OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real

pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real

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.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:You

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You CONSIDER? Genesis 1 to be myth. This is so funny tonight on atheist site. Oh, thanks for your "consideration. Liberal "Christians" believe the same way. They believe via Ezekial founded the priests around 450 B.C to tell the legends of their ancestry history. Some of these legeends were passed down. And that Genesis 1 and 2 were written by 2 people. Yeah, i know.

So then atheists are fed this as support. lol. Very funny.

The issue here is OPIE, is that you have the burden of proof. You must demonstrate why Genesis 1 is fiction and that Moses didn't write it. Since I negate your thesis and you affirm it, let's here it.

Philology demonstrates this. Dead Sea scroll. We have a fragment of numbers from the 8th century. If it wasn't written until 450 B.C. then why is there a piece of it 350 years earlier.

Not if you're talkint about evolution vs. Creation. lol. Then you're basically saying my faith vs. yours na na na na. lol. 7th Grade all over again.

For the Priests to write in 450 B.C. there are to many inconsistencies via archological findings which are ad hominems for your position. You must refute all the findings before 450 B.C. and then start over. Until then, you're playing cards with monkey.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Thanks for your input Jean Chauvin.  Many times, when I use this approach, I get the whole "you're the one with the 'claim' so the burden's on you to prove"... etc.  

I respect jpts to the point that he does back himself up well.  maybe when he gets back from his trip he will have some input about refuting his findings in regards to Genesis.  

One thing I ask on behalf of this forum.  I would love to have you continue to give input because in my experience following your threads, it seems you might have more historical expertise than me, however, this is a friendly historical walkthrough of the Bible.  We are discussing each part and laying out there information we have that supports our own reason for accepting the story as we believe.  Therefore, I only ask, please keep it friendly.  You tend to get a bit aggressive at times.  

Please feel free in a friendly manner to continue helping with historical details.  Thank you


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Capsokia

My style isn't friendly. I like to take a large throwing knife intellectually speaking and have it land in their heart. Or a large rifle and POW!!! right beween the eyes in terms of logicaly discussion.

Im a nice guy. And we all know that. But i'm hard on these fools. You ought to be hard also.

The issue with burden is regarding the negation of the thesis. lol. Since i negate his thesis, he has the burden. But just for fun, i showed him his stupidity via ad hominem.

These atheists need to be given a hard time. No more, Granny has cookies atheists, come in for cookies kids. No. More like, we see the enemy, blast all our neclear weapons.

But i'd be glad via ad hominem to demonstrate the foolishness of this argument along with all atheistic arguments and why they have no excuse when hell fire consumes them and there eyeballs pop out with scourching blisters.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:My style

Jean Chauvin wrote:

My style isn't friendly. I like to take a large throwing knife intellectually speaking and have it land in their heart. Or a large rifle and POW!!! right beween the eyes in terms of logicaly discussion.

Im a nice guy. And we all know that. But i'm hard on these fools. You ought to be hard also.

The issue with burden is regarding the negation of the thesis. lol. Since i negate his thesis, he has the burden. But just for fun, i showed him his stupidity via ad hominem.

These atheists need to be given a hard time. No more, Granny has cookies atheists, come in for cookies kids. No. More like, we see the enemy, blast all our neclear weapons.

But i'd be glad via ad hominem to demonstrate the foolishness of this argument along with all atheistic arguments and why they have no excuse when hell fire consumes them and there eyeballs pop out with scourching blisters.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I take the "kill 'em with kindness" approach.. and I season it generously with sarcasm.  It's fun to let them walk into their own wall and then hit them with sarcasm in the back of the head.  The thing with JPTS is he's a smart guy.  He knows his stuff and I respect him for it.  Granted he doesn't see it as we do.  I don't believe your aggressive approach is going to work with him to be honest.  If you want to tagteam good cop bad cop with me, you can go on my completely random and loaded with sarcasm without direction or point thread "the new atheist crusaders and their quest for the unholy grail" and join in the fun.    There's a lot of people on there that truly deserve an intellectual throwing knife approach.  

I still would like your historical knowledge here from time to time.  I understand your approach, just try to keep it civil.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Oh hi Friar Genie

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You CONSIDER? Genesis 1 to be myth. This is so funny tonight on atheist site. Oh, thanks for your "consideration. Liberal "Christians" believe the same way. They believe via Ezekial founded the priests around 450 B.C to tell the legends of their ancestry history. Some of these legeends were passed down. And that Genesis 1 and 2 were written by 2 people. Yeah, i know.

So then atheists are fed this as support. lol. Very funny.

The issue here is OPIE, is that you have the burden of proof. You must demonstrate why Genesis 1 is fiction and that Moses didn't write it. Since I negate your thesis and you affirm it, let's here it.

Philology demonstrates this. Dead Sea scroll. We have a fragment of numbers from the 8th century. If it wasn't written until 450 B.C. then why is there a piece of it 350 years earlier.

Not if you're talkint about evolution vs. Creation. lol. Then you're basically saying my faith vs. yours na na na na. lol. 7th Grade all over again.

For the Priests to write in 450 B.C. there are to many inconsistencies via archological findings which are ad hominems for your position. You must refute all the findings before 450 B.C. and then start over. Until then, you're playing cards with monkey.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Friar Genie,

Not right now I'm in Vegas having fun. I'll be back to a good computer and Internet tomorrow sometime.

We can play then.

But I'm not going all the way back to Genesis 1 at this point we are somewhere in Samuel. I'm already on record from Genesis 1 to 2 Samuel.

Read the thread up to this point. You can start anywhere with the David character, preferably somewehere near the last posts.

Thanks for stopping by

We can  later Friar Gene

____________________________________________________________
"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.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Cap

You're a Brother in Christ. So if you have a style that's great. What matters is that the Word is out there. Even if the method is wrong, at least the word is out, and God can take care of the rest. Though I"m not saying my method is wrong.

I'm not trying to bring anybody to Christ on here since thiis is impossible. The HOly Sprit only does this. What i'm doiing is trying to have them be consistent as atheists. Via reductio ad absurdum. Even the evil atheists like Brian for example, with the sad fact of his parents death, even though he may be an enemy of the Faith, the gospel can still INFLUENCE him. In how he walks down the street. Dan Barker, the FFRF was affected and is affected by Christianity in his atheism. This too is my goal.

But yeah, we can tag team if you want. Killem with kindness is okay. But to be honest there are many methods. I've always had a problem with tact. I'm horrible at it. I've tried and have failed always. But these athiests need a little kick in the nuts. If your son was burning in the fire, you would killem them with kindness teh fireman that you're son is dying, or would you go hard like me?

When my step sister's baby died, i was soft. I was compassionate. She asked me if her son's in heaven with tears. I told her the Biblical answer, not the common one. Then her mom took the dead baby Her baby, to a wacko cult church, and tried to have it resuurected. I counslesd her through that grief of a cult and via the asstance of God's Spirit she left.

I'm not always this hard. I am on here. That's because these guys need it hard. They're so many weak Christains out there, there needs to be a consistent hard bold confident Christian that is 100% consistent. I am the same when I began as I am now. and will be when i die.

But this is actually encouraging me. Anytime I can help. it would be an honor.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:You're a

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You're a Brother in Christ. So if you have a style that's great. What matters is that the Word is out there. Even if the method is wrong, at least the word is out, and God can take care of the rest. Though I"m not saying my method is wrong.

I'm not trying to bring anybody to Christ on here since thiis is impossible. The HOly Sprit only does this. What i'm doiing is trying to have them be consistent as atheists. Via reductio ad absurdum. Even the evil atheists like Brian for example, with the sad fact of his parents death, even though he may be an enemy of the Faith, the gospel can still INFLUENCE him. In how he walks down the street. Dan Barker, the FFRF was affected and is affected by Christianity in his atheism. This too is my goal.

But yeah, we can tag team if you want. Killem with kindness is okay. But to be honest there are many methods. I've always had a problem with tact. I'm horrible at it. I've tried and have failed always. But these athiests need a little kick in the nuts. If your son was burning in the fire, you would killem them with kindness teh fireman that you're son is dying, or would you go hard like me?

When my step sister's baby died, i was soft. I was compassionate. She asked me if her son's in heaven with tears. I told her the Biblical answer, not the common one. Then her mom took the dead baby Her baby, to a wacko cult church, and tried to have it resuurected. I counslesd her through that grief of a cult and via the asstance of God's Spirit she left.

I'm not always this hard. I am on here. That's because these guys need it hard. They're so many weak Christains out there, there needs to be a consistent hard bold confident Christian that is 100% consistent. I am the same when I began as I am now. and will be when i die.

But this is actually encouraging me. Anytime I can help. it would be an honor.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

...and this is how God works.  We're all gifted in different ways, the people God can't reach through me, he'd reach through you or someone else.  It's how it works.  Some people are just unreachable.  As you say, it's the spirit that does the work... it's their choice to allow the spirit in.  

I am consistent as well and only change when I see a rational legitimate reason to do so.  That change comes with growth only and not in my approach.  I use wisdom, knowledge and spiritual guidance.  My approach on this page is that i'm here to challenge what I know.  This way I can be sure that what I think I know is really Truth and not just something that I was either told to believe and ended up believing or self affirmed.   If only most atheists took the same approach.
 

Sounds like JPTS has experience with you, so follow the flow of this forum and your knowledge will be beneficial.  Keep praying and the spirit will keep working.  


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey Cap

Yeah, we are all gifted in different ways. God gifted me to stick my foot up the atheists *&^*6^ lol. But you're right. And yes, they do have a choice, but they're choice will always be NO!!! unless the Holy Spirit gives them the gift of faith. It's impossible to say yes unless God gives you the ability to say yes.

I am concerned about something you said:

Quote:
I am consistent as well and only change when I see a rational legitimate reason to do so.

I too do this if i have been shown i'm wrong about something in God's Word. Faith in the Bible is the same as knowing or logic. So my faith allows me to reason. And Jesus Christ is the very reason logic of God (John 1:1).

So just checking. An atheist doesn't have the capability to do any of this.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Yeah, we

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Yeah, we are all gifted in different ways. God gifted me to stick my foot up the atheists *&^*6^ lol. But you're right. And yes, they do have a choice, but they're choice will always be NO!!! unless the Holy Spirit gives them the gift of faith. It's impossible to say yes unless God gives you the ability to say yes.

I am concerned about something you said:

Quote:
I am consistent as well and only change when I see a rational legitimate reason to do so.

I too do this if i have been shown i'm wrong about something in God's Word. Faith in the Bible is the same as knowing or logic. So my faith allows me to reason. And Jesus Christ is the very reason logic of God (John 1:1).

So just checking. An atheist doesn't have the capability to do any of this.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

right.  It's a reference to growth.  In other words, I'm not so stuck in my ways that I won't change my perspective if in fact I can see that I'm wrong, but I do stick to what I know until that be the case.  I try to keep a very open mind to any perspective.   I will always shut down irrationalities and false information.  


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Sounds like

caposkia wrote:

Sounds like JPTS has experience with you, so follow the flow of this forum and your knowledge will be beneficial.  Keep praying and the spirit will keep working.  

I've only exchanged comments 1 time with Jean a while back. I have read Jean's posts and never on purpose responded to them as I'm really not interested in his style of inflammatory hostility. He reminds me of Ambrose and Augustine in some ways, though not in a good way or some of the less than reputable inquisitors in the middle ages. Since he came to this thread I responded, perhaps less than warmly as I posted while on vacation.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Friar Jean

My previous response to you was done in haste while in Vegas.

I have read your posts and other threads and have not really been interested in any discussions with you. Your style of infammatory hostility in discussion is not appropriate here. It will be ignored as not relevant if you choose that form in addressing the aspects of this thread. I think we exchanged comments in some thread in regards to Catholics a while back. Since you have come to visit this thread what it is about is a walk through the OT discussing various stories found therein. The idea is to discuss if they are myths, legends, parables or have any real basis. This means you get to present how you see each story discussed from those perspectives. The idea is you need to provide the reasons why you see the story classified in the category you choose and something that supports your position from perhaps some of the 10,000 books or so you claim to own. When you make a claim as for example where you said "We have a fragment of numbers from the 8th century" you will need to provide a source from a book or a link. I will not accept your assertions that such and such is true based on your statement.

As you have just joined this discussion in the middle please take time to review what has been discussed. You have basically walked into the middle of a movie and it's not going to be started over just for you.  I have no plan to revisit Genesis 1 to Samuel at this time.  Perhaps after we finish all of the OT we can go back, sometime around 2014 if you are still alive, since you have claimed elsewhere that you are dying.

This thread may not be suitable for your standard methods of debate, the use of hand grenades and bazookas tends to damage the fragile pieces of history and fragments of artifacts that provide support or contradict the text. If you choose to be snarky or use Latin, a language I do not understand, I will tend to ignore it and dismiss it as mumbo jumbo from a philosophy student working at McDonald's.  I will ignore your sarcasm and off topic remarks and point out to you that is not the intent of this thread. This is not the place for a philosophy discussion nor a pulpit to preach about the Jesus, these comments will not be answered unless there is some pertinence to the story at hand.

PJTS

____________________________________________________________
"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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In what respect to QM? In other words what do you suggest in regard to "magic" has in relation to QM?

If its' magic, then we wouldn't know how it works.  To have an explanation through any means deems it no longer magic.  We're talking miracles.  Stuff that happens that is beyond what the average person would deem possible or likely.

There are a few angles to take through Quantum theories.  Quantum Leaps might be a good start.  upward vs. downward causation.   We'd have to deviate from our walk through for quite a bit, but it works on the plane of thought and whether thought takes a quantum leap at times or whether it takes a linear path.  This eventually would draw a line back to creation and how we confuse time with the quantum possibilities of thought.  (be it that it was a thought that created everything through God speaking it into existence) 

As you know, I don't consider magic or miracles to be possible. When a story contains these aspects I consider it to be based on ignorance of the possible or in the land of never was (Fantasy). Man has come a long way by using his ability to pass on information that was previously discovered. Since every generation does not have to start from scratch in learning about fire, flight and physics they can build on the knowledge of the past and add more to it.

I'm not one that dismisses possibilities, things that are not understood today may be understood tomorrow, or in a thousand years or so. If not by us, by future generations here or elsewhere.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Rational explanations thus eliminate the god as possibilities. I've already said that there are many things we don't understand yet, we learn new things daily. That actually is one of the things I try to do. Learn something new every day and somehow make a difference, no matter how small it may be.

It's interesting to think that rational explanations eliminate the god possibilities.  Upward causation (a rational materialist explanation for existence) explains creation as simplistic to complex.  It's a constant progression from simple to complex, which means that if the process were truly linear, it would have to end in godliness or absolute perfection. 

Or change is a constant. This Universe may not have always existed but may be a recycling of a previous one, or as in M theory there are multiple Universes and the collision between them was the supposed "big bang". All this is beyond the scope of our current discussion.

caposkia wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

One man's magic is another's science. Lack of knowledge of flight 2000 years ago does not make it magic, only undiscovered knowledge.

Right... just because it's called a miracle of God doesn't mean it's magic, only beyond our human capabilities.  In other words, nature is God's miracle. 

In other words, what one generation considered not possible, knowledge and engineering brought it to reality. Such as now we can talk to one another anywhere on the planet instantly without waiting for the carrier pigeons.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

And I don't see how a dead person can be brought back once the RAM memory loses it's power supply of oxygenated blood. But perhaps even some cells carry all the info of the person somehow and we haven't figured out how to restore the data as of yet. Perhaps another 2000 years we will if it's at all possible, if not, not.

This would go into the quantum leaps theory and also how though the body dies, the soul still lives on.  If in fact the Bible is right and people were raised from the dead, then everything else including its claim about the soul must be true too, which would simplify the reason for memories to still exist in a once deceased body.  Quantum leaps would explain how thought or memory is transferred from the soul to the physical brain... the leaps in science more specifically talks on the atomic level how electrons jump through space and time.  Look up "Bohr".  The tie is that thought works on the same plane, which would explain why a thought can be detected in the physical brain by electric pulses, but not outside a physical brain. 

Not really. If people were raised from the dead actually, that does not in itself mean that the Bible is right about everything including a soul. It could mean that memories are stored as a backup in cells, such as in the movie "5th Element". Or something else not yet understood. As this has yet to be demonstrated I can wait to see what develops in the future.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

There is a difference between a "true story" and a story that contains or promotes "truths". Do you understand that?

A story does not need to be a parable to contain "truths" nor does it need to be actually true verbatim.

Truths do not mean that the story actually ever happened but that the story was being told to promote certain "truths". The story could be complete fiction yet contain "truths".

sure i understand that.  The question comes down to what is true in the story... here the base line of the story needs to be true... usually parables have specific details or pieces of the setting that is true, but the story itself is false.  In the case of these stories, we have found minimal evidence to suggest that the story itself is true, (none to suggest the story is false) and definite truths as far as details as well as exaggerated or false dates/times/names.  Due to the likely true baseline and true details despite a deviation in actual time of happening, it seems logical to deem these stories true at this point.  The only way they could be false is if there are pieces of information to fill in the timeline that have more evidences than the evidences we found for these stories.  So far there is nothing that I'm aware of that fills the timeline appropriately. 

I don't think you do understand what I mean about "truths," None of the story needs to be true at all for it to contain truths. A story about relationships could be set on a fictitious planet with non-existent people of another civilization. It could be used to show the need for cooperation between individuals to accomplish a joint goal. Or as in the movie Avatar, it shows how humans attempt to take advantage of what is thought to be less civilzed civilizations, somewhat an analogy on what the white man did to the Indians in the US. The same can be said for any story in the OT, though you might call some of them parables.

As to these stories so far, nothing so far indicates they actually did occur based on any other source besides the one providing the story. None can on this information be said to be based on true events from what we have for evidence. As I don't agree that there is a likely true baseline as I have seen no support for any from anything other than the stories themselves I  consider them as not true so far.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The problem with stories that involve religious beliefs and gods is what part is legend and what part might be real. This is not limited to the Jewish/Christian stories but encompasses all of them. I use the Sumerian stories because they are the most ancient of all. That these stories may have some real people is possible, but how to tell is the problem.

which is why you and I have had such difficulties agreeing thus far.

Pretty much.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It is a lineage basis but does not substantiate anything other than the name.

And what hundreds of pieces of writing do you know of that can be actually dated to 1000 BCE that refer to David?

And what 100s of pieces of writing do you mean? There are only 66 or so books in the Bible more or less depending on version, this is not hundreds.

Of the 66 books in the Bible, there are hundreds of fragments from hundreds of different sources that were put together to make those stories.  The fragments are what i"d be referring to here.

 

OK, you mean the 66 books more or less. None however date to the period we are discussing right now, as the oldest fragments are the DSS from the 2nd century BCE, 800 years or so after the events.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Lack of support in archeology or as shown to you archeology that shows that there was no such great adventures as claimed for Saul and David does not make any of the stories true for certain, in fact it causes the stories to be questioned.

And when you say story, do you mean the whole story or one in particular?

Speaking generally about the whole story.

OK.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

As previously mentioned, the area supposedly controlled by Saul would make him a small tribal chieftain little more. The stories build up a fictitious basis which is carried forward and expanded upon with more of what you call exaggeration.

If there was no great kingdom of Saul, David or Solomon as it seems from the archeology of the area which does not support the claimed population at all, then these stories were created or exaggerated to use your term to give the Judahites a claim to greatness in the ancient world.

Sure... keep in mind their world was likely a small piece of ancient history.  Be it that they weren't aware of the whole spectrum of the world they lived in, as far as they were concerned, their leaders were leaders of a great empire.  At least of their own.  The Bibles perspective is not that of royalty like most historical documents are, but of commoners.  It was written by and for commoners where as most ancient scripts were written as documentation by some sort of government entity.  

OK, we agree that minimally these stories are greatly exaggerated.  As part of the storyline encompasses the greatness of the 12 tribes, something I certainly disagree ever was, then there are holes in it overall. I for one do not consider there was ever a nation of all 12 tribes unless it was a very short period due to marriage between the 2 countries. More on this soon as we get in Kings and Chronicles.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Sounds like JPTS has experience with you, so follow the flow of this forum and your knowledge will be beneficial.  Keep praying and the spirit will keep working.  

I've only exchanged comments 1 time with Jean a while back. I have read Jean's posts and never on purpose responded to them as I'm really not interested in his style of inflammatory hostility. He reminds me of Ambrose and Augustine in some ways, though not in a good way or some of the less than reputable inquisitors in the middle ages. Since he came to this thread I responded, perhaps less than warmly as I posted while on vacation.

I did request that he keep it civil if he were to have his input here.  I get his approach (in many ways similar to many atheists on my other thread) but not always beneficial like in this particular forum.  He does seem to have a bit of background though. HOpefully that will come through.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:As

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As you know, I don't consider magic or miracles to be possible. When a story contains these aspects I consider it to be based on ignorance of the possible or in the land of never was (Fantasy). Man has come a long way by using his ability to pass on information that was previously discovered. Since every generation does not have to start from scratch in learning about fire, flight and physics they can build on the knowledge of the past and add more to it.

I'm not one that dismisses possibilities, things that are not understood today may be understood tomorrow, or in a thousand years or so. If not by us, by future generations here or elsewhere.

I do understand your stance on this of course.  Which is why I said it'd be appropriate to go to those avenues if indeed we were going to debate the point of view.  I'm good with sticking to our path at this time.  

Just a quick note.  I've always said that understanding something in no way negates God. Therefore also, not understanding something in no way confirms God.  To learn of a new discovery AND to negate God with it, one would have to show reasoning as to why that discovery suggests that a metaphysical existence in general cannot be possible.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Or change is a constant. This Universe may not have always existed but may be a recycling of a previous one, or as in M theory there are multiple Universes and the collision between them was the supposed "big bang". All this is beyond the scope of our current discussion.

yup... another thread another time.  We'll get on that one... say... 2016??? ish....

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In other words, what one generation considered not possible, knowledge and engineering brought it to reality. Such as now we can talk to one another anywhere on the planet instantly without waiting for the carrier pigeons.

right... I think the first mistake a nonbeliever makes in denouncing miracles as possible is forgetting that there are many different definitions of miracle.  I believe Bible miracles aren't necessarily referencing to something not understood (but in many cases are) but moreso are in reference to something that is beyond a human capability.  E.g. healing the sick instantly, or getting bit by a deadly snake and not getting affected.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Not really. If people were raised from the dead actually, that does not in itself mean that the Bible is right about everything including a soul. It could mean that memories are stored as a backup in cells, such as in the movie "5th Element". Or something else not yet understood. As this has yet to be demonstrated I can wait to see what develops in the future.

beyond the memory thing... if people were raised from the dead "actually", I do think it would bring to light the possibility of other biblical claims.  

considering the memory thing, Sure... anything's possible... but it sounds like you're reaching for an alternate explanation here vs. what might be logical.  If someone "Jesus style" raises someone from the dead (dead for a few days guaranteed), it's more logical to think a soul could be the answer rather than cells storing memory, especially seeing as science has discovered memory in the brain is reconstructed and not stored.  

Again, another thread another time.  This I think detoured us too much.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't think you do understand what I mean about "truths," None of the story needs to be true at all for it to contain truths. A story about relationships could be set on a fictitious planet with non-existent people of another civilization. It could be used to show the need for cooperation between individuals to accomplish a joint goal. Or as in the movie Avatar, it shows how humans attempt to take advantage of what is thought to be less civilzed civilizations, somewhat an analogy on what the white man did to the Indians in the US. The same can be said for any story in the OT, though you might call some of them parables.

As to these stories so far, nothing so far indicates they actually did occur based on any other source besides the one providing the story. None can on this information be said to be based on true events from what we have for evidence. As I don't agree that there is a likely true baseline as I have seen no support for any from anything other than the stories themselves I  consider them as not true so far.

I understand what you mean about truths.  My basis is there's nothing to fill the timeline where these stories take place, period.  Due to lack of information if you want to be technical, I guess it could be speculation on both sides to say any of these stories are true or false.  Is the glass half full or half empty.  I take the perspective of plausible until otherwise proven.  You seem to take the perspective false until otherwise proven.  to deem something false is to give up on the subject, to consider it plausible is to continue to research it.  It seems you've given up on the subject really by taking that perspective.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

OK, you mean the 66 books more or less. None however date to the period we are discussing right now, as the oldest fragments are the DSS from the 2nd century BCE, 800 years or so after the events.

General understanding is that they're copies and that the originals are either gone or yet to be discovered.  Again too, it's possible that this story is another one handed down by word of mouth (as most stories true or false were during that time).  Thus the timeline of the writing holds no grounds to its validity.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

OK, we agree that minimally these stories are greatly exaggerated.  As part of the storyline encompasses the greatness of the 12 tribes, something I certainly disagree ever was, then there are holes in it overall. I for one do not consider there was ever a nation of all 12 tribes unless it was a very short period due to marriage between the 2 countries. More on this soon as we get in Kings and Chronicles.

 

yea, I have to do a little bit of homework on the tribes


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Sounds like JPTS has experience with you, so follow the flow of this forum and your knowledge will be beneficial.  Keep praying and the spirit will keep working.  

I've only exchanged comments 1 time with Jean a while back. I have read Jean's posts and never on purpose responded to them as I'm really not interested in his style of inflammatory hostility. He reminds me of Ambrose and Augustine in some ways, though not in a good way or some of the less than reputable inquisitors in the middle ages. Since he came to this thread I responded, perhaps less than warmly as I posted while on vacation.

I did request that he keep it civil if he were to have his input here.  I get his approach (in many ways similar to many atheists on my other thread) but not always beneficial like in this particular forum.  He does seem to have a bit of background though. HOpefully that will come through.

We'll see what happens.

I won't play his way.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As you know, I don't consider magic or miracles to be possible. When a story contains these aspects I consider it to be based on ignorance of the possible or in the land of never was (Fantasy). Man has come a long way by using his ability to pass on information that was previously discovered. Since every generation does not have to start from scratch in learning about fire, flight and physics they can build on the knowledge of the past and add more to it.

I'm not one that dismisses possibilities, things that are not understood today may be understood tomorrow, or in a thousand years or so. If not by us, by future generations here or elsewhere.

I do understand your stance on this of course.  Which is why I said it'd be appropriate to go to those avenues if indeed we were going to debate the point of view.  I'm good with sticking to our path at this time.  

Just a quick note.  I've always said that understanding something in no way negates God. Therefore also, not understanding something in no way confirms God.  To learn of a new discovery AND to negate God with it, one would have to show reasoning as to why that discovery suggests that a metaphysical existence in general cannot be possible. 

OK.

I can go with this more or less but slightly from the other perspective. Knowledge generates understanding. Understanding increases knowledge since we can record it for further research by others. The intent of research and understanding is to gain more knowledge. Whether ot not this supports or negates a previous position or not is less important than making progress towards understanding the unknown. As the god claims are in effect theories, they are in effect not proved, there is nothing to negate at all. My POV is I don't know if the god theory(ies) are true. I only know they have never been proved. Well at least not to the point to sway my position. As the metaphysical or in my terms, outside the reality we know and experience has yet to be demonstrated there are several layers of theory that have not been proved. My position is to consider these claims as not true until more knowledge is available. Knowledge is very important. Read more! Kill less!

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Or change is a constant. This Universe may not have always existed but may be a recycling of a previous one, or as in M theory there are multiple Universes and the collision between them was the supposed "big bang". All this is beyond the scope of our current discussion.

yup... another thread another time.  We'll get on that one... say... 2016??? ish....

An optimist you are.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In other words, what one generation considered not possible, knowledge and engineering brought it to reality. Such as now we can talk to one another anywhere on the planet instantly without waiting for the carrier pigeons.

right... I think the first mistake a nonbeliever makes in denouncing miracles as possible is forgetting that there are many different definitions of miracle.  I believe Bible miracles aren't necessarily referencing to something not understood (but in many cases are) but moreso are in reference to something that is beyond a human capability.  E.g. healing the sick instantly, or getting bit by a deadly snake and not getting affected. 

And the 1st mistake a believer makes is attributing something as not understood to be a miracle in the 1st place.

I don't know yet what is beyond human capability, if I knew I'd sell something short. What will be possible in 100 years by man? In 1000 years? In 10,000 years?

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Not really. If people were raised from the dead actually, that does not in itself mean that the Bible is right about everything including a soul. It could mean that memories are stored as a backup in cells, such as in the movie "5th Element". Or something else not yet understood. As this has yet to be demonstrated I can wait to see what develops in the future.

beyond the memory thing... if people were raised from the dead "actually", I do think it would bring to light the possibility of other biblical claims.  

considering the memory thing, Sure... anything's possible... but it sounds like you're reaching for an alternate explanation here vs. what might be logical.  If someone "Jesus style" raises someone from the dead (dead for a few days guaranteed), it's more logical to think a soul could be the answer rather than cells storing memory, especially seeing as science has discovered memory in the brain is reconstructed and not stored.  

Again, another thread another time.  This I think detoured us too much.

I don't need an alternate yet as the dead have not been shown to rise again after 3 days, at least not documented in a manner that can be shown.

See above, I don't know the limits of human capabilities. Do you?

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't think you do understand what I mean about "truths," None of the story needs to be true at all for it to contain truths. A story about relationships could be set on a fictitious planet with non-existent people of another civilization. It could be used to show the need for cooperation between individuals to accomplish a joint goal. Or as in the movie Avatar, it shows how humans attempt to take advantage of what is thought to be less civilized civilizations, somewhat an analogy on what the white man did to the Indians in the US. The same can be said for any story in the OT, though you might call some of them parables.

As to these stories so far, nothing so far indicates they actually did occur based on any other source besides the one providing the story. None can on this information be said to be based on true events from what we have for evidence. As I don't agree that there is a likely true baseline as I have seen no support for any from anything other than the stories themselves I  consider them as not true so far.

I understand what you mean about truths.  My basis is there's nothing to fill the timeline where these stories take place, period.  Due to lack of information if you want to be technical, I guess it could be speculation on both sides to say any of these stories are true or false.  Is the glass half full or half empty.  I take the perspective of plausible until otherwise proven.  You seem to take the perspective false until otherwise proven.  to deem something false is to give up on the subject, to consider it plausible is to continue to research it.  It seems you've given up on the subject really by taking that perspective.

My take is the stories are not true as written. What's true? Not these stories as written. Are they false? Some of the stories with the exaggerated parts surely are as we have discussed. The Ai and Jericho accounts for example are not true and false based on the archeology which indicates that Ai was ruins for perhaps a 1000 years when Joshua supposedly came by and Jericho was a hick town without walls for example. Nothing shows 600,000 men escaped Egypt along with women, children and livestock. There are no artifacts that support this high number of escapees. Did 100 escape and the story was blown up to make the Judahites look important? Since archeology indicates both the people of Israel and Judah were basically no different than anyone else and they like all of the Canaanites moved from the highlands into Palestine this would seem to indicate the Exodus adventure is not true. Is it completely false or is a  few hundred in the Exodus enough to make it true? I don't think so, I think that story is basically not true and false. Are the David and Solomon stories true? That's what we are looking at right now. So far the stories contain exaggerations that are not true based on the archeology and known histories of others. More to come as we work into Kings and Chronicles.

 A hardcore position would be, if any part of these stories are false then the whole storyline must be false. I've never indicated that position. Stories exist for many reasons, why these do is yet to be learned. Stories, myths and legends generally have some basis in reality, what that might be can not always be learned thousands of years later. That's the point of bringing up the stories of Sumer and Akkad. These stories are on clay tablets from the period when they were told. Yet,  I've yet to meet Enki or any of his fellow gods. Did he and his supposed fellow gods actually exist or were they are made up? Can't tell from the stories, there may be other explanations for them. What about the Reg Veda and it's stories with super weapons and flying machines? Is there something in them based in the real world or are they just made up? That's why I view Sumerian, Hindu and Hebrew stories in the same way, as stories that are not true as written or perhaps as understood by us or even as understood by the original writers but with possibilities of some truth. What is true in any of these stories may never be understood, but one should not just reject the whole, perhaps Enki really was a beer drinking lush who fornicated with any female he encountered. Perhaps david really was a man that would shorten your life span if you encountered him.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Pope John Paul

um what? You're asking me basically to dumb it down for you or you'll ignore me? haha. Are you serious? Weird. You need to define what you mean by civil Pope John Paul. Because i'm going to simply read your reasoning and show it's stupidity of the logical causation of consequence.

Here's another thing, how on earth can  you determine myth and legend if you cannot determine truth. If truth in atheism is non -existent, or to the wannabe inconsistent atheists a probable boo ya, then how can you distingish truth from tale?

Your starting point is like a car with no engine. lol. You push the throttle and turn the key and yell and holler but the car never starts. It's ridiculous.

Also, since there are mistakes in the copies, by what means of textual criticism and texts will you use to distingush variance? You can't just pick up an NIV and call it a day. lol. What is your justifications to the text that you use.

And do you know enough Hebrew to understand or look up the construction of the meaning of your complaints.

These questions have yet to be answered. You're like a little amaature little kid.

Unless these questions can be answered, your pathetic attempts are like random locations for bird shit to land on relative places, and one of those places, is your starting point(s).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
So, JC, how do you determine

So, JC, how do you determine how to determine Truth before you have found how to properly determine the Truth?

IOW, how do you determine what is the ultimate reference point before you have a proper reference point to use as a reference to determine what is true?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Friar Jean

Jean Chauvin wrote:

um what? You're asking me basically to dumb it down for you or you'll ignore me? haha. Are you serious? Weird. You need to define what you mean by civil Pope John Paul. Because i'm going to simply read your reasoning and show it's stupidity of the logical causation of consequence.

So you do not know how to have a mature discussion is that it?

By the way it was Caposkia that asked you to keep it friendly.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Here's another thing, how on earth can  you determine myth and legend if you cannot determine truth. If truth in atheism is non -existent, or to the wannabe inconsistent atheists a probable boo ya, then how can you distingish truth from tale?

 

McDonald's philosophy student drivel.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Your starting point is like a car with no engine. lol. You push the throttle and turn the key and yell and holler but the car never starts. It's ridiculous.

An analogy of non-applicability.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Also, since there are mistakes in the copies, by what means of textual criticism and texts will you use to distingush variance?

Apparently the Sumerian clay texts are originals. No mistakes in copying those, perhaps misunderstanding though.

Since every book in all Bibles are copies is this an admission on your part that none of it is reliable?

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You can't just pick up an NIV and call it a day. lol. What is your justifications to the text that you use.

NIV is not a reliable text and neither is the KJV as you should know if you have actually studied textual criticism at all.

I use the JPS as it's based on the Masoretic, the one used by Jews who speak English.

You know, Jews the originators of your god belief mythology.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

And do you know enough Hebrew to understand or look up the construction of the meaning of your complaints.

Do you even know what is being discussed here?

Do you know enough Sumerian or Babylonian to discredit their texts?

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

These questions have yet to be answered. You're like a little amaature little kid.

No problem Friar Jean. Don't screw up that order for a large #2 combo.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Unless these questions can be answered, your pathetic attempts are like random locations for bird shit to land on relative places, and one of those places, is your starting point(s).

Blah blah more McD's philosophy student drivel.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You use a quote from a forged book?

____________________________________________________________
"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.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

OK.

I can go with this more or less but slightly from the other perspective. Knowledge generates understanding. Understanding increases knowledge since we can record it for further research by others. The intent of research and understanding is to gain more knowledge. Whether ot not this supports or negates a previous position or not is less important than making progress towards understanding the unknown. As the god claims are in effect theories, they are in effect not proved, there is nothing to negate at all. My POV is I don't know if the god theory(ies) are true. I only know they have never been proved. Well at least not to the point to sway my position. As the metaphysical or in my terms, outside the reality we know and experience has yet to be demonstrated there are several layers of theory that have not been proved. My position is to consider these claims as not true until more knowledge is available. Knowledge is very important. Read more! Kill less!

I can agree with this perspective.  I'm curious... what sort of "demonstration" would you need to see for proof?  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Or change is a constant. This Universe may not have always existed but may be a recycling of a previous one, or as in M theory there are multiple Universes and the collision between them was the supposed "big bang". All this is beyond the scope of our current discussion.

yup... another thread another time.  We'll get on that one... say... 2016??? ish....

An optimist you are.

LOL

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

And the 1st mistake a believer makes is attributing something as not understood to be a miracle in the 1st place.

In many cases this is true

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't know yet what is beyond human capability, if I knew I'd sell something short. What will be possible in 100 years by man? In 1000 years? In 10,000 years?

A miracle is not decided by what might be possible in 100 years.  I miracle is decided based on what is possible now.  If now I had a miracle drug that was injected through a compression shot (courtesy of Star Trek), I could cure you of a very deadly disease... is this then a miracle? of course not.  But in this same situation, knowing our medical science as advanced as it is now has no cure or help for this deadly disease and somehow you still instantly get cured, that is a miracle.  It is beyond human capabilities at this time.    Even if in 100 years the drug gets invented and the disease no longer is deadly due to medical science, at this time 100 years before, it would still be considered a miracle because that technology was not available and yet you were still cured.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't need an alternate yet as the dead have not been shown to rise again after 3 days, at least not documented in a manner that can be shown.

See above, I don't know the limits of human capabilities. Do you?

it was a hypothetical.  I think I was assuming you were being hypothetical too assuming you saw someone raised from the dead that you'd still assume it was cell memory.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

My take is the stories are not true as written. What's true? Not these stories as written. Are they false? Some of the stories with the exaggerated parts surely are as we have discussed..... So far the stories contain exaggerations that are not true based on the archeology and known histories of others. More to come as we work into Kings and Chronicles.

you're disqualifying a story in history due to exaggerations.  We have agreed that the exaggerations are likely not true, but we never agreed that exaggerations make these stories themselves untrue as written.  numbers and names aren't what the story's about, the results of the occurances is.  It may not have been 100,000 people, but in their case, if the problem was only 100 people and they were defeated (generally speaking, no specific reference), the result would still be just as powerful for that particular people group.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 A hardcore position would be, if any part of these stories are false then the whole storyline must be false. I've never indicated that position. Stories exist for many reasons, why these do is yet to be learned. Stories, myths and legends generally have some basis in reality, what that might be can not always be learned thousands of years later. That's the point of bringing up the stories of Sumer and Akkad. These stories are on clay tablets from the period when they were told. Yet,  I've yet to meet Enki or any of his fellow gods. Did he and his supposed fellow gods actually exist or were they are made up? Can't tell from the stories, there may be other explanations for them. What about the Reg Veda and it's stories with super weapons and flying machines? Is there something in them based in the real world or are they just made up? That's why I view Sumerian, Hindu and Hebrew stories in the same way, as stories that are not true as written or perhaps as understood by us or even as understood by the original writers but with possibilities of some truth. What is true in any of these stories may never be understood, but one should not just reject the whole, perhaps Enki really was a beer drinking lush who fornicated with any female he encountered. Perhaps david really was a man that would shorten your life span if you encountered him.

 

I'm glad to hear you don't take a hardcore position.  It was starting to sound like you were.  I feel that would be illogical.  You're right the stories exist for many reasons.  Due to the distance in history, and the fact that these stories were handed down through generations by word of mouth long before being written down, it'd possible that no one will ever know for sure whether there was 100 or 1000 people in any given situation or that David was really the guys name.  All we know is what the author of the written pieces knew, which was information handed to them from a period likely not during their lifetime.  It is understood that these stories by means of transitional and translational evidence were very carefully preserved and therefore were likely handled the same way by word of mouth.  It's hard to take into consideration such careful preservation for a story that likely didn't happen.  

I'm glad you said one should not reject the whole as well.  This is true be it that the reasoning behind accepting these Bilbe stories as true is not in each individual story, but by looking at the Bible as a whole.  I'm sure you've heard a Christian somewhere down the line suggest that the Bible stories support themselves.  that's not a weak stance, but rather a stance that each story is written during a different time period by a different author than the rest.  This being the case, logically the stories should not flow, yet they do.  It's possible that someone down the line wanted to dupe their people into believing the stories, which then would make sense that flow from one story to another would be taken into consideration, but then we'd have to consider that each individual author had the same motivation for their people.  Highly unlikely.  Or if so, then it's also highly unlikely that they would have the same knowledge of the timeline.  We'll see more of this as we go on in the OT.  

It's possible and understood that you yourself might need more reasoning to consider these stories.  I wouldn't just hang on that reasoning alone and I don't.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

OK.

I can go with this more or less but slightly from the other perspective. Knowledge generates understanding. Understanding increases knowledge since we can record it for further research by others. The intent of research and understanding is to gain more knowledge. Whether or not this supports or negates a previous position or not is less important than making progress towards understanding the unknown. As the god claims are in effect theories, they are in effect not proved, there is nothing to negate at all. My POV is I don't know if the god theory(ies) are true. I only know they have never been proved. Well at least not to the point to sway my position. As the metaphysical or in my terms, outside the reality we know and experience has yet to be demonstrated there are several layers of theory that have not been proved. My position is to consider these claims as not true until more knowledge is available. Knowledge is very important. Read more! Kill less!

I can agree with this perspective.  I'm curious... what sort of "demonstration" would you need to see for proof? 

Repeatable interaction outside our dimension of reality into the metaphysical or the dimension we cannot sense now with our 3D time dimension. The interaction should be repeatable by anyone with the proper technology or process.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't know yet what is beyond human capability, if I knew I'd sell something short. What will be possible in 100 years by man? In 1000 years? In 10,000 years?

A miracle is not decided by what might be possible in 100 years.  A miracle is decided based on what is possible now.  If now I had a miracle drug that was injected through a compression shot (courtesy of Star Trek), I could cure you of a very deadly disease... is this then a miracle? of course not.  But in this same situation, knowing our medical science as advanced as it is now has no cure or help for this deadly disease and somehow you still instantly get cured, that is a miracle.  It is beyond human capabilities at this time.    Even if in 100 years the drug gets invented and the disease no longer is deadly due to medical science, at this time 100 years before, it would still be considered a miracle because that technology was not available and yet you were still cured. 

Obviously I'm taking the long view here. Again. one man's miracle is another's technology. I can envision that many things will be developed as we progress in knowledge such that influences how I view what might be considered by most to be a "miracle".

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't need an alternate yet as the dead have not been shown to rise again after 3 days, at least not documented in a manner that can be shown.

See above, I don't know the limits of human capabilities. Do you?

it was a hypothetical.  I think I was assuming you were being hypothetical too assuming you saw someone raised from the dead that you'd still assume it was cell memory.

Right.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

My take is the stories are not true as written. What's true? Not these stories as written. Are they false? Some of the stories with the exaggerated parts surely are as we have discussed..... So far the stories contain exaggerations that are not true based on the archeology and known histories of others. More to come as we work into Kings and Chronicles.

you're disqualifying a story in history due to exaggerations.  We have agreed that the exaggerations are likely not true, but we never agreed that exaggerations make these stories themselves untrue as written.  numbers and names aren't what the story's about, the results of the occurrences is.  It may not have been 100,000 people, but in their case, if the problem was only 100 people and they were defeated (generally speaking, no specific reference), the result would still be just as powerful for that particular people group. 

I'm saying the stories are not true as written, that is not the same as saying the entire story is false. Parts obviously can shown to be false as in the example of Ai, already destroyed for 1000 years before the Joshua adventure.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 A hardcore position would be, if any part of these stories are false then the whole storyline must be false. I've never indicated that position. Stories exist for many reasons, why these do is yet to be learned. Stories, myths and legends generally have some basis in reality, what that might be can not always be learned thousands of years later. That's the point of bringing up the stories of Sumer and Akkad. These stories are on clay tablets from the period when they were told. Yet,  I've yet to meet Enki or any of his fellow gods. Did he and his supposed fellow gods actually exist or were they are made up? Can't tell from the stories, there may be other explanations for them. What about the Reg Veda and it's stories with super weapons and flying machines? Is there something in them based in the real world or are they just made up? That's why I view Sumerian, Hindu and Hebrew stories in the same way, as stories that are not true as written or perhaps as understood by us or even as understood by the original writers but with possibilities of some truth. What is true in any of these stories may never be understood, but one should not just reject the whole, perhaps Enki really was a beer drinking lush who fornicated with any female he encountered. Perhaps David really was a man that would shorten your life span if you encountered him.

 

I'm glad to hear you don't take a hardcore position.  It was starting to sound like you were.  I feel that would be illogical.  You're right the stories exist for many reasons.  Due to the distance in history, and the fact that these stories were handed down through generations by word of mouth long before being written down, it'd possible that no one will ever know for sure whether there was 100 or 1000 people in any given situation or that David was really the guys name.  All we know is what the author of the written pieces knew, which was information handed to them from a period likely not during their lifetime.  It is understood that these stories by means of transitional and translational evidence were very carefully preserved and therefore were likely handled the same way by word of mouth.  It's hard to take into consideration such careful preservation for a story that likely didn't happen.  

I'm glad you said one should not reject the whole as well.  This is true be it that the reasoning behind accepting these Bible stories as true is not in each individual story, but by looking at the Bible as a whole.  I'm sure you've heard a Christian somewhere down the line suggest that the Bible stories support themselves.  that's not a weak stance, but rather a stance that each story is written during a different time period by a different author than the rest.  This being the case, logically the stories should not flow, yet they do.  It's possible that someone down the line wanted to dupe their people into believing the stories, which then would make sense that flow from one story to another would be taken into consideration, but then we'd have to consider that each individual author had the same motivation for their people.  Highly unlikely.  Or if so, then it's also highly unlikely that they would have the same knowledge of the timeline.  We'll see more of this as we go on in the OT.  

It's possible and understood that you yourself might need more reasoning to consider these stories.  I wouldn't just hang on that reasoning alone and I don't.

My position on the Hebrew stories is no different than on the Reg Veda or any of the Sumerian or Babylonian adventures. There is likely something in all of them that has some basis in the real world. What that might be is very very hard to understand after thousands of years and a perspective that is quite different than the writers. What actually was being discussed in the supposed war in the Reg Veda? What or who were those claimed to be the Annuaki? What was really going on in 1000 BCE Palestine? These questions may never be answered.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Repeatable interaction outside our dimension of reality into the metaphysical or the dimension we cannot sense now with our 3D time dimension. The interaction should be repeatable by anyone with the proper technology or process.

this in reference to what demonstration needed....

That is reasonable.  I can see that.  In fact there are may reoccuring interactions thorughout the world and through history.  The only problem I can see with the "repeatable by anyone with the proper tech..."  would be that the only interactions that I'm aware of are specifically spiritual interactions, which means the interaction and the results that follow are at the discression and choice of the spiritual being that is being interacted with.  In other words, the interaction likely wouldn't be repeatable by anyone at any given time deeming the proper technology or process.  Not that it could never be repeated, but that it would be contingent upon the spirit.  e.g. Someone wants to test whether you'll order a coffee at Dunks every day for the next year.  Odds are you're going to make a choice not to buy the coffee at some point within the next year.  it would be then irrational to conclude that you never get coffee at Dunks because you chose not to on a specific day that one decided to check.  

The question I then would need to ask as far as what you'd need for a demonstration is, what would the constant be be it that the spiritual discresion can't be the constant.  The only way a test is repeatable is if there's a constant for a base.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Obviously I'm taking the long view here. Again. one man's miracle is another's technology. I can envision that many things will be developed as we progress in knowledge such that influences how I view what might be considered by most to be a "miracle".

do you see where I'm coming from though, about how regardless of what technology might be possible, it's dependent on what is possible in that moment in time?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm saying the stories are not true as written, that is not the same as saying the entire story is false. Parts obviously can shown to be false as in the example of Ai, already destroyed for 1000 years before the Joshua adventure.

ok, sorry for misunderstanding.  Would you say then that the geneological story up to this point is true, or more likely true than not? 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

My position on the Hebrew stories is no different than on the Reg Veda or any of the Sumerian or Babylonian adventures. There is likely something in all of them that has some basis in the real world. What that might be is very very hard to understand after thousands of years and a perspective that is quite different than the writers. What actually was being discussed in the supposed war in the Reg Veda? What or who were those claimed to be the Annuaki? What was really going on in 1000 BCE Palestine? These questions may never be answered.

 

exactly, and I agree.  Which is why no one could take the Bible based on history alone to say whether it was a valid part of history or not.  This applies to all of the historical stories.  


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi OPIE

The conversation that you're having is immature. You haven't answered logical questions as to the discernment of truth. If there is no absolute truth, then by definition there can be no absolute errors. So your very attempts to critique anything isn't justified.Your attempts to critque the scriptures actually refutes your atheism since it denies truth in the absolute but your refutations attempt to be in the absolute.

Please respond to this. Or are you going to just leave it alone? In order for you to attempt to disprove God you must a believe in God in order to do the disproving. You say my analogy is non applicable, then please tell me, if there no absolutes in truth or error as an atheist, then what is the engine you drive to discern truth from error in the Bible? What makes your engine go zoom zoom intellectually speaking.

Yeah, so what about the Sumerian Clay. What about the Paypri of Numbers in the 9th century B.C.

The NIV uses the Mazoretic Text. lol. Along with the NASB. So why use the JP? The NASB is the best translation, the KJV is 2nd best maybe. Maybe 3rd.

Again, how do you know what is true or false? The Sumerian text? So then the older the more accurate is your understanding? You are making the logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc then and Westcott and Hort are the most accurate translations out there.

Yes, the NASB is reliable, but there are some Varients, and the Varients are pratically never over essential issues like the deity of Christ. But regarding numbers or tense. For example, in Romans 10:17,

"faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God.

The MSS Uncials did not have puncuation. Well, i guess that had stopping points but it wasn't like what we have. And via 012 and 020 and others there is no comma. So via the context i would not use the comma. It would read like this:

"Faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God.

The Greek word for hearing means understanding in this verse. That is a common variance.

Look you're being extremely lazy very lazy. You are being inconsistent to what it means to be an atheist. So please address your presuppositional inconsistencies in your atheism in your little project in the task you set at hand in this thread. Since you cannot logically do this, then you realize that you are contradicting yourself philosophically speaking.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean, your contribution here

Jean, your contribution here would only apply if you were writing to someone who didn't believe in absolute truth - Christians like yourself.

I don't understand why you wrote this unless you're aiming this at caposkia (a Christian brother).

"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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Hola fryer McJean

So you screwed up the order for a #2 combo

 

Jean Chauvin McD's fry cook wrote:

The conversation that you're having is immature. You haven't answered logical questions as to the discernment of truth. If there is no absolute truth, then by definition there can be no absolute errors. So your very attempts to critique anything isn't justified.Your attempts to critque the scriptures actually refutes your atheism since it denies truth in the absolute but your refutations attempt to be in the absolute.

Any conversation with you is tonterías vanas.

 

Jean Chauvin McD's fry cook wrote:

Please respond to this. Or are you going to just leave it alone? In order for you to attempt to disprove God you must a believe in God in order to do the disproving. You say my analogy is non applicable, then please tell me, if there no absolutes in truth or error as an atheist, then what is the engine you drive to discern truth from error in the Bible? What makes your engine go zoom zoom intellectually speaking.

You still are missing el punto de la discusión.

Jean Chauvin McD's fry cook wrote:

Yeah, so what about the Sumerian Clay. What about the Paypri of Numbers in the 9th century B.C.

Sumerian clay tablets are the oldest writing available of humans that has survived. See etcsl.com

What about numbers? uno, dos tres . . . .

Jean Chauvin McD's fry cook wrote:

The NIV uses the Mazoretic Text. lol. Along with the NASB. So why use the JP? The NASB is the best translation, the KJV is 2nd best maybe. Maybe 3rd.

See previous comentarios

Jean Chauvin McD's fry cook wrote:

Again, how do you know what is true or false? The Sumerian text? So then the older the more accurate is your understanding?

But somehow you know. Oh yeah, you are privy to the dimension of fantasy and never was.

Jean Chauvin McD's fry cook wrote:

You are making the logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc then and Westcott and Hort are the most accurate translations out there.

 

Esto es excrementos de caballo or es más McD's philosophy student declaraciones injustificadas.

Jean Chauvin McD's fry cook wrote:

Yes, the NASB is reliable, but there are some Varients, and the Varients are pratically never over essential issues like the deity of Christ. But regarding numbers or tense. For example, in Romans 10:17,

"faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God.

 

"There is a sucker born every minute" - PT Barnum.

 

Jean Chauvin McD's fry cook wrote:

The MSS Uncials did not have puncuation. Well, i guess that had stopping points but it wasn't like what we have. And via 012 and 020 and others there is no comma. So via the context i would not use the comma. It would read like this:

"Faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God.

The Greek word for hearing means understanding in this verse. That is a common variance.

You apparently learned your writing composition without punctuation as well. Not to mention your uso excesivo de "via".

Jean Chauvin McD's fry cook wrote:

Look you're being extremely lazy very lazy. You are being inconsistent to what it means to be an atheist. So please address your presuppositional inconsistencies in your atheism in your little project in the task you set at hand in this thread. Since you cannot logically do this, then you realize that you are contradicting yourself philosophically speaking.

Your use of the tools made by lazy people like me is counter to your principios declarados. Since de acuerdo con usted nosotros have nada for verdad.

Jean Chauvin McD's fry cook wrote:

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Again, why quote a forged book?

____________________________________________________________
"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.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi OPIE

You're not going to answer the presuppositional problem with your starting point are you? You're going to ignore and hope it goes away. Typical hypocritical atheist.

To say that the Sumerian Text is older and thus more reliable or true is the logical fallcy of Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition. If this is true, then Weak Atheism isn't true since strong atheism came first and weak atheism came in the 70's via George Smith. Thus, since the documents for Weak Atheism were first, mainly via O'Hair in this century, then weak atheism is weak and not true. Thus it is not a lack of believe but a denial of God in proposition.

Also, if you insist on using the appeal to antiquity fallacy, then once again, the JP is NOT the one to use. You would want to use the Westcott and Hort text. There philosophy was also via the logical fallacy of appeal to antiquity. Jerome didn't even write in Green. lol. So why would you use Jeromes Lating over the Greek. Obviously you are going to find error. Dummy. lol.

and finally, since you are not answering the very core presuppositions that justify your reasoning of critque, then your critique is logically invalid. And in logic, you are don't have to answer an invalid argument.

I assume if  you're claiming to be a textual critic like Cloud then you would mean a Higher Textual Critic. These arguments were all done in the 19th century and refuted long ago.

So grow some balls and answer the question. You have fallen and  you can't get up. I don't mind playing your game but just realize, as you start, you're starting as a confused hypocrite.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Hola Friar McJeanie

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You're not going to answer the presuppositional problem with your starting point are you? You're going to ignore and hope it goes away. Typical hypocritical atheist.

You still don't get the point of this discussion do y'all.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

To say that the Sumerian Text is older and thus more reliable or true is the logical fallcy of Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition. If this is true, then Weak Atheism isn't true since strong atheism came first and weak atheism came in the 70's via George Smith. Thus, since the documents for Weak Atheism were first, mainly via O'Hair in this century, then weak atheism is weak and not true. Thus it is not a lack of believe but a denial of God in proposition.

This is not a discussion of atheism or god beliefs, though it drifts into short discussions upon occasion. Your intent with your line of discussion is not appropriate for the discussion at hand.

Your McD's philosophy views are not appropriate to discussing 2 Samuel.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Also, if you insist on using the appeal to antiquity fallacy, then once again, the JP is NOT the one to use. You would want to use the Westcott and Hort text. There philosophy was also via the logical fallacy of appeal to antiquity. Jerome didn't even write in Green. lol. So why would you use Jeromes Lating over the Greek. Obviously you are going to find error. Dummy. lol.

and finally, since you are not answering the very core presuppositions that justify your reasoning of critque, then your critique is logically invalid.

Can't you get that order straight McJeanie. A #2 combo please.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

And in logic, you are don't have to answer an invalid argument.

As your own admission,  your whole line of McD's philosophy student logic is invalid as it has nada to do with 2 Samuel.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I assume if  you're claiming to be a textual critic like Cloud then you would mean a Higher Textual Critic. These arguments were all done in the 19th century and refuted long ago.

You make an error by ass u me.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So grow some balls and answer the question. You have fallen and  you can't get up. I don't mind playing your game but just realize, as you start, you're starting as a confused hypocrite.

Balls have nada to do with 2 Samuel, except of course in David's case where he uses them in the soap opera stories on his concubines and wives, though the stories aren't as explicit as even cable soft core.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Jude is a forged book, why use it for a quote???

Does this indicate that you too are a faker??

____________________________________________________________
"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.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi

WOW. Evidently you are not fit for logical discussion. Now i see why you do not converse with me, you are intimidated since you cannot converse logically, but merely plagerize old arguments from over a 100 years ago that have been refuted.

Your presuppositions frame the way you go about your analysis which you wish not to talk about, You wish Chrisitans to just ignore all these important starting points, don't define your terms, and to be sloppy.

There's only two types of textual critics, higher or lower. Since you're an atheist you can only be higher since you claim to be a textual critic. If you were a lower textualy Critic you wouldn't be an atheist by definition. wow.

Before you start a project like this, I really advice you to define your terms, your presuppositions and your means of acceptance towards evidence within the framework of your epistemology. You've done none of this.

You're like the grandma giving a quarter to the young man who helps you with your groceries. Only there is no dime, no young man, and no groceries. Only the Grandma with old useless ideas.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Hi Y'all - Quarter or Dime?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

WOW.

I agree.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Evidently you are not fit for logical discussion. Now i see why you do not converse with me, you are intimidated since you cannot converse logically, but merely plagerize old arguments from over a 100 years ago that have been refuted.

Your presuppositions frame the way you go about your analysis which you wish not to talk about, You wish Chrisitans to just ignore all these important starting points, don't define your terms, and to be sloppy.

There's only two types of textual critics, higher or lower. Since you're an atheist you can only be higher since you claim to be a textual critic. If you were a lower textualy Critic you wouldn't be an atheist by definition. wow.

Before you start a project like this, I really advice you to define your terms, your presuppositions and your means of acceptance towards evidence within the framework of your epistemology. You've done none of this.

Perhaps reading what has been discussed already would bring you up to speed. You do read English do you not? I wonder sometimes, based on your English composition.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You're like the grandma giving a quarter to the young man who helps you with your groceries. Only there is no dime, no young man, and no groceries. Only the Grandma with old useless ideas.

Quarter or dime?

Can't you keep even your own thoughts together long enough to construct a single point?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Jude, a forged book, does this indicate something?

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Bulk reply

 Ok, so it seems at the beginning Jean was questioning your reasoning to only using the JPS and not other versions which tend to be considered better.  I would agree that the NASB is one of the best due to the consistency of being literal vs. trying to make it readable in English.  It would not hurt to consider using multiple versions.  i prefer the NASB, but will cross reference through different versions when there's a question of validity and accuracy.  

Jean then made some good references to other sources that could help in the historical walkthrough.  

Just to remind everyone, we were working through the latter parts of Samuel and progressing from there... now that the question of each methodology is out of the way, let's progress.  

Jean any additional input on historical support for the books of Samuel.  Both JPTS and I agree that there really isn't much historically.  My take is that it's supported by the progression of the timeline that has been flowing through the books of the OT up to this point.  Other OT stories we've already covered seem to have a bit more support in history than these particular ones.  

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: Ok, so it

caposkia wrote:

 Ok, so it seems at the beginning Jean was questioning your reasoning to only using the JPS and not other versions which tend to be considered better.  I would agree that the NASB is one of the best due to the consistency of being literal vs. trying to make it readable in English.  It would not hurt to consider using multiple versions.  i prefer the NASB, but will cross reference through different versions when there's a question of validity and accuracy. 

I do read the other versions including NASB, NIV, Douay-Rheims, KJV. I usually start with JPS and if it's not clear enough in it I look at the others. When there is conflict between versions I stick with the JPS, you already knew this Cap.

caposkia wrote:

Jean then made some good references to other sources that could help in the historical walkthrough. 

 

The problem is Jean is so interested in waging nuclear war that anything of value he might have included gets lost while he is launching cruise missiles and attempting shock and awe.

caposkia wrote:

Just to remind everyone, we were working through the latter parts of Samuel and progressing from there... now that the question of each methodology is out of the way, let's progress. 

I am working on the next few chapters, though as I indicated they could have come from Telemundo or As The World Turns as they are very soapy.

caposkia wrote:

Jean any additional input on historical support for the books of Samuel.  Both JPTS and I agree that there really isn't much historically.  My take is that it's supported by the progression of the timeline that has been flowing through the books of the OT up to this point.  Other OT stories we've already covered seem to have a bit more support in history than these particular ones.  

 

We agree, there is little in history to support the earlier stories. We disagree that the storyline is supported by reality or as you suggest it is supported by the progression of the time line. I see it very differently, more a continuation of storytelling so far.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
The soap opera continues - 2 Sam 13-18

The soap opera continues - 2 Sam 13-18

2 Samuel 13

One of David's sons Absalom had a hottie for a sister named Tamar. One of the other sons of David, a half brother called Amnon had the hots for her. She was a virgin and he wanted her. He with the help of a friend schemes a plan where he can be along with her so he can do her. He pretends to be sick and wanted Tamar to come to him. She does. He does her against her will. She is sent out as Amnon now despised her. She put ashes on her head and rent her clothes. Absalom learns from Tamar what has happened. King David hears of the event and is pissed. Absalom  spoke to Amnon over the issue but neither good nor bad. 2 years passes and Absalom has his own plan for revenge. He arranges for all the king's sons to Baalhazor where he had his sheep being sheared to party out. He expressly wanted Amnon to come. Absalom orders his servants to kill Amnon when he is trashed. They do. All of the other sons flee. David hears that Absalom has killed all of his sons. He learns it is but Amnon, the rapist incestuous son. The king is told not to let it bother him as it was only Amnon. Never the less Absalom flees to the king of Geshur where he stays for 3 years.

2 Samuel 14

David's servant Joab understood that David wanted Absalom to come home and schemes to have him return. He gets a woman from Tekoa to go the David and made up a pretend story similar to David's situation with his sons. He eventually determines that Joab is behind it. He then ordered Joab to fetch Absalom home. He does, Absalom returns home.

2 Samuel 15 This chapter will raise an issue in regard to time periods, I will point it out.

Time passes and Absalom is scheming himself. He is the 1st to interview all that come to David for judgment. He always tells them it's too bad there is none to judge as the king will not. He tells them all the same thing, if he were king he'd help them out. In verse 7 we have this statement, " And it came to pass at the end of forty years, that Absalom said unto the king". 40 years after Absalom came home? Or 40 years into David's reign? Or when Absalom was 40 years old? All have the same problem as David ruled for but 40 years, see 1 Kings 2:11. Since David died after 40 years of rule everything from here to 1 Kings 2 must have all occurred quickly.

Let's see if that is possible. Going forward from this point we have a civil war started by Absalom. It lasts for an unknown period of time. David leaves Jerusalem and Absalom and the rebels take over. Time passes, battles occur, Absalom is murdered by Joab. Time passes. David goes back to Jerusalem. Sheba rebels against David. Sheba and his rebels are killed. Time passes. In chapter 21, 3 years of famine happen. What's this, can this be? 40 + 3 = 43 years. Problem here methinks. There are several more chapters describing events in regard to David, so perhaps this legend has some issues, like perhaps it's not correct.

This why why you need an outline when you write a story, so you can keep it straight.

Anyway back to chapter 15.

Absalom asks David to take leave and go to Hebron. David says OK. Absalom however had plans to be declared king and revolt. Along with Absalom went 200 innocent men who had no idea of his plan. David learns that the people are behind Absalom from a messenger. He decides to flee Jerusalem, there is a long detailed list of those that leave. The ark is taken along but David sends it back along with the priest Zadok and his sons. David also sends Hushai his friend and servant back to spy on Absalom.

Chapter 16
Ziba a servant of Mephibosheth met David's party, with 2 asses carrying 200 loaves of bread, raisins fruits, and only a single bottle of wine, sale at the local market perhaps? David asked him what was the deal and Ziba told him the asses are for the king's household, the foodstuffs are for the young men while the wine is for those that might be faint in the wilderness. David asked him where his master's son was and was told he was in Jerusalem. He also told him that today, the house of Israel would restore him his father's kingdom.


David's entourage continues and encounters Shimei the son of Geraa of the house of Saul. He cursed them throwing rocks at them. Calling David a man of blood and Belial. He said that David received that which he deserved for all the blood he had done of the house of Saul. David's men wanted to kill Shimei but David said to let him continue his cursing because perhaps the god has said to Shimei to curse David.


As mentioned by me earlier, to know David was a life shortening possibility based on these story telling episodes, not to mention you were also likely to have your wife, mistress, concubine or girlfriend taken from you by David.
Meanwhile, Absalom arrives at Jerusalem as does David's spy Hushai. Hushai claims he will serve and work for Absalom as he did for David. Absalom also violates taboo by going into the concubines of David, supposedly before all of Israel. The text does not mention if this was a sexual event or not, either way it violated taboos.


Chapter 17


Ahithophel counsels Absalom to get an army together of 12,000 men to chase down David and kill him, exact word used is smite the king. This then will bring peace to Israel. Absalom was pleased at the thought of parentcide and being the king. His bubble however is burst by more level headed advice from Hushai who says that Ahithophel's counsel is not good. He tells Absalom you know your father and his men to be mighty men and they are riled up and fierce  as a bear robbed of her cubs. He and his men will not let this go and will not stay with the people, as he is hiding out in a cave or someplace. If he is attacked rumors will be such that people will lose heart as he will fall upon the attackers. What he said should be done is all Israel should go after him lead by Absalom. This would bring about the end of the king and his men.


Hushai then inform Zadok of what was discussed. He tells him to let the king know he should leave the wilderness and cross the river. Then Ahithophel saw his advice was not followed put his affairs in order and killed himself. Perhaps he didn't want to put publicly executed after David eventually stopped the rebellion. There is discussion of a resupply by Shobi with his genealogy listed to give it "the power of legitimacy". This is done many times to make stories seem credible regardless of whether they were creative or documentaries.


Chapter 18


David divided his forces and placed commanders over the thousands and the hundreds. He then put 1/3 under Joab, 1/3 under Abishai the son of Zeruiah, Joab's brother and 1/3 under Ittai the Gittite. David wanted to lead them all but his men told him not to in case they had to flee or were routed. So David stays by the gate of the city. City? What city? I thought they had gone over the river Jordan. David told his commanders not to kill Absalom.


The people of Israel went in battle against David's servants in the forest of Ephraim. 20,000 of Israel were slain and defeated that day. The forest killed more than the swords of David's servants. Is this where Tolkien got the scene for the 2 Towers? Where the trees grab people and smash them? OK, they weren't really people in that story.  Trees kill? Really? Really!! In chapter 17 we were discussing only 12,000 men, perhaps 8,000 more wandered into Absalom's army.


Absalom encounters David's servants while riding on a mule and he got his hair caught in a very thick bough of an oak tree. One of Joab's men saw this and told him of it. Joab asked why he had not killed him. The men mentioned the command not to kill Absalom. Joab, wasted no time and thrust 3 spears into Absalom's heart. Then Joab's armor bearers finished him off. Joab blew the trumpet to call off the battle and Israel fled as they had lost. The body was taken and dumped in a pit then covered with stones. Then we have an explanation of why some monument has a name to this day (when this was written) called Absalom's monument. The final verses have some playing around on telling David what has occurred and that Absalom is dead.


Moral of this chapter -


If you have rebelled and made yourself the king, do not go into the woods if you have very long hair unless you have a very good hair tie as your hair shall be thine own enemy and be thine end.
In other words, if you have long hair, don't go riding a mule through thickets or you will get it caught and then die.


These chapters are just storytelling with nothing of substance that can be verified. As always, I don't buy that 20,000 men of Israel were slain that day, especially with the trees doing the majority of the slaying.
Could a scaled back version have some basis in the real world? Possible, but so are any of the stories from Sumer and Greece that are detailed like this story. I have no way to tell what is true and what is not, except of course the bloated numbers are not true once again.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi

Have we discussed the Tel Dan Stele and 1Q7 of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, not only should you consider the Masoretic Text but the LXX. The Masoretic text was "lost" for a time then picked back up. So we are via probablity of a kind of analysis piecing it back together. The LXX however was relied upon by the Jews themselves.

So the LXX for the entire TaNaK along with the DSS and the Stele. This also doesn't include the archeological "evidence" throughout the book. David and Goliath. These are very old findings you should be familar with

The Mesha Stele as a inscription for the "House of David."

What about Tell es-Safi and the  ALWT WLT?

What about Josephus in Antiquities 6.171? 

All these things you must address since they are an ad hominem towards your sin of unbelief. These are no evidences but rather ad hominems for you. I do not approch the Bible via A B C supports the BIble. Empiricism never supports the Bible. The argument is backwards.

There are other archeological findings and Stele's but with what there is, you must respond or be among the many of a kind of corpse of intellect

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Have we discussed the Tel Dan Stele and 1Q7 of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Yes. If you had read the thread you'd know this. We will come back to it when we get to the stories in 2 Kings. This is what happens when you start talking in the middle of a movie without understanding what has transpired. See post 473 and several posts after it.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Also, not only should you consider the Masoretic Text but the LXX. The Masoretic text was "lost" for a time then picked back up. So we are via probablity of a kind of analysis piecing it back together. The LXX however was relied upon by the Jews themselves.

So the LXX for the entire TaNaK along with the DSS and the Stele. This also doesn't include the archeological "evidence" throughout the book. David and Goliath. These are very old findings you should be familar with.

I'm aware of this. Can you try to stay on track with the discussion.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The Mesha Stele as a inscription for the "House of David."

As with the Tel Dan inscription, we will discuss this too when we get to the 2 kings and 2 chron accounts. You realize that these accounts differ right?

1 - Mesha stele - Moab pushed Israel out of the area east of the Jordan river.

2- 2 kings - Judah helps Moab defeat Israel.

3- 2 Chron - Moab, Ammon and mt Seir invade Judah.

Judah helps Moab or Moab invades Judah. A bit different.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

What about Tell es-Safi and the  ALWT WLT?

From scraps you wish to build mountains?

There are scraps in Akkadian tablets talking of Enki. Was he real? Did he brew beer? Was he irrestible to all females?

And Herakles is mentioned in many places too in Greek storytelling.

ALWT WLT are small scraps on a potsherd. It takes extreme imagination from those living under high voltage power transmission lines to come up with it validates anything.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

What about Josephus in Antiquities 6.171?

So joesphus indicates he was 6'9" tall, so was one of my uncles. And???

see - http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/how-tall-was-goliath/

Does this mean all legends are true? Where's Atlantis? Where were the people fighting across the sea in the hindu Vedas. Where are their air ships?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

All these things you must address

 

Learn to be patient and we will discuus these things as we go through the stories.

Since you came in mid movie, you will have to wait until we finish in a year or 2 if you are still alive to go back.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

since they are an ad hominem towards your sin of unbelief.

McD's backroom philosophy student drivel.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

These are no evidences but rather ad hominems for you. I do not approch the Bible via A B C supports the BIble. Empiricism never supports the Bible. The argument is backwards.

Your English composition is so bad I cannot understand your points.

You appear to indicate  that the bible is unsupportable. If so, we agree, the Bible is hyped legends with some points in regard to how to live one's life, including examples, parables, storytelling, and propaganda.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

There are other archeological findings and Stele's but with what there is, you must respond or be among the many of a kind of corpse of intellect

And we will discuss their relevance as we encounter the stories to which they may pertain.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Still quoting a forgery?

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I do read the other versions including NASB, NIV, Douay-Rheims, KJV. I usually start with JPS and if it's not clear enough in it I look at the others. When there is conflict between versions I stick with the JPS, you already knew this Cap.

yea, I did.  I remember you telling me this before.  Just curious... do you know if the JPS uses the Dead Sea Scrolls in its translation?  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

The problem is Jean is so interested in waging nuclear war that anything of value he might have included gets lost while he is launching cruise missiles and attempting shock and awe.

...which is one reason why I hope he keeps it toned down... for the most part so far... it seems he's keeping it less than his usual.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

We agree, there is little in history to support the earlier stories. We disagree that the storyline is supported by reality or as you suggest it is supported by the progression of the time line. I see it very differently, more a continuation of storytelling so far.

With the compilation of historical support for aspects of previous stories, it's getting harder and harder to just call it story telling.  It's one thing when with all the stories combined, you find a piece of historical support here and there, but each story seems to have a small chunk that is able to be studied, combined it starts looking more like a sufficient amount of history to start questioning any motif to deem them just stories.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Let's see if that is possible. Going forward from this point we have a civil war started by Absalom. It lasts for an unknown period of time. David leaves Jerusalem and Absalom and the rebels take over. Time passes, battles occur, Absalom is murdered by Joab. Time passes. David goes back to Jerusalem. Sheba rebels against David. Sheba and his rebels are killed. Time passes. In chapter 21, 3 years of famine happen. What's this, can this be? 40 + 3 = 43 years. Problem here methinks. There are several more chapters describing events in regard to David, so perhaps this legend has some issues, like perhaps it's not correct.

This why why you need an outline when you write a story, so you can keep it straight.

We understand and have agreed that timing/dates aren't exact and that the stories weren't written or told by government sources, therefore the literacy and accuracy is understandably skewed.  It's funny after all we've talked about that you can do some math with such a small period of time mentioned and use it to question the story's validity.  

My take would not be that it's not correct, but that it's likely not in chronological order.  All the author knows is that these events happened...  as far as what order they happened... well he likely doesn't know and is guessing by what he was told, also because he knows that chronology isn't as important as mentioning the events period.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


Anyway back to chapter 15.

If you have rebelled and made yourself the king, do not go into the woods if you have very long hair unless you have a very good hair tie as your hair shall be thine own enemy and be thine end.
In other words, if you have long hair, don't go riding a mule through thickets or you will get it caught and then die.


These chapters are just storytelling with nothing of substance that can be verified. As always, I don't buy that 20,000 men of Israel were slain that day, especially with the trees doing the majority of the slaying.
Could a scaled back version have some basis in the real world? Possible, but so are any of the stories from Sumer and Greece that are detailed like this story. I have no way to tell what is true and what is not, except of course the bloated numbers are not true once again.

The slaying could imply Godly intervention.  Either way, We've agreed about the bloated numbers being consistent in history generally speaking, so why is it that you keep using that as an excuse to disregard these stories as historically valid?   Lack of historical information generally, I get that, but I thought we've clarified the rest.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

These are no evidences but rather ad hominems for you. I do not approch the Bible via A B C supports the BIble. Empiricism never supports the Bible. The argument is backwards.

Quote:

Your English composition is so bad I cannot understand your points.

You appear to indicate  that the bible is unsupportable. If so, we agree, the Bible is hyped legends with some points in regard to how to live one's life, including examples, parables, storytelling, and propaganda.

 

Empiricism is experiential support.  He's saying one can't support the Bible by experience, it never works because most of what is mentioned has not been experienced by anyone we can speak to.  

To say that Empiricism doesn't support something is not to say that it's not supportable, only that you're not going to find someone who was there and experienced it to tell you about it first hand.  We can only go by what is written down at this point.  

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I do read the other versions including NASB, NIV, Douay-Rheims, KJV. I usually start with JPS and if it's not clear enough in it I look at the others. When there is conflict between versions I stick with the JPS, you already knew this Cap.

yea, I did.  I remember you telling me this before.  Just curious... do you know if the JPS uses the Dead Sea Scrolls in its translation? 

No it is from the MT. There is high correlation between the MT and most of the DSS. Visit Virtual Jewish encyclopedia I think.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

The problem is Jean is so interested in waging nuclear war that anything of value he might have included gets lost while he is launching cruise missiles and attempting shock and awe.

...which is one reason why I hope he keeps it toned down... for the most part so far... it seems he's keeping it less than his usual.

He is not on track with this thread. He calls atheists lazy but doesn't read through 500 posts to catch up. If he was a reasonable person, I might consider summary discussions. Nothing about Jean on this site indicates he is that type of person, including his own comments about himself.

I told him I will not play his way.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

We agree, there is little in history to support the earlier stories. We disagree that the storyline is supported by reality or as you suggest it is supported by the progression of the time line. I see it very differently, more a continuation of storytelling so far.

With the compilation of historical support for aspects of previous stories, it's getting harder and harder to just call it story telling.  It's one thing when with all the stories combined, you find a piece of historical support here and there, but each story seems to have a small chunk that is able to be studied, combined it starts looking more like a sufficient amount of history to start questioning any motif to deem them just stories. 

 

One can say this about the Sumerian stories as well. If you put them all together do they really form actual reality once upon a time long long ago?

We still have no proof of David, we have mention of his house, not anything from elsewhere that gives him substance.

And there is always the little fantasy magic episodes spread in the stories that detracts them from the reality we see.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Let's see if that is possible. Going forward from this point we have a civil war started by Absalom. It lasts for an unknown period of time. David leaves Jerusalem and Absalom and the rebels take over. Time passes, battles occur, Absalom is murdered by Joab. Time passes. David goes back to Jerusalem. Sheba rebels against David. Sheba and his rebels are killed. Time passes. In chapter 21, 3 years of famine happen. What's this, can this be? 40 + 3 = 43 years. Problem here methinks. There are several more chapters describing events in regard to David, so perhaps this legend has some issues, like perhaps it's not correct.

This why why you need an outline when you write a story, so you can keep it straight.

We understand and have agreed that timing/dates aren't exact and that the stories weren't written or told by government sources, therefore the literacy and accuracy is understandably skewed.  It's funny after all we've talked about that you can do some math with such a small period of time mentioned and use it to question the story's validity.  

My take would not be that it's not correct, but that it's likely not in chronological order.  All the author knows is that these events happened...  as far as what order they happened... well he likely doesn't know and is guessing by what he was told, also because he knows that chronology isn't as important as mentioning the events period.

I agree with you that these stories are not correct as presented.

I question the writer's available information in this case. He mentions 40 years and that is how long other books claimed David reigned. It doesn't come out very smooth.

These issues aren't just for you Cap, I know you see these problems too.

 

caposkia wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


Anyway back to chapter 15.

If you have rebelled and made yourself the king, do not go into the woods if you have very long hair unless you have a very good hair tie as your hair shall be thine own enemy and be thine end.
In other words, if you have long hair, don't go riding a mule through thickets or you will get it caught and then die.


These chapters are just storytelling with nothing of substance that can be verified. As always, I don't buy that 20,000 men of Israel were slain that day, especially with the trees doing the majority of the slaying.
Could a scaled back version have some basis in the real world? Possible, but so are any of the stories from Sumer and Greece that are detailed like this story. I have no way to tell what is true and what is not, except of course the bloated numbers are not true once again.

The slaying could imply Godly intervention.  Either way, We've agreed about the bloated numbers being consistent in history generally speaking, so why is it that you keep using that as an excuse to disregard these stories as historically valid?   Lack of historical information generally, I get that, but I thought we've clarified the rest.

The civil war between David and his group and the followers of Absalom has one of those little episodes of magic and fantasy in it in regards to the woods killing more than David's servants did.

The numbers will always cause issues as to credibility of the writer. If he bloated that, what else did he fictionalize?

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

These are no evidences but rather ad hominems for you. I do not approch the Bible via A B C supports the BIble. Empiricism never supports the Bible. The argument is backwards.

 

Your English composition is so bad I cannot understand your points.

You appear to indicate  that the bible is unsupportable. If so, we agree, the Bible is hyped legends with some points in regard to how to live one's life, including examples, parables, storytelling, and propaganda.

 

 

Empiricism is experiential support.  He's saying one can't support the Bible by experience, it never works because most of what is mentioned has not been experienced by anyone we can speak to.  

To say that Empiricism doesn't support something is not to say that it's not supportable, only that you're not going to find someone who was there and experienced it to tell you about it first hand.  We can only go by what is written down at this point.  

Jeanize is not a recognized language. If he chooses to be snarky and intermingle excrementos de caballo (horse crap) with his points he will get similar responses from me in return.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1573
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
re: How about sit down and read some of the materials ?

re: How about sit down and read some of the materials ?

 

Quote:
bobspence1 wrote: what is the ultimate reference point before you have a proper reference point

Quote:
Jean_chauvin wrote: To say that the Sumerian Text is older and thus more reliable or true is the logical fallcy of Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition.

   Should we just brush aside older texts with respect to their  possible  implications as it relates to the Bible?  Not to break anyone's balls  but I have noticed it is obvious too many have never sat down and read Sumerian and Ugaritic texts. (it would help if they had).

 

 

 

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:re: How

danatemporary wrote:

re: How about sit down and read some of the materials ?

 

Quote:
bobspence1 wrote: what is the ultimate reference point before you have a proper reference point

Quote:
Jean_chauvin wrote: To say that the Sumerian Text is older and thus more reliable or true is the logical fallcy of Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition.

   Should we just brush aside older texts with respect to their  possible  implications as it relates to the Bible?  Not to break anyone's balls  but I have noticed it is obvious too many have never sat down and read Sumerian and Ugaritic texts. (it would help if they had).

 This is something I have mentioned repeatedly in this thread. I have spent many hours reading the Sumerian and Ugaritic texts. A good place to start is the site , http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 This is something I have mentioned repeatedly in this thread. I have spent many hours reading the Sumerian and Ugaritic texts. A good place to start is the site , http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/ 

 

PJTS, 

My reading of the Sumerian text obviously is difficult, strange and out there. Growing up with the bible and in the U.S. it seems more natural and "real". Perhaps it is like learning a different language. I hope you get what I mean. Since you have been reading these Sumerian/Ugaritic does it get as natural as your reading of the bible?

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
As an Ex-Christian,

As an Ex-Christian, indoctrinated from birth, it's like learning to use your left hand when you are right handed.

 

ex-minister wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 This is something I have mentioned repeatedly in this thread. I have spent many hours reading the Sumerian and Ugaritic texts. A good place to start is the site , http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/ 

 

PJTS, 

My reading of the Sumerian text obviously is difficult, strange and out there. Growing up with the bible and in the U.S. it seems more natural and "real". Perhaps it is like learning a different language. I hope you get what I mean. Since you have been reading these Sumerian/Ugaritic does it get as natural as your reading of the bible?

 

As we were brought up on the Bible stories we learned when we were very young all of the characters deemed important, at least that's what happened to me. I was brought up on all of the stories 1st starting with picture books, reinforced every week in Sunday School, discussed everyday with my mother a former Lutheran school teacher. What this does is make the characters more real.

In the case of the Sumarian/Akkadian gods and Ugaritic gods and stories the unfamilar characters are difficult to follow until you do a similar thing. Once you get the basis of their stories, who did what and who was the god of this, and what characters interacted with them it becomes easier. As there are no longer any Sumerian priests like there are countless preachers there is no set way to follow. Develop a chart or outline for each set and learn how they interact with one another, that may help.

Ancient history has been something for which I have always had a fascination. When learning of their gods it is helpful to understand more about their cultures and history as well. There are many books on these ancient civilzations as well as many web sites.

Here's a few sites -

http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/index.html

http://phoenicia.org/

http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/canaanite-ugaritic-mythology/index.html

http://www.adath-shalom.ca/ugarit.htm

http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/531.php

This site has some good articles, though some are in Spanish ( my 2nd language), some are conjecture and some are unrealistic - http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sumer_annunaki.htm

And there's always Google Books too - http://books.google.com/books/about/Religious_texts_from_Ugarit.html?id=m85MB7RkgEIC

Wki has good lists for both summarizing the gods -

Sumerian - Mesopotamian gods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mesopotamian_deities

Ugaritic gods - mythology - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugaritic_mythology#Pantheon

Anyway, maybe that will help you get a start somewhere.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

We agree, there is little in history to support the earlier stories. We disagree that the storyline is supported by reality or as you suggest it is supported by the progression of the time line. I see it very differently, more a continuation of storytelling so far.

With the compilation of historical support for aspects of previous stories, it's getting harder and harder to just call it story telling.  It's one thing when with all the stories combined, you find a piece of historical support here and there, but each story seems to have a small chunk that is able to be studied, combined it starts looking more like a sufficient amount of history to start questioning any motif to deem them just stories. 

 

One can say this about the Sumerian stories as well. If you put them all together do they really form actual reality once upon a time long long ago?

We still have no proof of David, we have mention of his house, not anything from elsewhere that gives him substance.

And there is always the little fantasy magic episodes spread in the stories that detracts them from the reality we see.

 

 

If in fact the Sumerian stories had just as much support in history or more and the compilation of all the different unrelated stories from unrelated authors from different generations not only flowed as smoothly with a timeline, but also as a whole did not take place of another more credible timeline that could sit in the exact spot in history that their stories took place, then yes, they could form actual reality a long long time ago.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I agree with you that these stories are not correct as presented.

I question the writer's available information in this case. He mentions 40 years and that is how long other books claimed David reigned. It doesn't come out very smooth.

These issues aren't just for you Cap, I know you see these problems too.

sure I see these "problems" but i don't see them as problems.  These stories and their "problems" are congruent with any other historical story from that time era and earlier.  Considering the source and the fact that most of the authors weren't there watching and recording the events, these "problems" don't shed any light on suspicion of these stories not actually taking place.   Only that they weren't eye witness accounts, as to which, most government based documents of the time weren't either, but they had more resources as far as recording date and time and logically so.  To question the validity of these stories based on these "problems" we'd have to question the validity of history in general from these time periods and prior.  
Just a note, say a well educated person made up a story during that time.  They'd likely get names and dates more accurate and/or made sure that any varience in those details would be so minute that there'd be no reason to question the validity.  If anything, the "problems" only further validate due to the manner at which stories were passed around during that time.  We can be assured that these stories were carefully passed down from generation to generation to even be as accurate as they are.  Otherwise, there wouldn't even be an effort at dating or geneology, only that it happened.  The main reason why you see many many examples of who begot who in the OT is to further validate its place in history.  We're futher out of place, but geneology was extremely important to families back then and to claim a false genealogy would easily be refuted by the family it was claimed of.  

 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

The civil war between David and his group and the followers of Absalom has one of those little episodes of magic and fantasy in it in regards to the woods killing more than David's servants did.

The numbers will always cause issues as to credibility of the writer. If he bloated that, what else did he fictionalize?

news gets information wrong all the time.. but no one questions the basis of the story due to their ignorace.  why should this be any different?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Jeanize is not a recognized language.

 

I know.  I'm just trying to translate some of the details for the benefit of this thread.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: Should

danatemporary wrote:

 Should we just brush aside older texts with respect to their  possible  implications as it relates to the Bible?  Not to break anyone's balls  but I have noticed it is obvious too many have never sat down and read Sumerian and Ugaritic texts. (it would help if they had).[/Size]

 

Should always take all texts into consideration.  So far the only comparison is time period and form of writing.  If in fact they do follow the same protocol as the Bible stories have, then they likely should be considered valid in history as well.  It might help if I go read to see if in fact they do follow the same.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Here's a few sites -

http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/index.html

http://phoenicia.org/

http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/canaanite-ugaritic-mythology/index.html

http://www.adath-shalom.ca/ugarit.htm

http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/531.php

This site has some good articles, though some are in Spanish ( my 2nd language), some are conjecture and some are unrealistic - http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sumer_annunaki.htm

And there's always Google Books too - http://books.google.com/books/about/Religious_texts_from_Ugarit.html?id=m85MB7RkgEIC

Wki has good lists for both summarizing the gods -

Sumerian - Mesopotamian gods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mesopotamian_deities

Ugaritic gods - mythology - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugaritic_mythology#Pantheon

Anyway, maybe that will help you get a start somewhere.

 

 

I will look into these as well.  it'll be interesting be it that some of the Sumerian text is related to the Hebrew texts.  I'm pretty sure if I remember correctly that some of those were taken into consideration when compiling and translating the stories.  As we've mentioned, there are 100's of sources involved in the compilation and translation of the OT.  Yet still furthering its validation in history be it that most of those sources would not have had a means of comparing notes to make sure they were congruent.