with a microscope, you'd need to do your homework. Thus that other theists claim on his/her first post comes into play. We're both not quailfied enough to go there.
However, any good Theological college will require that kind of research for one to graduate with a degree in Biblical studies or divinity or any of the like. It's interesting that you conclude that when the research is done the stories are revieled as "parables and are not real world at all". If your claim was true, than most students who go to Theological colleges would graduate as non-believers. Yet they seem to be strong in their walk with God.
I fear your conclusion is no more than personal opinion.
You assume that the Bible is held to scientific scrutiny in religious institutions which is hardly the case. It was accepted in all of the parochial and religious schools I attended that it was true and when conflict occurs with science either the science is wrong or inadequate or we are too inept as we are humans and cannot grasp or understand God's purposes. So no, I don't see where religious colleges would graduate non-believers as they don't objectively analyze the Bible in any way at all.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I suggest we go on by fast forwarding to the Flood. You can go first if you'd like explaining how you perceive this account as well as extra-Biblical accounts.
I'll just keep it short and you can pull out details that you want to discuss further.
From what I understand, there are many accounts of a flood happening from many different unrelated sources around that same time as the Bible claims. Many claim these accounts were from different areas around the world.
I've also heard the theory that granted it's claimed that "the world" was flooded, but in fact it could have been "the world" as Noah knew it, which means there was a severe flood in that section of the world. There are documents that back up a flood happening around that time as well.
Either way, there is historical evidence of a serious flood along with (I don't remember the source) geologcal evidence of such flood.
So many people have claimed to have found fragments of Noah's boat... ok... if somehow the boat by the time the flood was done survived even beyond the flood, then somehow was preserved due to another major geological event.
In my opinion, it's not logical to find the boat or any fragments of it due to the fact that it was made of wood and would have decomposed over time just as any other wood would have.
I'll start with that
I agree the only likely flood in ancient times was probably a local event as is discussed in the Gilgamesh story or in Ziusudra myth from Sumer.
http://history-world.org/sumerian_floor_story.htm
http://history-world.org/floods.htm
http://www.historywiz.com/primarysources/sumerianflood.html
As someone who has experienced over 30 Tropical Storms and Hurricanes that which is described in these ancient texts is much like a Cat 5 Hurricane going up the Persian Gulf which would magnify the impact of the storm surge as it made landfall. In 2004 Hurricane Frances spent about a week drenching Florida before it finally moved out. Tropical storms and Hurricanes moving very slowly can easily leave 20 inches of rain a day. Sumer or Iraq had a lot of low marshlands at the time which would easily flood. Sadam filled all of this in during his reign. There are records of at least local floods in these areas.
What there is not is enough water on the Earth to flood all of the land to the highest peak or even mountains in the area such as Ararat. You can do the math yourself. In order to cover all of the Earth to the top of Everest that would require 6 miles of water or 1,186,000,000 cubic miles of water on top of what we currently have. Just to cover Ararat which has an elevation of 16,854 ft requires a minimum of 3.19 miles of water as an addition or 630,850,000 cubic miles of water. The problem being, it's not here now. Genesis 7 seems to indicate that all the mountains were covered as in v 19-20.
Why a wood boat from sometime prior to 4,000 BCE would survive is hopeful delusion as in the best case it would only be so as fossilized remains such as in Arizona.
So it seems in the best case the flood is an offshoot of Sumerian myths or stories dating to Ziusudra or recast as Gilgamesh then as Noah in the Hebrew version.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline One of the things you bring up here, demons are completely unsubstantiated this early in the development of Hebrew god stories. In fact the supposed war or rebellion in Heaven where Satan falls away from God in rebellion is not to be found at all. So I take a dim view of demons except in discussions of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
There is reference in later writings to those occurances and how they tie into the fall. NT references to it as well. Useless info now due to the idea that the point of view is that NT is myth as well.
I don't think I have ever suggested that someone made up the stories of the OT or any other myths just for the purpose of gaining a following. Perhaps such was the case with Joseph Smith or Hubbard but in these myths (I include the OT as myth) people put forth that which that developed as explanations for the big wide world that was fascinating and unexplainable in their best understanding. Zeus or Yahweh threw lightning bolts. Gods or angels (Genesis 6 or Enoch) had sex with humans causing the mighty men of renown or such. I see it as attempts to explain in ways that seem logical to them at the time but today we know there are no sea monsters eating ships nor are they falling off the edge of the earth where all the water runs off.
There is difficulty commenting on this due to the fact that your only reference to a biblical happening is the gods/angels having sex with people.
The other myths actually go against Biblical claims be it that the oldest books make reference to a round Earth...
There is no reference in either point about sea monsters specifically eating ships... I dont' think.
You assume that the Bible is held to scientific scrutiny in religious institutions which is hardly the case. It was accepted in all of the parochial and religious schools I attended that it was true and when conflict occurs with science either the science is wrong or inadequate or we are too inept as we are humans and cannot grasp or understand God's purposes. So no, I don't see where religious colleges would graduate non-believers as they don't objectively analyze the Bible in any way at all.
Legitimate ones that I know of anyway. Some that I'm familiar with have classes that directly approach the scientific scruteny of the Bible. I'd be curious on how they'd justify it with a direct approach to the scrutenies.
It'd be a pretty boring class if all it was was... "Science says "X" and the Bible says "Y"... we don't have enough information to conclude either way... next topic. Or even to blindly conclude that science was wrong. I'd say more than not a person going into those colleges are intelligent enough to know a copout when they see one.
I agree the only likely flood in ancient times was probably a local event as is discussed in the Gilgamesh story or in Ziusudra myth from Sumer.
http://history-world.org/sumerian_floor_story.htm
http://history-world.org/floods.htm
http://www.historywiz.com/primarysources/sumerianflood.html
As someone who has experienced over 30 Tropical Storms and Hurricanes that which is described in these ancient texts is much like a Cat 5 Hurricane going up the Persian Gulf which would magnify the impact of the storm surge as it made landfall. In 2004 Hurricane Frances spent about a week drenching Florida before it finally moved out. Tropical storms and Hurricanes moving very slowly can easily leave 20 inches of rain a day. Sumer or Iraq had a lot of low marshlands at the time which would easily flood. Sadam filled all of this in during his reign. There are records of at least local floods in these areas.
What there is not is enough water on the Earth to flood all of the land to the highest peak or even mountains in the area such as Ararat. You can do the math yourself. In order to cover all of the Earth to the top of Everest that would require 6 miles of water or 1,186,000,000 cubic miles of water on top of what we currently have. Just to cover Ararat which has an elevation of 16,854 ft requires a minimum of 3.19 miles of water as an addition or 630,850,000 cubic miles of water. The problem being, it's not here now. Genesis 7 seems to indicate that all the mountains were covered as in v 19-20.
Why a wood boat from sometime prior to 4,000 BCE would survive is hopeful delusion as in the best case it would only be so as fossilized remains such as in Arizona.
So it seems in the best case the flood is an offshoot of Sumerian myths or stories dating to Ziusudra or recast as Gilgamesh then as Noah in the Hebrew version.
We'd have to take this story from a logical standpoint as well. e.g. what was the purpose of the flood according to the story in the first place and how was this story passed down.
Keep in mind that the author though claimed many times to be Moses is ultimately not known for sure. Either way, there wasn't any 'News 7' chopper there reporting the event as it happened either. Therefore, some information could have been stretched to prove a point. I'm not saying either way at this point.
I could take the arguement by claiming that God could have created the water for the purpose of the flood, then taken it back. (to a believer in a God that has created everything, it's a logical assumption, to a scientific mind, it's a copout. Therefore, I won't even consider that a possibility in our conversation)
There are many stories through time that are based on the Truth that have a "tall tale" aspect to it, e.g. Johnny (Appleseed) Chapman or Paul Bunyan. Both real people in history that did some amazing things, however the truth about their actions in life were greatly exaggerated, like Paul's size for example.
In this case, the mountain thing could have been an exaggeration just to express the point that the flood was pretty friggen bad.
Going to the purpose of the flood, the real reason was to wipe out life on Earth. More specifically, the people. Would the waters really have to submerge the highest peaks in the world to do that? I don't think that would be necessary.
Right now, I'm not aware of any information to take either side on that particular issue. I still believe the story to be true from what I do know.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sorry for my slow response as I have been doing a lot of travel for work.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:One of the things you bring up here, demons are completely unsubstantiated this early in the development of Hebrew god stories. In fact the supposed war or rebellion in Heaven where Satan falls away from God in rebellion is not to be found at all. So I take a dim view of demons except in discussions of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
There is reference in later writings to those occurances and how they tie into the fall. NT references to it as well. Useless info now due to the idea that the point of view is that NT is myth as well.
True the NT is useless info with no basis in ancient writings for a "war in heaven" except as discussed in Enoch which does not mention Lucifer or Satan at all.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I don't think I have ever suggested that someone made up the stories of the OT or any other myths just for the purpose of gaining a following. Perhaps such was the case with Joseph Smith or Hubbard but in these myths (I include the OT as myth) people put forth that which that developed as explanations for the big wide world that was fascinating and unexplainable in their best understanding. Zeus or Yahweh threw lightning bolts. Gods or angels (Genesis 6 or Enoch) had sex with humans causing the mighty men of renown or such. I see it as attempts to explain in ways that seem logical to them at the time but today we know there are no sea monsters eating ships nor are they falling off the edge of the earth where all the water runs off.
There is difficulty commenting on this due to the fact that your only reference to a biblical happening is the gods/angels having sex with people.
I see this went over your head, I'll try again.
I never have suggested that someone made up the stories in the OT or any other myths for the sole purpose of gaining a following. They likely wrote what they did in their best attempt to explain what they did not understand. In other words, thunder and lightning were attributed to Zeus or Yahweh to explain why it occurred, they had a severe lack of understanding of meteorology and made up gods to so explain.
The other myths actually go against Biblical claims be it that the oldest books make reference to a round Earth...
What books?
There is no reference in either point about sea monsters specifically eating ships... I dont' think.
Sea monsters eating ships were mentioned only to point out how illogical some ideas and stories that were accepted for centuries actually were and did not have anything at all to do with any specific story in the OT.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:You assume that the Bible is held to scientific scrutiny in religious institutions which is hardly the case. It was accepted in all of the parochial and religious schools I attended that it was true and when conflict occurs with science either the science is wrong or inadequate or we are too inept as we are humans and cannot grasp or understand God's purposes. So no, I don't see where religious colleges would graduate non-believers as they don't objectively analyze the Bible in any way at all.
Legitimate ones that I know of anyway. Some that I'm familiar with have classes that directly approach the scientific scruteny of the Bible. I'd be curious on how they'd justify it with a direct approach to the scrutenies.
It'd be a pretty boring class if all it was was... "Science says "X" and the Bible says "Y"... we don't have enough information to conclude either way... next topic. Or even to blindly conclude that science was wrong. I'd say more than not a person going into those colleges are intelligent enough to know a copout when they see one.
Which legitimate ones did you attend?
My experience was a discussion of a specific occurrence in the OT would include how man was inept in his understanding of God and so inadequately described the occurrence. In other classes it was taken (Lutheran High School) to be completely accurate down to the snake talking, bears eating children etc. This was not what was expressed in my post grad classes in graduate school. There the position was (Jesuits) that man inadequately understood God's lessons and much of the Bible was figurative language. The RCC takes this position and suggests only they should interpret specifically doctrine and dogma as it requires the centuries of knowledge of the RCC to adequately understand. Hence Catholics have always relied on the Church to interpret God's requirements and promises.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I agree the only likely flood in ancient times was probably a local event as is discussed in the Gilgamesh story or in Ziusudra myth from Sumer.
http://history-world.org/sumerian_floor_story.htm
http://history-world.org/floods.htm
http://www.historywiz.com/primarysources/sumerianflood.html
As someone who has experienced over 30 Tropical Storms and Hurricanes that which is described in these ancient texts is much like a Cat 5 Hurricane going up the Persian Gulf which would magnify the impact of the storm surge as it made landfall. In 2004 Hurricane Frances spent about a week drenching Florida before it finally moved out. Tropical storms and Hurricanes moving very slowly can easily leave 20 inches of rain a day. Sumer or Iraq had a lot of low marshlands at the time which would easily flood. Sadam filled all of this in during his reign. There are records of at least local floods in these areas.
What there is not is enough water on the Earth to flood all of the land to the highest peak or even mountains in the area such as Ararat. You can do the math yourself. In order to cover all of the Earth to the top of Everest that would require 6 miles of water or 1,186,000,000 cubic miles of water on top of what we currently have. Just to cover Ararat which has an elevation of 16,854 ft requires a minimum of 3.19 miles of water as an addition or 630,850,000 cubic miles of water. The problem being, it's not here now. Genesis 7 seems to indicate that all the mountains were covered as in v 19-20.
Why a wood boat from sometime prior to 4,000 BCE would survive is hopeful delusion as in the best case it would only be so as fossilized remains such as in Arizona.
So it seems in the best case the flood is an offshoot of Sumerian myths or stories dating to Ziusudra or recast as Gilgamesh then as Noah in the Hebrew version.
We'd have to take this story from a logical standpoint as well. e.g. what was the purpose of the flood according to the story in the first place and how was this story passed down.
Keep in mind that the author though claimed many times to be Moses is ultimately not known for sure. Either way, there wasn't any 'News 7' chopper there reporting the event as it happened either. Therefore, some information could have been stretched to prove a point. I'm not saying either way at this point.
I could take the arguement by claiming that God could have created the water for the purpose of the flood, then taken it back. (to a believer in a God that has created everything, it's a logical assumption, to a scientific mind, it's a copout. Therefore, I won't even consider that a possibility in our conversation)
There are many stories through time that are based on the Truth that have a "tall tale" aspect to it, e.g. Johnny (Appleseed) Chapman or Paul Bunyan. Both real people in history that did some amazing things, however the truth about their actions in life were greatly exaggerated, like Paul's size for example.
In this case, the mountain thing could have been an exaggeration just to express the point that the flood was pretty friggen bad.
Going to the purpose of the flood, the real reason was to wipe out life on Earth. More specifically, the people. Would the waters really have to submerge the highest peaks in the world to do that? I don't think that would be necessary.
Right now, I'm not aware of any information to take either side on that particular issue. I still believe the story to be true from what I do know.
Read the links about the Sumerian and Babylonian flood myths and you will see the gods were irritated with the noise of man. These stories were passed down on clay tablets, read the links.
Nearly all legitimate Bible scholars discount Moses writing anything at all and have for years. We'll get to Moses and the Exodus myth soon enough.
If the Bible flood is legitimate the water as you say would have had to been zapped onto the Earth and removed following the Flood as it's clearly not here now.
My point in a Cat 5 or better Hurricane (Typhoon in this part of the world) easily fits the Sumerian and Babylonian versions. As you say, the OT's version with covering mountains could well be an exaggeration to impress. I agree, not enough water and therefore a large stretch or exaggeration over what really likely happened, a very large Hurricane.
If the OT's Flood was to wipe out all life it would have failed anyway as sealife would survive and many plants. As Yahweh was supposedly all powerful, all he had to do was remove all the humans from existence in one simple statement, "Let the evil men be as if they were never made." Zap, bye, bye. No flood required. The Flood is pure myth and no more, or Yahweh is far less of a powerful god, or just a weather god, you pick.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sorry for my slow response as I have been doing a lot of travel for work.
No worries. I've been quite busy myself.
True the NT is useless info with no basis in ancient writings for a "war in heaven" except as discussed in Enoch which does not mention Lucifer or Satan at all.
Not specifically. It wasn't of importance. The focus was God, not the deamons
I see this went over your head, I'll try again.
I never have suggested that someone made up the stories in the OT or any other myths for the sole purpose of gaining a following. They likely wrote what they did in their best attempt to explain what they did not understand. In other words, thunder and lightning were attributed to Zeus or Yahweh to explain why it occurred, they had a severe lack of understanding of meteorology and made up gods to so explain.
That's one theory I've heard.
What books?
Off the top of my head... Job and I think Isaiah.
Sea monsters eating ships were mentioned only to point out how illogical some ideas and stories that were accepted for centuries actually were and did not have anything at all to do with any specific story in the OT.
ok
Which legitimate ones did you attend?
I have friends who've been to a few east coast seminaries. There's one in PA, then there's Gordon Conwell in MA. I understand those to be Legitimate.
You forget I grew up Catholic. Seminaries weren't an option.
For what I've attended, I guess the most interesting class I took was actually at a secular school called Science Vs. Religion.
I've otherwise attended classes here and there and never enrolled. Never wanted to get into that line of work. Go figure.
My experience was a discussion of a specific occurrence in the OT would include how man was inept in his understanding of God and so inadequately described the occurrence. In other classes it was taken (Lutheran High School) to be completely accurate down to the snake talking, bears eating children etc. This was not what was expressed in my post grad classes in graduate school. There the position was (Jesuits) that man inadequately understood God's lessons and much of the Bible was figurative language. The RCC takes this position and suggests only they should interpret specifically doctrine and dogma as it requires the centuries of knowledge of the RCC to adequately understand. Hence Catholics have always relied on the Church to interpret God's requirements and promises.
Well, in my understanding, you can only take the "figurative language" thing so far. It's usually pretty clear when reading through a story where they're being "figurative" and when it's understood to be actual observances.
I guess I couldn't say either or at this point because I"m not sure for which topics they considered figurative. There is a lot of metaphore in scripture, but you can back up the claim. I can't just look at "noah built an arch" and say it's metaphorical, he was really building a boat for his soul. I'd have no basis for that claim.
Read the links about the Sumerian and Babylonian flood myths and you will see the gods were irritated with the noise of man. These stories were passed down on clay tablets, read the links.
I skimmed them. I can read through them more thoroughly if you'd like
Nearly all legitimate Bible scholars discount Moses writing anything at all and have for years. We'll get to Moses and the Exodus myth soon enough.
Just bringing out all sides, that's all. I haven't done the research on that myself, so I won't take a side. Not really of any importance to us anyway.
If the Bible flood is legitimate the water as you say would have had to been zapped onto the Earth and removed following the Flood as it's clearly not here now.
right, as I said could be believed by some followers.
My point in a Cat 5 or better Hurricane (Typhoon in this part of the world) easily fits the Sumerian and Babylonian versions. As you say, the OT's version with covering mountains could well be an exaggeration to impress. I agree, not enough water and therefore a large stretch or exaggeration over what really likely happened, a very large Hurricane.
indeed. I could have been that the mountains disappeared (as they can in storms to the visual eye) and that's where the idea came. Who knows.
If the OT's Flood was to wipe out all life it would have failed anyway as sealife would survive and many plants. As Yahweh was supposedly all powerful, all he had to do was remove all the humans from existence in one simple statement, "Let the evil men be as if they were never made." Zap, bye, bye. No flood required. The Flood is pure myth and no more, or Yahweh is far less of a powerful god, or just a weather god, you pick.
I'm sure you noticed that God never suggested to Noah to put any aquariums on the boat. I think God had in mind land creatures that would suffer.
Sure, God could have zapped evil men out of existance... as far as I understand, but where's the lesson in that?
going into my own theories, it's best understood that God is so powerful, he understands his system so well, that he knows the outcome. Is it more powerful of a story to say that "God zapped the bad people" or to say that "God created a flood to wipeout life". Plus you understand there was also more suffering in the flood vs just being zapped away. Understanding that God knew this story would be told down through the generations, what point would it have been to just zap them away? It needed to be a lesson for future generations.
Take into consideration that God influences by using the system he has put in place. Rarely has he defied the laws of that system to prove a point or to bring down wrath. I'm sure if he did, it might upset the system and then God would have more work on his hands in cleaning up the mess. Any scientist will vouch for the fragileness of our environment. No one should know more than God about that be it that he created it. I'm sure understanding that God created it that he has a purpose for the way it is.
To question the power of God just becuase he didn't do something "powerful" would be like me calling a billionaire poor because he chose to buy a used Honda instead of a new Mercedes. It doesn't mean he didn't have the money, he probably just prefered that car. Same with God. Doesn't mean He doesn't have the power, he just chose to do it this way.
To conclude that there is no God from this and that they are pure myth is irrational. You would need to take all the factors into consideration, including what God might be intending by doing it that way vs. another way and what environmental rammifications could take place from each happening as well as the mindset of the population and what would best reach the future generations.
God always has warned the people before doing something. I think the true purpose of the flood was so that people who were going to take Noah seriously, (which were none but his family) would understand the rammifications of not heeding the warning. It needed to be real to the people, not... "I'm gonna zap you... I'm warning you, I'm gonna zap you. oops, too late ZZZZT" People would not have understood anything outside their realm of understanding.
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm sure you noticed that God never suggested to Noah to put any aquariums on the boat. I think God had in mind land creatures that would suffer.
Exactly what did the rabbits, cats, squirrels, and all the rest do that required they all suffer?
Sure, God could have zapped evil men out of existance... as far as I understand, but where's the lesson in that?
Think Sodom and Gomorrah then. How about fire suddenly consuming all the evil sinners simultaneously?
going into my own theories, it's best understood that God is so powerful, he understands his system so well, that he knows the outcome. Is it more powerful of a story to say that "God zapped the bad people" or to say that "God created a flood to wipeout life". Plus you understand there was also more suffering in the flood vs just being zapped away. Understanding that God knew this story would be told down through the generations, what point would it have been to just zap them away? It needed to be a lesson for future generations.
Zapping could have come in many ways as the Sodom legend and the Exodus event where the ground opened up to swallow the idol worshipers at Sinai indicate.
Take into consideration that God influences by using the system he has put in place. Rarely has he defied the laws of that system to prove a point or to bring down wrath. I'm sure if he did, it might upset the system and then God would have more work on his hands in cleaning up the mess. Any scientist will vouch for the fragileness of our environment. No one should know more than God about that be it that he created it. I'm sure understanding that God created it that he has a purpose for the way it is.
You are making unwarranted excuses here with no basis.
To question the power of God just becuase he didn't do something "powerful" would be like me calling a billionaire poor because he chose to buy a used Honda instead of a new Mercedes. It doesn't mean he didn't have the money, he probably just prefered that car. Same with God. Doesn't mean He doesn't have the power, he just chose to do it this way.
Bad analogy. I'm not per SE questioning the power of the god, I'm questioning he even is.
To conclude that there is no God from this and that they are pure myth is irrational. You would need to take all the factors into consideration, including what God might be intending by doing it that way vs. another way and what environmental rammifications could take place from each happening as well as the mindset of the population and what would best reach the future generations.
No, it's more irrational to accept the entire world was flooded to cleanse it from a few hundred thousand or million evil doers.
God always has warned the people before doing something. I think the true purpose of the flood was so that people who were going to take Noah seriously, (which were none but his family) would understand the rammifications of not heeding the warning. It needed to be real to the people, not... "I'm gonna zap you... I'm warning you, I'm gonna zap you. oops, too late ZZZZT" People would not have understood anything outside their realm of understanding.
That may be the reason for the legend, to show disobedience will result in a penalty.
As to the RCC position on Noah, they don't advocate either way. It may have been based on a real story or not. They take the position of teaching the lesson to be learned and avoid the issue if it was literal or not.
See:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01720a.htm
http://catholicism.suite101.com/article.cfm/teaching_the_old_testament
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11088a.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/Old-Testament-issues.htm
And no I was not the Paul who asked the question in the last link.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline Exactly what did the rabbits, cats, squirrels, and all the rest do that required they all suffer?
dunno... You should ask them. 
Think Sodom and Gomorrah then. How about fire suddenly consuming all the evil sinners simultaneously?
Be it that the dispute was the abilities of God, I guess that shows He in fact does have that kind of power and that He can choose to use as much power as He'd like for any given situation.
The question of course here was (what of a lesson).
Sodom and Gommorra were known to be so far from God that no "lesson" would have been comprehended by them. (again, my interpretation)
Zapping could have come in many ways as the Sodom legend and the Exodus event where the ground opened up to swallow the idol worshipers at Sinai indicate.
I see what you're getting at.
Let's put it this way, if to make a point, some entity used the same method every time, how long before you stop remembering each individual event?
God wanted those particular events to be remembered. You ask any "luke warm" Chrisitan and they're going to be more familiar with the Noah story than the idolaters being swallowed up be the Earth.
caposkia wrote:Take into consideration that God influences by using the system he has put in place. Rarely has he defied the laws of that system to prove a point or to bring down wrath. I'm sure if he did, it might upset the system and then God would have more work on his hands in cleaning up the mess. Any scientist will vouch for the fragileness of our environment. No one should know more than God about that be it that he created it. I'm sure understanding that God created it that he has a purpose for the way it is.
You are making unwarranted excuses here with no basis.
The basis is it's an explanation that invalidates your assumption using a logical means of understanding.
I thought this was just a readthrough with bits of imput from each other's understanding. It seemed relevent to me for what was being discussed, but if it's in left field, I apologize. Didn't mean to get off track.
Bad analogy. I'm not per SE questioning the power of the god, I'm questioning he even is.
I know, but the power of God is how you went about it. I will use only what you give me.
Be it that it may, that was a poor excuse for questioning the existance of God if you don't mind me saying.
No, it's more irrational to accept the entire world was flooded to cleanse it from a few hundred thousand or million evil doers.
We've discussed the "world" idea and we both agree that it was most likely a localized event at this point. There are still theories with evidence that it could have been world wide, but I see more evidence for the latter.
That may be the reason for the legend, to show disobedience will result in a penalty.
as is does in life.
As to the RCC position on Noah, they don't advocate either way. It may have been based on a real story or not. They take the position of teaching the lesson to be learned and avoid the issue if it was literal or not.
See:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01720a.htm
http://catholicism.suite101.com/article.cfm/teaching_the_old_testament
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11088a.htm
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/Old-Testament-issues.htm
And no I was not the Paul who asked the question in the last link.
Be it that I grew up Catholic, I don't support their docterns and their teachings I feel are weak and flawed in many ways. This said, those links are of Catholic sources.
I'll check them out just the same.
- Login to post comments
Offline Just a few comments after checking out the links.
1. It's quite obvious their goals is informing other Catholics of the stories. They're also not concerned in these particular lessons or question/answers for informing the non-believer or the scientist about God's existance.
2. "God is God and thus it is possible..." That may work for some, but again, this shows that it does not apply to our conversation. Obviously that explanation from me will fly about as far as a fly on flypaper on this site.
3. I don't see these links useful to what we're discussing or any evidence that the information needed for our conversation doesn't exist. Growing up catholic, it looks like the usual response to difficult questions from the catholics.
4. Just like people don't want to even consider the fact that God exists on this site, Catholics tend to not want to consider that God doesn't exist. Therefore, why would they even consider explaining something that is understood to be obvious to them?
Those are just some thoughts. If you were looking for something more, please let me know.
- Login to post comments
Offline just a note. It's probably getting close to the point where you'll find time to respond. Unless you have anything else burning to get out, I say we move on with the OT.
- Login to post comments
Offline just a note. It's probably getting close to the point where you'll find time to respond. Unless you have anything else burning to get out, I say we move on with the OT.
Agreed, I think we beat the flood to death and both seem to agree it was at most a local event.
Following the flood we have Gen 10 devoted to a pointless unverifiable genealogy of Noah's descendants. The only thing of remembrance is in Gen 9:3-4 which is mentioned in Acts regarding James comments to Paul which is for a later discussion.
Genesis 11 has the tower of Babel incident which has several implications.
1)In verse 7, God says, "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."-KJV
This again supports plural gods as in not just Yahweh, though you may suggest he was talking to himself if you like or try the attempt he was talking to angels that yet have any mention of ever having been created except by poorly discussed attribution in the early creations when discussing Genesis 2:1.
2)The tower is of course as what the Sumerians and Assyrians built for their gods so they could reach out to them called Ziggurats. The people of Sumer built these ziggurats in order to invite the gods to come down from the sky, "heavens" as well as to get closer to them and rise above their miserable conditions of their world. In Genesis, it refers to Shinar, a name used about 8 times denoting Mesopotamia (Assyria, Babylon, or Sumer) as in Genesis 14:1,9; Isaiah 11:11; and Joshua 7:21 for example.
3)It is a poor attempt to explain changes in language. For example, today a 50 year old may have great difficulty understanding a 16 year old due to major variations in their speech. Also, the simple isolation of pockets of humans have adequately shown that major variations occur that will evolve them to the point neither will be able to understand the other in a period of time. Even in the US this occurs between those living in the North and the South, for example can I hold that $20 for you.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Genesis 11 has the tower of Babel incident which has several implications.
1)In verse 7, God says, "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."-KJV
This again supports plural gods as in not just Yahweh, though you may suggest he was talking to himself if you like or try the attempt he was talking to angels that yet have any mention of ever having been created except by poorly discussed attribution in the early creations when discussing Genesis 2:1.
What do you say the Jews believed be it that Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the angels being in existance you claim has never been implied in the OT.
Keep in mind, though we don't have the originals, it is understood that Genesis, though at the beginning of our now "Bible" is not the oldest book in the Bible.
2)The tower is of course as what the Sumerians and Assyrians built for their gods so they could reach out to them called Ziggurats. The people of Sumer built these ziggurats in order to invite the gods to come down from the sky, "heavens" as well as to get closer to them and rise above their miserable conditions of their world. In Genesis, it refers to Shinar, a name used about 8 times denoting Mesopotamia (Assyria, Babylon, or Sumer) as in Genesis 14:1,9; Isaiah 11:11; and Joshua 7:21 for example.
3)It is a poor attempt to explain changes in language. For example, today a 50 year old may have great difficulty understanding a 16 year old due to major variations in their speech. Also, the simple isolation of pockets of humans have adequately shown that major variations occur that will evolve them to the point neither will be able to understand the other in a period of time. Even in the US this occurs between those living in the North and the South, for example can I hold that $20 for you.
I see what you're saying there, but you're making the case in variations within the same language, vs. completely different languages. I'm not referring either to the different language classifications within a given type.
It's understood that humans started with 2 people and expanded from there. At this point, God wanted them to be spreading across the globe, yet they were staying together, therefore, in order to assure that they were going to follow his plan, he confused the languages so they'd have no reason to stick together.
In all our records, we have no indication of generational changes in language so great that it ultimately formed a whole new language for a whole new culture.
Some may beg to differ with ebonics and Old English vs. American. The issue is, they still follow the rules of English with their own words that still are contingent upon English understanding and different accents upon certain parts of words... again contingent upon understanding English.
- Login to post comments
I'm a religion major, and I focus on Judeo-Christianity. Nevertheless, I still don't think I'm fully qualified to answer the question of this thread. Like I said before, one needs study in so many areas to truly get at this question.
As for Kitchen, you didn't dispute any of his findings or demonstrate a knowledge of his work. You just stated that he has a bias. No shit, we're all biased to a certain extent. You should really consider doing more than a wikipedia search next time you try and refute something.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
Don't blame PJTS for what I wrote - thanks.
Bias shouldn't not influence research - Kitchen's bias may have. Your bias might keep you from looking critically at other views. Did I miss something or has research gone to being "finding stuff that agrees with my views"
I don't need to research my opinions to share them, do I? Are you trying to take that from me? Must I ask your permission to post or would any god believer here suffice?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Since you have provided the answer, I guess you have the ball for providing your reasoning. Other theists seem to see this otherwise so asserting this is the case leaves it to you to provide the evidence. In the case of Caposkia he believes due to a personal relationship with God and so far sees Genesis as based in reality somehow. In other threads I have seen that you don't consider it to be so. Since you have the ball, explain to Caposkia why he's wrong. I'm aware that you have a different take on God seeing s/he/it as something other than the God of Abe beliefs.
It seems one does not need a degree in Theology to believe in the myths as real, why do you think it requires one to challenge it? My whole point of this thread was to get theists to think and consider origins and possibilities, in that regard its successful as it brought you out didn't it. I have noted in your posts in other threads that you are a World Religion major which may eventually lead you back to the atheism you gave up in last year in Guatemala. As children are somewhat innocent having not formed perverse concepts I see where you might be led to see there must be something more underlining existence though you have created your own "magic fantasy god" as an explanation.
No, I'm not Bart, and you're not Bill Gates or any of my associates that developed disk array storage technology so you could play on the Internet, yet you do so without an IT or computer science degree. I have studied religion in a Jesuit University as well as a parochial school education. In addition, I have researched and studied ancient history and archeology for over 30 years. This has led to my view that what I was taught as a Christian is not true. What is? not what I was taught. My point here is to create doubt in those that accept beliefs with no basis. That you consider the OT to be mythical and legend indicates that you don't buy the God of Abe basis either though you are a student in religion. Perhaps in years to come you'll see it in the harsh light of reality losing your last grasp at justification for existence for a "magic man" of any kind.
The point here was Jewish belief of 1200 BCE is not likely to be that which is in the DSS. This is obvious from several perspectives. A few examples: the documents themselves which indicate the the Book of the Law was discovered in 2 Kings 22. This implies the Jews were not following that which had been previously given them thus altering many rules and laws pertaining to Judaism in mid 7th century BCE. Rants against the worship of the queen of heaven found in various places in Kings and Jeremiah. Artifacts found throughout both Judah and Israel of Asherah in homes. And even the redirection by Ezra and others after the exile.
Further, that which was found called the DSS may be based on older documents that no longer exist does not in any way suggest what the beliefs of people in Judah or Israel practiced in general. As you have said in other threads, the Jews did not have a book religion, so the writings of priests or scribes in no way indicate what the people actually practiced. I would agree with your comments in another thread that much was written during or after the Babylonian exile as in http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/16715
Kenneth Kitchen is an excellent Egyptologist but he has bias in that he is an Evangelical Christian. His work in that regard disagrees with much of archaeologists such as Finkelstein and even your Biblical mentor Bart Ehrman. He makes many assumptions that are based thinly including his 2003 work where he creates an 8th century BCE Cyrus as he is certain that Isaiah was a single work by a single author. Kitchen is given to many assumptions and much conjecture. This in no way claims he's totally in error but he assumes for example the personal names of the patriarchs are derived from or are similar to those from Mesopotamia and/or Egypt from somewhere between the 12th and 18th century BCE lends some sort of credibility to actual existence. He considers the so called Merenptah Stele indicates the Israelites were already in Palestine and thus dates the Exodus to prior to approximately 1220 BCE not considering at all the possibility they were already there as nomads that had settled like all the rest of the Canaanites. His position is to fit the Exodus and Moses into the real world in order to support his Christian beliefs. You're going to have to do better than Kitchen as an authority.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
I did not write this statement you quoted. What's the deal Christos??
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
I called him on it - I think he just took my jumping into the conversation as a continuance.
If you two want me to leave you alone to have at it, tell me and I'll just sit here with my popcorn and stay quiet.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
It's finals week coming up, so I really don't have the time to write a thesis on the historical accuracy of the Bible. Even if I did, I'm not the most qualified person to do it. I'd suggest reading Nickelsburg, Eshel, Vermes, Sievers, Harlow or other scholars that I'm surely forgetting.
A few things here:
1) Theology is a very different discipline than history or science or archaeology. I don't think one needs a degree to question Biblical theology. I think you would agree that other fields like science, history and archaeology require extensive study. All these fields are necessary to get at the question of the Bible's historical accuracy.
2) I would appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about my religious beliefs or my experience abroad.
I know you're aren't Bart Ehrman, or else you would have studied at Moody Bible instead of a Jesuit University. And I'm sorry, but the posts on this thread don't demonstrate a solid foundation in Israelite religion, Second Temple Judaism, Hebrew, Josephus, or surrounding empires.
I also like how you finish this argument with an ad hominem and make another assumption about my religious beliefs.
First of all, of course the DDS were copies. I can't believe that was even something you and Capioska even had to cover. Second, just because the Law developed radically over time doesn't mean that Tanakh manuscripts can't tell us anything abotu pre-exilic Israel. I illustrated that in the last post. I'm not trying to say that these documents weren't redacted, but they can still offer some historical value for pre-1000 BCE Israel and the monarchy. I think we agree on this since you agreed with my post on that thread about David.
Third, Bart Ehrman is not my mentor. Excellent scholar, but I can't stand some of his work. That book he wrote onn the problem of evil is not his forte. He needs to write strictly historical work and stop writing anti-Moddy Bible Institute theology.
I also didn't say that I agree with Kitchen on everything. But he makes some good points about the dating of certain patriarchal stories. I don't agree with his assment of the Exodus. That's because I don't think the Exodus actually occurred, but that's for another thread.
Finally, I'm sorry about attributing jcgadfly's post to you. My mistake.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
No, you don't need research to share your opinion. But this isn't a theological discussion. We are talking about issues of history. So you do need research for me to take your posts seriously.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
Then you're dead in the water before you start.
Just because the writers mention real places and real people doesn't make the stories a relation of history.
If that were the case, Spider-Man is real and the comics chronicle his life as they're set in New York City and they mention and even have depictions of some real people.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I think you are a little confused here. I'm accusing you of not researching your opinions. You need to be well versed in so many fields before you can really get at the question of the historical accuracy of the OT. You should also actually read my posts to understand my position. I never said that the OT is all history. I said it contains myth, legend, law code, poetry, historical fiction, and some real history.
Your spider-man example is both non-academic and childish.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
And I am saying that the real history you are claiming is, for the most part, historical fiction.
We're also dealing with the Bible - not an academic document.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Good luck with finals, I always liked them because it meant I was nearing completion of mileposts on my way to my goals.
Though I agree with your answer it wasn't for my benefit that I told you the ball was in your hands nor am I the one that needs to research to understand. If you assert as you did to Caposkia and other believing Christians than it falls to you to back your position. Good luck with that.
Yes. In order to properly address all the issues involved in the study of Biblical accuracy extensive study is required in many subjects. This includes science which any intelligent examination of all aspects involved in the subject matter require a firm foundation and education.
As I would about your assumptions of my knowledge and experiences.
1- This thread had only progressed through Genesis 3 and no attempt was intended to relate 2nd Temple Judaism, Hebrew, Josephus or future empires. My intention so far was to discuss the creation myth in the OT as compared to other creation myths of other cultures no more. It's rather presumptuous to suggest that Josephus or 2ND Temple Judaism has relevance or contributory significance in such a comparison.
2- You received the ad hominen response specifically regarding an IT or computer science degree because of your sloppy or devious quote attribution. It is fairly difficult to misapply a quote as you did. It indicates either devious behavior or very poor computer skills. You claim it was a mistake so it must be sloppiness and/or poor computer skills which I accept as very likely. As I earned a living in R & D in the computer industry where sloppiness costs money I get miffed at those that do so. As you are in college sloppiness so far only costs you grades later on it will cost you money. And I do note that you admitted your mistake. Apology accepted and smart ass response withdrawn.
3- No more assumptions will be made about your religious beliefs. In fairness you also need to stop making your own assumptions about others which you did throughout this reply and your other posts.
1-I'm aware the DSS are copies it was Caposkia that insisted they were the oldest scraps of ancient manuscripts older than Sumerian which is why I took issue.
2- I agree the Exodus did not occur. I have many issues with Kitchen as I previously expressed and do not find as you do that he has very many good points. This is as you say is a subject for another thread.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
No surprises here. The thing is, you're trying to take that understanding to say that because the Bible used prior sources to gather its information, it's false... yet history has done the same. Uses random resources, brings them together to make a point or clarify an understanding.
If one scientist says something, a lot of the scientific world will not grasp it. When many are brought together and support the same thing in their own way, people take notice.
I'd agree, however I mentioned that I'd be willing to go through it with him and answer to the best of my knowlege questions he may have and even learn a little more myself in the process.
My intention as a follower on this thread was not to take all of the information you suggested and show how it ties into reality. Anyone with a goal of doing that can do so, but I would suggest writing a book. It'd be more feasable for the time and effort it would take to compile all the information.
Sometimes too, the reality of scripture is better understood by simply bringing to light the improbability of emperically crying "myth".
You can take the factual approach with all the information in tact, but you'll lose most of those who have already concluded that it's false and don't see the point in taking the time to read through all the information.
Either way, I'm learning by getting a better understanding of where people on this forum are coming from. That way, I can do more focused research for future encounters.
It also doesn't imply any of the creation stories are based in reality only that man tried to explain that which he had little understanding in a method that seemed coherent at the time. Today the ignorance of the ancients are obvious in many areas.
Since all of the other ancient religions had multiple gods 2 + 2 = other gods, not angels. It is only later the angel beings are introduced not here. We obviously differ here substantially which shall remain unresolved.
Not necessarily. Again, opinion and perception are not likely to be affected in our differing viewpoints.
Exactly. Whether the point being made is true or fantasy matters little.
My point is to truly understand the writing of the Bible one must look to extra-Biblical sources. When one does so, many of the OT stories are seen for what they are, stories or at best parables and are not real world at all.
I suggest we go on by fast forwarding to the Flood. You can go first if you'd like explaining how you perceive this account as well as extra-Biblical accounts.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I'm glad we can both agree that we cannot conclude factual happenings just by referencing how coherent the stories seem to be or to reference the resources we have current access to.
Next stop?
Not to beat a dead horse, but just to clarify my point. What we have in hand is a lot of information from thousands of different followings. The differences in the followings... specifically Christian vs. other are quite clear and therefore haven't been easily confused by the researchers over the years.
With the information congruent with God Almighty "YHWH" and that following, there is nothing to suggest other beings.
Looking further into the history of a lot of extra-Judeo-Christian followings, demonic or idolic rituals usually were involved, which would indicate simply, demons posing as Gods.
Keep in mind also, the conversation at hand is in reference to God speaking to ... whoever before the fall. In that time, there were no demons. Or... well, those demons had not been kicked out of heaven yet. Call them Zeus if you wanted to, I guess if there is a specific fallen angel posing as Zeus, then it's very possible that God was talking with him among many others.
I didn't want to continue too much on this, just wanted to clarify. I felt that maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. It seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Ok. It's interesting because that idea of "author's doing a poor job" one way or another seems to come up a lot on this site. If that's the case, I guess it's poor authorship that makes the world's best selling books. I'd beg to differ.
Also, for someone to be making this up and wanting people to follow it, they didn't really make it appealing to the person.
Ok... Then I guess it's not a factor in this conversation...? We should move on then.
Right, if you want to really analyze the stories and claims with a microscope, you'd need to do your homework. Thus that other theists claim on his/her first post comes into play. We're both not quailfied enough to go there.
However, any good Theological college will require that kind of research for one to graduate with a degree in Biblical studies or divinity or any of the like. It's interesting that you conclude that when the research is done the stories are revieled as "parables and are not real world at all". If your claim was true, than most students who go to Theological colleges would graduate as non-believers. Yet they seem to be strong in their walk with God.
I fear your conclusion is no more than personal opinion.
I'll just keep it short and you can pull out details that you want to discuss further.
From what I understand, there are many accounts of a flood happening from many different unrelated sources around that same time as the Bible claims. Many claim these accounts were from different areas around the world.
I've also heard the theory that granted it's claimed that "the world" was flooded, but in fact it could have been "the world" as Noah knew it, which means there was a severe flood in that section of the world. There are documents that back up a flood happening around that time as well.
Either way, there is historical evidence of a serious flood along with (I don't remember the source) geologcal evidence of such flood.
So many people have claimed to have found fragments of Noah's boat... ok... if somehow the boat by the time the flood was done survived even beyond the flood, then somehow was preserved due to another major geological event.
In my opinion, it's not logical to find the boat or any fragments of it due to the fact that it was made of wood and would have decomposed over time just as any other wood would have.
I'll start with that