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: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: 1. If they

jcgadfly wrote:

 

1. If they have different characteristics - the stories aren't congruent (are they?).

Different retellings of the same story don't make them incongruent unless the information had is misinterpreted by a particular source.  The process of creation is congruent in each story.  it is my understanding that is what's in question.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. If both sides ceased fire the battlefield was not active.

Ok, it went inactive for about 15 minutes the sake of this one missionary.  highly unlikely... and 15 minutes is hardly enough time to call it not active.

jcgadfly wrote:

2b. "a missionary"? Sounds like a dubious story.

and it would be if it wasn't witnessed... it's not the missionary retelling this story.  Take the fact that it was a missionary out of the equation and the story sounds even less likely due to the fact that there would then be no likely reason that person would have been in that location at all.

jcgadfly wrote:

3. No proof of God there - could just be a tolerance to the poison (or it could be coincidence).

could be... or it could be recognition of God... we can make assumptions all day.. when it comes down to it, there's only one true reasoning behind it.

jcgadfly wrote:

3b. See 2b and replace "a missionary" with "someone". Anonymous stories are hard to verify.

the problem is it's not anonymous.  The missionary is known by many, though I don't remember her name.  The people who told me the story were there first hand and are not known to make stuff up.  i have no reason to doubt them.  

jcgadfly wrote:

4. The bullet didn't kil the guy. the staph infection did.

He was referencing to the idea that ti was literally teh only way this person could die, in other words, he could nto have died by any other way than to be shot in the ankle.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I was obviously referring to Daniel.

Why both sides stop firing could be respect for the religious man. When was this?

this happened within our lifetimes... I'm pretty sure within the last 20 years.  A battle doesn't stop just because someone needs to get through regardless of who they are.. typically one would have to wait or take the risk.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Was his body already decaying? Here I referred to Lazarus.

Was Lazarus' body decaying?  it mentions they were worried that it was going to start decaying.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

Here I meant Achilles who supposedly could be run through the heart, and live. The only spot according to the legend was his ankle. A staph infection would not have killed him unless the arrow pierced his ankle.

Note, it's not just the OT legends I question.

of course not.  I know the legend.  This person likely seemed invincible and then was witnessed being taken down by a shot in the ankle.  It's possible this person had some lucky runs with battles where it looked like he got hit when he didn't.  Then again, did he have divine protection and is it possible he was healed.  I haven't heard of stories to this extreme, but I guess it could be possible.  I'd lean toward the first assumption that he had some lucky runs.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Dagon

 Seeing as there was a lul in conversation, i went back and reviewed the last link you gave me about Dagon being the god of the philistines along with some Biblical links.  

I forget what I might have already said about Dagon, but it is noted that Dagon was the god of the philistines, but second in power to El.  The Bible makes reference to Dagon in a few places including Judges as the god of the Philistines.  The link goes into detail about specific philistine groups where Dagon was mainly worshiped.  This leads me to understand that not all groups of philistines saw Dagon as their main god.  Again he was second in power to El and apparently was the father of Ba'al.  

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: Seeing as

caposkia wrote:

 Seeing as there was a lul in conversation, i went back and reviewed the last link you gave me about Dagon being the god of the philistines along with some Biblical links.  

I forget what I might have already said about Dagon, but it is noted that Dagon was the god of the philistines, but second in power to El.  The Bible makes reference to Dagon in a few places including Judges as the god of the Philistines.  The link goes into detail about specific philistine groups where Dagon was mainly worshiped.  This leads me to understand that not all groups of philistines saw Dagon as their main god.  Again he was second in power to El and apparently was the father of Ba'al.  

 

And since Yahweh is also a member of El's pantheon can we at last accept that Christianity is no more than the worship of the regional gods of Canaan and Philistia?

"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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 Seeing as there was a lul in conversation, i went back and reviewed the last link you gave me about Dagon being the god of the philistines along with some Biblical links.  

I forget what I might have already said about Dagon, but it is noted that Dagon was the god of the philistines, but second in power to El.  The Bible makes reference to Dagon in a few places including Judges as the god of the Philistines.  The link goes into detail about specific philistine groups where Dagon was mainly worshiped.  This leads me to understand that not all groups of philistines saw Dagon as their main god.  Again he was second in power to El and apparently was the father of Ba'al.  

 

And since Yahweh is also a member of El's pantheon can we at last accept that Christianity is no more than the worship of the regional gods of Canaan and Philistia?

YHWH is the God of the israelites.  What support do you have that El and YHWH originated in the same pantheon?

Just a quick sidepoint too.  We're discussing specifically about the book of Samuel right now and we're trying not to deviate too much from that at this point.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 Seeing as there was a lul in conversation, i went back and reviewed the last link you gave me about Dagon being the god of the philistines along with some Biblical links.  

I forget what I might have already said about Dagon, but it is noted that Dagon was the god of the philistines, but second in power to El.  The Bible makes reference to Dagon in a few places including Judges as the god of the Philistines.  The link goes into detail about specific philistine groups where Dagon was mainly worshiped.  This leads me to understand that not all groups of philistines saw Dagon as their main god.  Again he was second in power to El and apparently was the father of Ba'al.  

 

And since Yahweh is also a member of El's pantheon can we at last accept that Christianity is no more than the worship of the regional gods of Canaan and Philistia?

YHWH is the God of the israelites.  What support do you have that El and YHWH originated in the same pantheon?

Just a quick sidepoint too.  We're discussing specifically about the book of Samuel right now and we're trying not to deviate too much from that at this point.

I'd think figuring out which God you're worshiping would be more than a sidetrack. Oh well../

http://biomystic.org/elvsyah.htm

http://northernway.org/fathergod.html

http://drchris.me/higgaion/?p=445

 

"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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: I'd think

jcgadfly wrote:

 

I'd think figuring out which God you're worshiping would be more than a sidetrack. Oh well../

http://biomystic.org/elvsyah.htm

http://northernway.org/fathergod.html

http://drchris.me/higgaion/?p=445

 

be it that our focus right now is the Bible, anything outside of that for this thread is a sidetrack.

i checked out your links.  

The first 2 seem to elude to the idea that both El and YHWH are the same God.  I thought you were claiming that both were different gods and that they both were 'created' in the same pantheon.  I was looking for evidence to point to the creation of these gods within that one pantheon.  To suggest they're one and the same god does not suggest in any way they were invented in that pantheon.  It only points to the idea that El and YHWH are the same God, which can easily be supported in the Bible be it there are many Hebrew texts that refer to the Jewish God as "El".

AT least your 3rd link seems to go into a bit more depth on the subject and seems to be directed more toward what you were trying to say.

It details the idea of YHWH and El being originally viewed as separate gods then eventually after a certain point were merged into one.  

The article is well detailed and goes into how certain Biblical authors seem to be the source of the merge.  though it is good point out that there was more than 1 author that merged the 2 into 1 god.  and a point was made in the comments, just because Hosea brought the 2 together doesn't mean all subsequent authors would necessarily agree with him.  

I say if they do, why was it so easy for these educated authors to accept that merge?  Could it possibly be that YHWH and El were the same God all along?  

The problem with your perspective and the links is it's taking into consideration only what people groups viewed these 2 names to be.  Not what they ultimately might have been nor why it was so easy to merge the 2.   i see it as kind of an identity problem on the people's part.  God claims to have been known by many names.  If i was known by many names by many different people who didn't exactly converse with one another on a regular basis, it might be understood that I'm 2 different people.  Then once they get together and start sharing notes, they might find that my 2 personalities don't differ much if at all.  


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

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 Samuel Cot'd

1 Samuel 29

Whatever plan David had was not to be as the other Philistine commanders did not trust David to be in their rear ranks. Achish attempted to reason with them but in the end David is sent home and the Philistines head out to meet Saul at Jezreel.

Achish made several comments I find inappropriate:

1- "As surely as the LORD lives..." v 6 - NIV

2- "...as an angel of God" v 9 NIV

Perhaps another translation. Nope, just checked JPS same thing.

I was under the impression Philistines worshiped Dagon  - see http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/godsmyth/a/Dagon.htm

Apparently. So I don't get this unless it is just recognizing David's belief system.

The story really is about David.  Samuel was originally referred to as 1 Kings before the Apocrypha was taken out.  

There were many belief systems within the cultures during that time.  It is likely the Philistines worshiped many different gods within that culture.  It's likely they jumped from god to god frequently as well.

Perhaps it is about the Jewish hero David. Perhaps that is all it really ever was meant to be much like the legendary adventures of Hercules and Jason. Told by bards and altered over time until it was eventaully written down by someone who was literate much like Robin Hood.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

But is any of it based in the real world?

Who can know.

This is the final chapter of 1 Samuel.

More to come in the ongoing bards tales in regard to David in 2 Samuel.

 

Due to lack of history during this time, we could only assume if referencing solely to what we'd consider today to be outside sources.  I say this because if the Bible was never compiled, all the stories would be viewed as separate and outside sources of each other. 

I still see them as separate stories in many places as perhaps they must be, due to the clear exaggerated text and many times incompatible storylines, which we have both observed in this trip through the vaults of the OT stories.

I will begin the 2 Samuel discussion this week.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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:

I was obviously referring to Daniel.

Why both sides stop firing could be respect for the religious man. When was this?

this happened within our lifetimes... I'm pretty sure within the last 20 years.  A battle doesn't stop just because someone needs to get through regardless of who they are.. typically one would have to wait or take the risk.

This is what I'd call an Urban Legend, basically it happened to someone not you but you heard about it. In order to classify it as something else you will need the actual 1st person accounts or it remains as an Urban Legend.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Was his body already decaying? Here I referred to Lazarus.

Was Lazarus' body decaying?  it mentions they were worried that it was going to start decaying. 

No, in John 11:39 it says in KJV, "..Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead for 4 days.." That indicates decay.

caposkia wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

Here I meant Achilles who supposedly could be run through the heart, and live. The only spot according to the legend was his ankle. A staph infection would not have killed him unless the arrow pierced his ankle.

Note, it's not just the OT legends I question.

of course not.  I know the legend.  This person likely seemed invincible and then was witnessed being taken down by a shot in the ankle.  It's possible this person had some lucky runs with battles where it looked like he got hit when he didn't.  Then again, did he have divine protection and is it possible he was healed.  I haven't heard of stories to this extreme, but I guess it could be possible.  I'd lean toward the first assumption that he had some lucky runs.  

Interesting you buy the miracles in the bible but not an equally unlikely story of the Greeks. Why?

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This is what I'd call an Urban Legend, basically it happened to someone not you but you heard about it. In order to classify it as something else you will need the actual 1st person accounts or it remains as an Urban Legend.

I heard about it from what is understood to be the eye-witnesses along with people who are in constant contact with the eye-witnesses or the person themselves.  it's possible that they could have made this all up for effect and story telling, but the setting wasn't appropriate for story telling and they are considered to be reliable sources.  Granted that can be opinionated and then of course it's what you want to believe and not necessarily what happened.  I'm telling you it happened.  what you want to do with that information is up to you.  

dont' worry, it doesn't bother me either way.  It's really not pertinent to our conversation.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No, in John 11:39 it says in KJV, "..Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead for 4 days.." That indicates decay.

They were making an assumption based on their knowledge of the process of decay and likely when it would start.  There are many conspiracy theories that go along with this story, including the possibility that Lazarus was not actually dead, but just ill enough to appear dead (their medical assessments weren't exactly as thorough as they are today)  Christians might say that God preserved the body for this occasion knowing that this was to take place.  

Either way, the smell only suggests the beginning stages of decay which would be bacteria starting to break down tissues.  If life was to be put back into a body, theoreticaly it could still be salvageable.  

This is one of those stories we can debate till we're blue.  Logically it's not possible unless the conspiracy theorists were right about him not really being dead.  Spiritually speaking God has the ability to create life, even in those who have died.  That is Biblically sound.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Interesting you buy the miracles in the bible but not an equally unlikely story of the Greeks. Why?

I take each miracle or story individually and just as any scientist would do,  I take the information given and compare it to what is supported.  

In this particular story, the process of dunking him into this magical liquid that ultimately made his whole body invincible except for the part his mother was hanging him in the water from is not congruent not only with scientific understanding, but divine as well and no reference of divine intervention of any kind was made from what I've heard.  

Even so, if divine intervention had taken place here, Baptism is supposed to cleanse the body and spirit.  If a part of you doesn't get wet during baptism, there's nothing to suggest the baptism wasn't complete or that a part of your body or soul had not been cleansed.   There is no reason to believe such.  Why start? 

Beyond that.  This story is unique unto itself.  There are no other stories that compare to such a miracle and support the same means of immortality.  so this story also lacks outside support.  

Bible stories have a lot of outside support including the miracles which are referenced in many other cultural stories.  Atheists who categories the Bible with all other mythical stories are more than eager to reference those supports.  Congruency in history makes a difference to along with archeology.  

You seem to reference generally... General Greek stories in comparison to General Bible stories.  As we go on, you'll find that i don't accept all the Bible stories as true...  not that they don't further support surrounding stories and your expectations as a person of God.  In fact, it's in scripture because of how well it paints the picture of an appropriate follower and how their views are taken.    These stories as not actual happenings does not in my understanding invalidate the whole of the 66 books of the Bible and stands on its own just as all other stories in the Bible do.  

I believe there is one other story that we've already gone through that could possibly be true, but I would accept it as not due to no outside support.  The only difference with these stories is they are congruent with other books written in the Bible thus still having some outside support even if it's minimal.  


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
And the Journey continues

And the Journey continues into 2 Samuel.


2 Samuel Chapter 1


The story continues with an Amalekite (I told you earlier these people were not all exterminated, they keep popping up in the storyline as in chapter 30 of I Sam) bringing the news to David that Saul and Jonathan are both dead in battle. Additionally, the troops of Saul are fleeing after being decimated by the Philistines. The young man mentioned here happened upon Saul who apparently was mortally wounded. Saul begged him to help him by committing suicide. The young Amalekite does. After this he rent his clothes and put dirt upon his hair in a sign of mourning. He took the king's crown and his bracelet and headed over to David's camp.


David upon hearing of Saul and Jonathan's demise is also mournful. He too rents his clothes in a sign of sorrow. One would think David would have mixed emotions here, the psycho king who was attempting to kill him was dead, however his BFF was also dead. In response to the young Amalekite's admission he aided Saul in his suicide David has him executed. David's body count increases. As I earlier mentioned involvement with David in any form was likely to be life shortening. Apparently, assisted suicide was not tolerated.


In the last few verses one sees again how David was in love with Jonathan. Here he admits it was more so than the love for women. It makes you wonder about what that relationship was really about.
This still continues the bard's tales regarding David from previous chapters in 1 Sam. It is not possible from these story tellings to determine what was reality or what was expanded to build up the hero David. One however can see several trends so far. One David sticks with his position that Saul is the god's anointed and should only meet his end by the god. Second, as mentioned in multiple events and shown, any involvement with David is likely to end badly for any person foolish enough to do so. There is more of this as we go on.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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:

This is what I'd call an Urban Legend, basically it happened to someone not you but you heard about it. In order to classify it as something else you will need the actual 1st person accounts or it remains as an Urban Legend.

I heard about it from what is understood to be the eye-witnesses along with people who are in constant contact with the eye-witnesses or the person themselves.  it's possible that they could have made this all up for effect and story telling, but the setting wasn't appropriate for story telling and they are considered to be reliable sources.  Granted that can be opinionated and then of course it's what you want to believe and not necessarily what happened.  I'm telling you it happened.  what you want to do with that information is up to you.  

dont' worry, it doesn't bother me either way.  It's really not pertinent to our conversation.

An urban legend is exactly what you have described above. Normally the event happens to someone else, not you. You may or may not know them. Names, dates and place are usually left out or are vague.

See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend or any dictionary.

And I agree, this has nada to do with our discussion.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No, in John 11:39 it says in KJV, "..Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead for 4 days.." That indicates decay.

They were making an assumption based on their knowledge of the process of decay and likely when it would start.  There are many conspiracy theories that go along with this story, including the possibility that Lazarus was not actually dead, but just ill enough to appear dead (their medical assessments weren't exactly as thorough as they are today)  Christians might say that God preserved the body for this occasion knowing that this was to take place.  

Either way, the smell only suggests the beginning stages of decay which would be bacteria starting to break down tissues.  If life was to be put back into a body, theoreticaly it could still be salvageable.  

This is one of those stories we can debate till we're blue.  Logically it's not possible unless the conspiracy theorists were right about him not really being dead.  Spiritually speaking God has the ability to create life, even in those who have died.  That is Biblically sound. 

Long ago I worked in a cementary. Decay is the breakdown of the tissues, it begins rapidly after death of any carbon based life form. Though these bodies had been treated the smell of death was always there.

See - http://science.howstuffworks.com/body-farm1.htm

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Interesting you buy the miracles in the bible but not an equally unlikely story of the Greeks. Why?

I take each miracle or story individually and just as any scientist would do,  I take the information given and compare it to what is supported.  

In this particular story, the process of dunking him into this magical liquid that ultimately made his whole body invincible except for the part his mother was hanging him in the water from is not congruent not only with scientific understanding, but divine as well and no reference of divine intervention of any kind was made from what I've heard.  

Even so, if divine intervention had taken place here, Baptism is supposed to cleanse the body and spirit.  If a part of you doesn't get wet during baptism, there's nothing to suggest the baptism wasn't complete or that a part of your body or soul had not been cleansed.   There is no reason to believe such.  Why start? 

Beyond that.  This story is unique unto itself.  There are no other stories that compare to such a miracle and support the same means of immortality.  so this story also lacks outside support.  

Bible stories have a lot of outside support including the miracles which are referenced in many other cultural stories.  Atheists who categories the Bible with all other mythical stories are more than eager to reference those supports.  Congruency in history makes a difference to along with archeology.  

You seem to reference generally... General Greek stories in comparison to General Bible stories.  As we go on, you'll find that i don't accept all the Bible stories as true...  not that they don't further support surrounding stories and your expectations as a person of God.  In fact, it's in scripture because of how well it paints the picture of an appropriate follower and how their views are taken.    These stories as not actual happenings does not in my understanding invalidate the whole of the 66 books of the Bible and stands on its own just as all other stories in the Bible do.  

I believe there is one other story that we've already gone through that could possibly be true, but I would accept it as not due to no outside support.  The only difference with these stories is they are congruent with other books written in the Bible thus still having some outside support even if it's minimal.  

I realize that Achilles has no basis for support, this is also true for many general bible stories. As with bible stories, the Greek myths together make up a complete storyline and were not written by a single individual. Most as with Bible stories have unknown origin and authors.

Not a reason to get on a side discussion yet, but interesting to consider.

We'll see as we continue where we end up as we progress through the story tales involving Israel and Judah and what archealogy actually does indicate or not.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:And

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

And the Journey continues into 2 Samuel.


2 Samuel Chapter 1


The story continues with an Amalekite (I told you earlier these people were not all exterminated, they keep popping up in the storyline as in chapter 30 of I Sam) bringing the news to David that Saul and Jonathan are both dead in battle. Additionally, the troops of Saul are fleeing after being decimated by the Philistines. The young man mentioned here happened upon Saul who apparently was mortally wounded. Saul begged him to help him by committing suicide. The young Amalekite does. After this he rent his clothes and put dirt upon his hair in a sign of mourning. He took the king's crown and his bracelet and headed over to David's camp.


David upon hearing of Saul and Jonathan's demise is also mournful. He too rents his clothes in a sign of sorrow. One would think David would have mixed emotions here, the psycho king who was attempting to kill him was dead, however his BFF was also dead. In response to the young Amalekite's admission he aided Saul in his suicide David has him executed. David's body count increases. As I earlier mentioned involvement with David in any form was likely to be life shortening. Apparently, assisted suicide was not tolerated.


In the last few verses one sees again how David was in love with Jonathan. Here he admits it was more so than the love for women. It makes you wonder about what that relationship was really about.
This still continues the bard's tales regarding David from previous chapters in 1 Sam. It is not possible from these story tellings to determine what was reality or what was expanded to build up the hero David. One however can see several trends so far. One David sticks with his position that Saul is the god's anointed and should only meet his end by the god. Second, as mentioned in multiple events and shown, any involvement with David is likely to end badly for any person foolish enough to do so. There is more of this as we go on.

 

nothing to add here.  Lack of information seems to be the main issue with these stories to support or debunk in history.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:An

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

An urban legend is exactly what you have described above. Normally the event happens to someone else, not you. You may or may not know them. Names, dates and place are usually left out or are vague.

See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend or any dictionary.

And I agree, this has nada to do with our discussion.

I can go into details of events that have happened directly to me, but then again, it's my word against yours.  Usually the excuse is then; "couldn't it have been X instead of Y?  Are you sure you saw what you think you saw?  or just the strait out... you're lying, good story telling"

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Long ago I worked in a cementary. Decay is the breakdown of the tissues, it begins rapidly after death of any carbon based life form. Though these bodies had been treated the smell of death was always there.

See - http://science.howstuffworks.com/body-farm1.htm

i didn't deny that.  My point was no one went to the tomb in the story (or it is never said that anyone did) and confirmed that he in fact was decaying.  Anyway...

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I realize that Achilles has no basis for support, this is also true for many general bible stories. As with bible stories, the Greek myths together make up a complete storyline and were not written by a single individual. Most as with Bible stories have unknown origin and authors.

The thing with Bible stories is besides the minimal support for some of them outside of scripture (minimal meaning there still is some support) they support themselves.  The fact that 66 books can be put together and form a pretty congruent timeline suggests support of each other.    You're comparing 1 book or story to a book of 66 different stories mostly from different sources through different periods of time... not to mention the Apocryphic books that were taken out not because they didn't support scripture, but because they weren't relevant for the flow and understanding of the other stories.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Not a reason to get on a side discussion yet, but interesting to consider.

sure.  i see your perspective

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

We'll see as we continue where we end up as we progress through the story tales involving Israel and Judah and what archealogy actually does indicate or not.

 

ok


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
2 Samuel Chapter 2 - 4

The chapter opens with David and his entourage moving to Hebron, Once there David is made king over the house of Judah, v4. He also hears that the men of Jabesh-gilead had buried Saul. He sends then a message praising them for this action and informing them he has been made the king over Judah.

This obviously did not set well with Abner, the former captain of Saul's army who makes Ishbosheth Saul's son the king over Gilead, Ashur, Jezreel, Ephraim, Benjamin, and all Israel. He reigned for 2 years but Judah followed David as king in Hebron for 7 1/2 years. Then Abner and a group from Israel went to the pool at Gibeon as did Joab and a group from Judah. Each was on one side of the pool. They decided the young men should have a contest or a tournament. This however turned into a battle where 19 of Judah were killed and 360 of Israel including Joab's brother Asahel who was killed by Abner.

Chapter 3

A long war continues between David of Judah and the supporters of the House of Saul in Israel. David however was gaining in power and strength versus Israel. Meanwhile David was propagating his house by impregnating multiple women/wives having 6 sons born during this time.

Then a woman comes between Abner and Saul's son Ishbosheth he had made the king. Apparently Abner was enjoying playtime with Rizpah a former concubine of Saul and Ishbotheth didn't like it. Abner is so miffed he changes sides to David. David agrees provided his wife Michal, Saul's daughter is brought to him. She was previously given to another by Saul, though legally married to David. Ishbosheth forces her to go to David and the other husband follows weeping. Abner then comes to David with 20 men promising allegiance and his support to make him king over all Israel.

OK, this is starting to sound like a soap opera from Telemundo or Univision.

Abner then departs in peace and Joab returns hearing of Abner's supposed change in allegiance. He tells David this is a deception or a ploy to gather intelligence. Joab then sends out messages to Abner to meet him at Sirah by the well. David apparently was unaware of this action. When Abner shows up, Joab kills him. David upon hearing of this exclaims he had no knowledge of this action and is blameless for it. He orders a funeral and mourning for Abner and all the people understand it was Joab and his brother with a vendetta not David that caused Abner's death.

Chapter 4

Meanwhile back in Israel Ishbosheth hears of Abner's death and is now in fear. The fear was likely based on his knowledge the men had been loyal to Abner not him. Two of them, Baanah and Rechab stealthy go into Ishbosheth and murder him, cutting off his head. They go to David telling him what a great service they had done for him. David sees it otherwise as a murder of a righteous man and has them executed on the spot.

 

Nothing in these chapters but unsupported story-telling.

____________________________________________________________
"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
2 Samuel 5-6

Chapter 5 opens with the elders agreeing to make David the king over all Israel. It indicates David was made king of Judah when he was 30 and over Israel when he was about 37, ruling for a total of 40 years. Right after he becomes the king of Israel David and his men go to Jerusalem to take it. The exact battle is not described here, which is kind of strange as this city becomes the city of David and the most holy city of the Jews.

Now, let's go back to 1 Samuel 17:54, "And David took the head of the philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armour in his tent."-JPS

OK, this is a problem I previously mentioned. Why would David go to a city held by the Jebusites who were Canaanites and not home? The city of Jerusalem was not part of Israel until he takes it in 2 Samuel 5. This story has problems.

As evidenced in the rest of chapter 5, Jerusalem was not much at this point. David lived in the fort of the city and began a building program according to v 9. The king of Tyre sends carpenters and building materials to build David a house (palace I would think).

David being the king added more wives and concubines (so much for monogamy as part of this religion) and had 11 more sons. Their names are listed here as well as in 1 Chron. David once more goes to war, this time against the Philistines in the valley of Rephaim. Here he soundly defeats them in two different battles, though it says the Lord smote them in the text.

In Chapter 6, David gathers 30,000 chosen men of Israel together to relocate the ark from Gibeah to Jerusalem. On the way one of the cart bearers, Uzzah when they had arrived at Nachon's threshing floor put out his hand to stabilize the ark as the oxen had stumbled and the ark was likely tipping off and he was immediately killed by the god for his rash behavior. David was so upset he halted the journey to Jerusalem and instead had the ark left at the house of Obededom the Gittite where it remained for 3 months. David then learns that Obededom's house is blessed because of the ark and so has the ark brought to Jerusalem. David and entourage danced and played trumpets on the journey into the city. Michal, one of many of David's wives or women, saw David prancing around and became hateful towards the actions of David. David and group continue the celebrations into the city making offerings and he finally blessed the people.

When David goes into his home Michal is still displeased at David for apparently dancing naked in the streets or perhaps revealing his innermost inhibitions, not sure of the context here. Either way, she is reproached for this and apparently as a result never has any children. This could be either the god cursed her, or more likely, David stopped having sex with her as he did have a bevy of women and she was likely in middle age by this point anyway. He did pretty much indicate he'd be even more vile than he had been including with the handmaids from whom he'd get honour.

Comments - First off, archeology does not support David's conquests, see Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed pp 130-135. The population of all of Israel at this point, circa 1000 BCE was no more than 5,000 people in the south where Judah and Jerusalem were located and about 40,000 total in the north where Israel was. These settlements were not interconnected between north and south and the sparseness of the southern population continues for centuries. See pp142-143 of Bible Unearthed.

See also The view from Nebo by Amy Docker Marcus pp 105-128

There was no sudden change in settlements from Canaanite to Israelite in this period either which should have occurred with the occupation and eradication by David, nothing changed, see p 130 Bible Unearthed.

And I so love the continued soap opera of David and his women in this case an explanation why one, Michal  does not have children.

Just more story-telling and now with issues in regard to archeology too.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The chapter opens with David and his entourage moving to Hebron, Once there David is made king over the house of Judah, v4. He also hears that the men of Jabesh-gilead had buried Saul. He sends then a message praising them for this action and informing them he has been made the king over Judah.

This obviously did not set well with Abner, the former captain of Saul's army who makes Ishbosheth Saul's son the king over Gilead, Ashur, Jezreel, Ephraim, Benjamin, and all Israel. He reigned for 2 years but Judah followed David as king in Hebron for 7 1/2 years. Then Abner and a group from Israel went to the pool at Gibeon as did Joab and a group from Judah. Each was on one side of the pool. They decided the young men should have a contest or a tournament. This however turned into a battle where 19 of Judah were killed and 360 of Israel including Joab's brother Asahel who was killed by Abner.

Chapter 3

A long war continues between David of Judah and the supporters of the House of Saul in Israel. David however was gaining in power and strength versus Israel. Meanwhile David was propagating his house by impregnating multiple women/wives having 6 sons born during this time.

Then a woman comes between Abner and Saul's son Ishbosheth he had made the king. Apparently Abner was enjoying playtime with Rizpah a former concubine of Saul and Ishbotheth didn't like it. Abner is so miffed he changes sides to David. David agrees provided his wife Michal, Saul's daughter is brought to him. She was previously given to another by Saul, though legally married to David. Ishbosheth forces her to go to David and the other husband follows weeping. Abner then comes to David with 20 men promising allegiance and his support to make him king over all Israel.

OK, this is starting to sound like a soap opera from Telemundo or Univision.

Abner then departs in peace and Joab returns hearing of Abner's supposed change in allegiance. He tells David this is a deception or a ploy to gather intelligence. Joab then sends out messages to Abner to meet him at Sirah by the well. David apparently was unaware of this action. When Abner shows up, Joab kills him. David upon hearing of this exclaims he had no knowledge of this action and is blameless for it. He orders a funeral and mourning for Abner and all the people understand it was Joab and his brother with a vendetta not David that caused Abner's death.

Chapter 4

Meanwhile back in Israel Ishbosheth hears of Abner's death and is now in fear. The fear was likely based on his knowledge the men had been loyal to Abner not him. Two of them, Baanah and Rechab stealthy go into Ishbosheth and murder him, cutting off his head. They go to David telling him what a great service they had done for him. David sees it otherwise as a murder of a righteous man and has them executed on the spot.

 

Nothing in these chapters but unsupported story-telling.

Right... too personal to confirm or deny in history.  Not enough to go on.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Chapter 5 opens with the elders agreeing to make David the king over all Israel. It indicates David was made king of Judah when he was 30 and over Israel when he was about 37, ruling for a total of 40 years. Right after he becomes the king of Israel David and his men go to Jerusalem to take it. The exact battle is not described here, which is kind of strange as this city becomes the city of David and the most holy city of the Jews.

Now, let's go back to 1 Samuel 17:54, "And David took the head of the philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armour in his tent."-JPS

OK, this is a problem I previously mentioned. Why would David go to a city held by the Jebusites who were Canaanites and not home? The city of Jerusalem was not part of Israel until he takes it in 2 Samuel 5. This story has problems.

We've been through this issue in previous stories.   The writers did not have an extensive library of history, nor did the readers like we do today.  Therefore, the writers would write in reference to the way things where when the story was written and not the way they were necessarily when the story took place.  This makes sense and is consistent in many historical writings from such a distant history.    The timing may have been off too be it that News Chopper 7 wasn't covering the story.  All the writer knew was the action and the location.  The when wasn't as clear to the writers and wasn't a big concern be it that the event is what was necessary to know. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As evidenced in the rest of chapter 5, Jerusalem was not much at this point. David lived in the fort of the city and began a building program according to v 9. The king of Tyre sends carpenters and building materials to build David a house (palace I would think).

David being the king added more wives and concubines (so much for monogamy as part of this religion) and had 11 more sons. Their names are listed here as well as in 1 Chron. David once more goes to war, this time against the Philistines in the valley of Rephaim. Here he soundly defeats them in two different battles, though it says the Lord smote them in the text.

In Chapter 6, David gathers 30,000 chosen men of Israel together to relocate the ark from Gibeah to Jerusalem. On the way one of the cart bearers, Uzzah when they had arrived at Nachon's threshing floor put out his hand to stabilize the ark as the oxen had stumbled and the ark was likely tipping off and he was immediately killed by the god for his rash behavior. David was so upset he halted the journey to Jerusalem and instead had the ark left at the house of Obededom the Gittite where it remained for 3 months. David then learns that Obededom's house is blessed because of the ark and so has the ark brought to Jerusalem. David and entourage danced and played trumpets on the journey into the city. Michal, one of many of David's wives or women, saw David prancing around and became hateful towards the actions of David. David and group continue the celebrations into the city making offerings and he finally blessed the people.

When David goes into his home Michal is still displeased at David for apparently dancing naked in the streets or perhaps revealing his innermost inhibitions, not sure of the context here. Either way, she is reproached for this and apparently as a result never has any children. This could be either the god cursed her, or more likely, David stopped having sex with her as he did have a bevy of women and she was likely in middle age by this point anyway. He did pretty much indicate he'd be even more vile than he had been including with the handmaids from whom he'd get honour.

Comments - First off, archeology does not support David's conquests, see Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed pp 130-135. The population of all of Israel at this point, circa 1000 BCE was no more than 5,000 people in the south where Judah and Jerusalem were located and about 40,000 total in the north where Israel was. These settlements were not interconnected between north and south and the sparseness of the southern population continues for centuries. See pp142-143 of Bible Unearthed.

See also The view from Nebo by Amy Docker Marcus pp 105-128

There was no sudden change in settlements from Canaanite to Israelite in this period either which should have occurred with the occupation and eradication by David, nothing changed, see p 130 Bible Unearthed.

And I so love the continued soap opera of David and his women in this case an explanation why one, Michal  does not have children.

Just more story-telling and now with issues in regard to archeology too.

 

The archeology adds up per the explanation I gave above... unless there's something specific that I missed here.  So far, the issues you have here with this story are consistent with the issues you've had in other stories where the explanation as to why the data was off is also the same.  You're so concerned with the when and finding any possible faults with the stories, you forget that these discrepancies are consistent with historical documents of the time and in no way invalidates their possibility.  Again, the only reasoning we have to not believe these stories took place is lack of historical support.  The fact that there is little support of these stories happening and yet no support what so ever against these stories happening, I have reason to believe they're legitimate.  

Look at it this way.  I could say (assuming I had some historical proof to back up my story here) that there was a great battle between 2 major native American tribes in Boston around 1400 AD.  Now we both know Boston didn't exist around 1400 AD, so does that mean that my information is incorrect?  Of course not.  I would have historical support that this battle took place and by referencing Boston, you have a much better idea of exactly where vs. me telling you it happened at a location in the northern hemisphere by the Atlantic ocean without any modern day reference.  This example btw is just made up... I"m not really sure if somethign like that took place, but my point was the reference to location.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I do not know enough about

I do not know enough about archaeology to say much about it.

On the history comment I will say this. I don't have an extensive library of US history but I know which presidents were influential in my country and why.

According to the writers, David was not just a king - he was THE king. Doesn't it say a lot that these guys can't get the information about someone who is immensely important to their history while they're writing it?

"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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I do not know

jcgadfly wrote:

I do not know enough about archaeology to say much about it.

On the history comment I will say this. I don't have an extensive library of US history but I know which presidents were influential in my country and why.

According to the writers, David was not just a king - he was THE king. Doesn't it say a lot that these guys can't get the information about someone who is immensely important to their history while they're writing it?

Right, and despite what society might think my dad is the worlds best dad.  We express authority by perspective and not so much as a society.  As far as the writers and the intended audience were concerned, he was THE king.  As far as the world is concerned... well, thats' up for debate.  But my question here is whether David was a king or THE king, does it change the outcome of the story and circumstances that took place?   I don't see how it would.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I do not know enough about archaeology to say much about it.

On the history comment I will say this. I don't have an extensive library of US history but I know which presidents were influential in my country and why.

According to the writers, David was not just a king - he was THE king. Doesn't it say a lot that these guys can't get the information about someone who is immensely important to their history while they're writing it?

Right, and despite what society might think my dad is the worlds best dad.  We express authority by perspective and not so much as a society.  As far as the writers and the intended audience were concerned, he was THE king.  As far as the world is concerned... well, thats' up for debate.  But my question here is whether David was a king or THE king, does it change the outcome of the story and circumstances that took place?   I don't see how it would.

It's not a social question, cap. It's a historical one.

My position is that the Bible is not a historical document because we can't find much (if any) agreement between it and history and archaeology with regards to David's existence and what he supposedly did. Your response is "So we can't find any proof of who David was and what he did? The Bible's still supported by history where David is concerned."

"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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:It's not a

jcgadfly wrote:

It's not a social question, cap. It's a historical one.

isn't history based on social interpretation and agreement?  

jcgadfly wrote:

My position is that the Bible is not a historical document because we can't find much (if any) agreement between it and history and archaeology with regards to David's existence and what he supposedly did. Your response is "So we can't find any proof of who David was and what he did? The Bible's still supported by history where David is concerned."

There is support of a David character in history, minimal, just as any other history from that time, but it's there... as far as the magnitude of the David Character, we have agreed he likely wasn't as powerful as the Bible writers tried to make him out to be... this again is a common theme in history with writers trying to magnify an entity or event that benefitted them.  

My point is there is minimal support for the Bible in history... there is NO historical support against what is written in scripture.  The only 'good' defense from a historical perspective I've gotten from an atheist or non-believer is that they found no evidence of X.  X being any specific aspect of the Bible.  All have agreed that there is accurate historical referencing in scripture, but the add quickly that the historical referencing is congruent in fictional stories as well and in no way supports the validity of scripture.


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

It's not a social question, cap. It's a historical one.

isn't history based on social interpretation and agreement?  

jcgadfly wrote:

My position is that the Bible is not a historical document because we can't find much (if any) agreement between it and history and archaeology with regards to David's existence and what he supposedly did. Your response is "So we can't find any proof of who David was and what he did? The Bible's still supported by history where David is concerned."

 

There is support of a David character in history, minimal, just as any other history from that time, but it's there... as far as the magnitude of the David Character, we have agreed he likely wasn't as powerful as the Bible writers tried to make him out to be... this again is a common theme in history with writers trying to magnify an entity or event that benefitted them. 

 

The only historical reference I know of to David is the Tel Dan inscription - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

translated pertinent text - " [I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab]
8'. king of Israel, and I killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin]g
9'. of the House of David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned]
10'. their land into [desolation......."

 

Here are several interesting tidbits.

1- Jehoram (aka Joram) was claimed to be killed by Hazael. He is said to be the son of Ahab and king of Israel. No mention he is related to David or Judah here.

2- Hazael also claims he killed Ahaziahu son of Jehoram king of the house of David. The name of the country, Judah isn't mentioned.

3- The Bible however claims that these 2 were killed by Jehu in 2 Kings 9 when he met them both 2 Kings 9:24 and 2 Kings 9:27.

4- The mention of the house of David is not unlike the term the son of Zeus, etc. It means only the leader killed was of that house. It also did not mention a specific country as in Judah in the stele.

The stele also contradicts the 2 Kings 9 account where Jehu is credited with being the murderer.

caposkia wrote:

My point is there is minimal support for the Bible in history... there is NO historical support against what is written in scripture.

This is very very weak for taking a position. Consider what you said here. Then consider this:

There is minimal support in history that Enki ran a brewery on the Tigris.....there is NO historical support against the god Enki brewing beer on the Tigris.

Then we have: There is minimal support for the events of the Book of Mormon in history and archeaology....There is NO historical support against what is written in the Book of Mormon.

If an ancient book makes claims that does not make the claims true. If so, as I've told you before the Annunaki must be the true gods or ancient aliens who aided mankind (or created it) as these ancient tablets claim so and they are from the 3rd and 4th millenium BCE, therefore they must be true as NO proof has been shown they weren't here and then left. The stories have not been supported by history but there is no history to show they weren't in fact here and did all that is claimed of them. As with the Bible it was just stretched and exaggerated here and there by their storytellers.

caposkia wrote:

  The only 'good' defense from a historical perspective I've gotten from an atheist or non-believer is that they found no evidence of X.  X being any specific aspect of the Bible.  All have agreed that there is accurate historical referencing in scripture, but the add quickly that the historical referencing is congruent in fictional stories as well and in no way supports the validity of scripture.

There is also the contradictions to recorded history as in the Tel Dan inscription which may mention the house of David but also discredits the Bible's account of who killed the 2 kings.

 

Hazael or Jehu? Which do you accept as the real story?

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

My point is there is minimal support for the Bible in history... there is NO historical support against what is written in scripture.

This is very very weak for taking a position. Consider what you said here. Then consider this:

There is minimal support in history that Enki ran a brewery on the Tigris.....there is NO historical support against the god Enki brewing beer on the Tigris.

So if there's no historical support against it, and minimal support in history (which means there is reason to believe it could have been) then it is logical to take a position that Enki ran a brewery.  I'm curious if they found any recipes.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Then we have: There is minimal support for the events of the Book of Mormon in history and archeaology....There is NO historical support against what is written in the Book of Mormon.

The problem with that statement is that there actually is historical support against what is written in the Book of Mormon... but another conversation for another day.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If an ancient book makes claims that does not make the claims true. If so, as I've told you before the Annunaki must be the true gods or ancient aliens who aided mankind (or created it) as these ancient tablets claim so and they are from the 3rd and 4th millenium BCE, therefore they must be true as NO proof has been shown they weren't here and then left. The stories have not been supported by history but there is no history to show they weren't in fact here and did all that is claimed of them. As with the Bible it was just stretched and exaggerated here and there by their storytellers.

You're making a sound conclusion based on historical support alone.  You must have forgotten that though we are focusing just on history for this thread, I do not base my belief on history alone.    As far as what has historical support or not, the Bible does and so do many other fictional writings.  However, there are reasons beyond history which include archaeology (which is a branch of history) and congruency with other writings along with statistical support, scientific support among other things that lead me to believe that the Bible is true.  

The reason why history is so important is that if history had absolutely no support and/or there was history that had support against scripture, then it would be likely that the Bible is a fictional piece of writing... but again, we'd have to scrutinize each of the 66 books against history and cannot dismiss the whole Bible because one part of the whole thing doesn't seem to jive.  due to lack of information in general, as you said, it's difficult to take a side based on history alone.  Therefore, your claim that everything must be true if the Bible is due to historical support is doing exactly what you claimed would be irrational.  The support that's there is just scratching the surface of reasoning behind supporting scripture.  

caposkia wrote:

 

There is also the contradictions to recorded history as in the Tel Dan inscription which may mention the house of David but also discredits the Bible's account of who killed the 2 kings.

there couldn't possibly be a reason why these contradictions might be the case and yet the stories still be true could there?  Something I mentioned a while back about lack of historical writings and reference way back when and that stories were told in reference to what was known around them.  God is known by many different names too and it claims it in the Bible... does that suggest then that the Bible actually teaches of many different Gods to follow and not just the one?  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Hazael or Jehu? Which do you accept as the real story?

The one who made the beer.  Though circumstances are slightly different, it seems that generally speaking, they support each other and that both could be true.  From the information given, the only possible contradictions could only be assumed be it that what contradicts is what you claim is not mentioned.  In other words, there is nothing that blatently contradicts yet... I haven't looked into both stories, so of course there could be major ones and I wouldn't know yet, but due to what was mentioned so far, nothing leads me to believe either is false.  


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

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

My point is there is minimal support for the Bible in history... there is NO historical support against what is written in scripture.

This is very very weak for taking a position. Consider what you said here. Then consider this:

There is minimal support in history that Enki ran a brewery on the Tigris.....there is NO historical support against the god Enki brewing beer on the Tigris.

So if there's no historical support against it, and minimal support in history (which means there is reason to believe it could have been) then it is logical to take a position that Enki ran a brewery.  I'm curious if they found any recipes. 

 

Don't think so.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Then we have: There is minimal support for the events of the Book of Mormon in history and archeaology....There is NO historical support against what is written in the Book of Mormon.

The problem with that statement is that there actually is historical support against what is written in the Book of Mormon... but another conversation for another day. 

The argument the Mormons use is the argument of omission. Just because nothing has been found in New York from the supposed great battle between the Jaredites and the Nephites only means it has not been found. Other arguments they give as to horses, asses, sheep are actually comical. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

My point was your statement seems to suggest that because something was mentioned in an old book ( in the case of the Book of Mormon not so old, but they say it is) that unless something is shown to contradict it through other history or archeaology it must have some basis. Perhaps it was your wording.

And I agree this is for some other day.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If an ancient book makes claims that does not make the claims true. If so, as I've told you before the Annunaki must be the true gods or ancient aliens who aided mankind (or created it) as these ancient tablets claim so and they are from the 3rd and 4th millenium BCE, therefore they must be true as NO proof has been shown they weren't here and then left. The stories have not been supported by history but there is no history to show they weren't in fact here and did all that is claimed of them. As with the Bible it was just stretched and exaggerated here and there by their storytellers.

You're making a sound conclusion based on historical support alone.  You must have forgotten that though we are focusing just on history for this thread, I do not base my belief on history alone.    As far as what has historical support or not, the Bible does and so do many other fictional writings.  However, there are reasons beyond history which include archaeology (which is a branch of history) and congruency with other writings along with statistical support, scientific support among other things that lead me to believe that the Bible is true.  

The reason why history is so important is that if history had absolutely no support and/or there was history that had support against scripture, then it would be likely that the Bible is a fictional piece of writing... but again, we'd have to scrutinize each of the 66 books against history and cannot dismiss the whole Bible because one part of the whole thing doesn't seem to jive.  due to lack of information in general, as you said, it's difficult to take a side based on history alone.  Therefore, your claim that everything must be true if the Bible is due to historical support is doing exactly what you claimed would be irrational.  The support that's there is just scratching the surface of reasoning behind supporting scripture. 

This thread is primarily for the purpose of examining the OT to see if we can classify the stories as Myths, Legends, Parables or Real. Archeaology and history are the only sources outside the OT book itself which is independent (at least in theory) of the beliefs propagated in the OT. As we have seen, sometimes we cannot tell whether the story has basis or not. As unlike you, I don't accept magic (and I use magic here to mean things that go against what is generally accepted as possible in our dimension of reality) as explanatiion at all. There is an explanation for everything, even things that we do not understand today, and eventually many will be understood dispelling the "magic" associated with them.

As to use of historical names, places and people in ficition, legends, and myths this was done by all ancients just as it is done today, sometimes for the same reasons as today, entertainment and sometimes to explain different things. Most of the pagans (those who supposedly believed in the Greek and Roman gods for example) did not seriously believe the myths described actual events but were done to put forth "truths" or ideas of importance. Where "truths" mean something other than the purported event but pertain to principles and ideas.

caposkia wrote:

PJTS wrote:

 

There is also the contradictions to recorded history as in the Tel Dan inscription which may mention the house of David but also discredits the Bible's account of who killed the 2 kings.

there couldn't possibly be a reason why these contradictions might be the case and yet the stories still be true could there?  Something I mentioned a while back about lack of historical writings and reference way back when and that stories were told in reference to what was known around them.  God is known by many different names too and it claims it in the Bible... does that suggest then that the Bible actually teaches of many different Gods to follow and not just the one? 

Not that I know of.

Hazael was not a god, he was the king of Damascus. I know of no stories where he is considered as a god, so no the god is known but various names doesn't work here.

Case 1 - King Hazael of Damascus wrote on a stelae that he killed the 2 kings

Case 2 - 2 Kings claims it was Jehu that did so.

In case 1 we have an object dated to the 9th century BCE. This was a victory stele.

In case 2 we have a claim from a book which can't be shown to be older than the 2nd century BCE, (the date of the DSS) what may have circulated prior to that is not known.

I go with the older actual physical artifact as the likely real story versus one in a book that was smearing King Ahab and all his descendents showing how the god took vengeance upon them all.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Hazael or Jehu? Which do you accept as the real story?

The one who made the beer.  Though circumstances are slightly different, it seems that generally speaking, they support each other and that both could be true.  From the information given, the only possible contradictions could only be assumed be it that what contradicts is what you claim is not mentioned.  In other words, there is nothing that blatently contradicts yet... I haven't looked into both stories, so of course there could be major ones and I wouldn't know yet, but due to what was mentioned so far, nothing leads me to believe either is false.  

I don't know if King Hazael made beer, probably not he was in wine country.

The Tel Dan inscription is not a story, it is an artifact.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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:

Chapter 5 opens with the elders agreeing to make David the king over all Israel. It indicates David was made king of Judah when he was 30 and over Israel when he was about 37, ruling for a total of 40 years. Right after he becomes the king of Israel David and his men go to Jerusalem to take it. The exact battle is not described here, which is kind of strange as this city becomes the city of David and the most holy city of the Jews.

Now, let's go back to 1 Samuel 17:54, "And David took the head of the philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armour in his tent."-JPS

OK, this is a problem I previously mentioned. Why would David go to a city held by the Jebusites who were Canaanites and not home? The city of Jerusalem was not part of Israel until he takes it in 2 Samuel 5. This story has problems.

We've been through this issue in previous stories.   The writers did not have an extensive library of history, nor did the readers like we do today.  Therefore, the writers would write in reference to the way things where when the story was written and not the way they were necessarily when the story took place.  This makes sense and is consistent in many historical writings from such a distant history.    The timing may have been off too be it that News Chopper 7 wasn't covering the story.  All the writer knew was the action and the location.  The when wasn't as clear to the writers and wasn't a big concern be it that the event is what was necessary to know.

 

This is different than the Greek hero stories how? The stories in regard to Jason and Herakles use place names like your example of a battle near Boston in 1400 CE. In the case of the Greek stories these cities or towns may have existed at the time. So should the magic and fantasy be accepted as real? That's what you are telling me in regard to Jewish legends isn't it? I should buy into the Jewish stories but not the Medusa legend. Neither one has archeology on its side and neither do the Saul and David stories.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As evidenced in the rest of chapter 5, Jerusalem was not much at this point. David lived in the fort of the city and began a building program according to v 9. The king of Tyre sends carpenters and building materials to build David a house (palace I would think).

David being the king added more wives and concubines (so much for monogamy as part of this religion) and had 11 more sons. Their names are listed here as well as in 1 Chron. David once more goes to war, this time against the Philistines in the valley of Rephaim. Here he soundly defeats them in two different battles, though it says the Lord smote them in the text.

In Chapter 6, David gathers 30,000 chosen men of Israel together to relocate the ark from Gibeah to Jerusalem. On the way one of the cart bearers, Uzzah when they had arrived at Nachon's threshing floor put out his hand to stabilize the ark as the oxen had stumbled and the ark was likely tipping off and he was immediately killed by the god for his rash behavior. David was so upset he halted the journey to Jerusalem and instead had the ark left at the house of Obededom the Gittite where it remained for 3 months. David then learns that Obededom's house is blessed because of the ark and so has the ark brought to Jerusalem. David and entourage danced and played trumpets on the journey into the city. Michal, one of many of David's wives or women, saw David prancing around and became hateful towards the actions of David. David and group continue the celebrations into the city making offerings and he finally blessed the people.

When David goes into his home Michal is still displeased at David for apparently dancing naked in the streets or perhaps revealing his innermost inhibitions, not sure of the context here. Either way, she is reproached for this and apparently as a result never has any children. This could be either the god cursed her, or more likely, David stopped having sex with her as he did have a bevy of women and she was likely in middle age by this point anyway. He did pretty much indicate he'd be even more vile than he had been including with the handmaids from whom he'd get honour.

Comments - First off, archeology does not support David's conquests, see Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed pp 130-135. The population of all of Israel at this point, circa 1000 BCE was no more than 5,000 people in the south where Judah and Jerusalem were located and about 40,000 total in the north where Israel was. These settlements were not interconnected between north and south and the sparseness of the southern population continues for centuries. See pp142-143 of Bible Unearthed.

See also The view from Nebo by Amy Docker Marcus pp 105-128

There was no sudden change in settlements from Canaanite to Israelite in this period either which should have occurred with the occupation and eradication by David, nothing changed, see p 130 Bible Unearthed.

And I so love the continued soap opera of David and his women in this case an explanation why one, Michal  does not have children.

Just more story-telling and now with issues in regard to archeology too.

 

The archeology adds up per the explanation I gave above... unless there's something specific that I missed here.  So far, the issues you have here with this story are consistent with the issues you've had in other stories where the explanation as to why the data was off is also the same.  You're so concerned with the when and finding any possible faults with the stories, you forget that these discrepancies are consistent with historical documents of the time and in no way invalidates their possibility.  Again, the only reasoning we have to not believe these stories took place is lack of historical support.  The fact that there is little support of these stories happening and yet no support what so ever against these stories happening, I have reason to believe they're legitimate.  

Look at it this way.  I could say (assuming I had some historical proof to back up my story here) that there was a great battle between 2 major native American tribes in Boston around 1400 AD.  Now we both know Boston didn't exist around 1400 AD, so does that mean that my information is incorrect?  Of course not.  I would have historical support that this battle took place and by referencing Boston, you have a much better idea of exactly where vs. me telling you it happened at a location in the northern hemisphere by the Atlantic ocean without any modern day reference.  This example btw is just made up... I"m not really sure if somethign like that took place, but my point was the reference to location.  

You claim the archeology adds up based on what researcher or archaeologist? I gave you 2 books with references you gave me none. What's your source?

Yes there is something specific you missed here, go read the books I mentioned. There is support against the stories happening, see Finkelstein.

And now back to the story telling legends of 2 Samuel.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
2 Samuel 7 &8

Chapter 7 begins with David in a discussion with Nathan the prophet about building the god a house. Nathan that night has a visitation (dream or??) where the god informed him to tell David that his son would build the house for the god not him. He also makes several commitments to David and his descendants.

2 Sam 7:13 - " He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever."

2 Sam 7:14-16 - "...if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; 15 - but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 - And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever."

So in both of these verses according to Nathan who told this supposedly to David the descendants of David would rule Judah/Israel forever. Is the current prime minister or president of Israel of the lineage of David?

Issues are created when Nebuchadrezzar (King Nabu-kurdurri-usur mispelled as Nebuchadnezzar in the OT) removes the last king of the lineage of David in 587 BCE. The promise here is forever in these verses, regardless of his actions or his descendants actions. They will be chastised however the god's mercy shall not depart from them and the lineage continues forever.

What should be noted is this promise is multiple hearsay. Nathan is claimed to have been told by the god  this promise and the writer of these verses claims David was told this.

Since Jewish faith and Christian faith bases much on the promises made to David, who ruled after Zedekiah until our current time? Or just until the time of the Jesus since many claim the Jesus is a descendant of David and is now ruling forever. There is a 600 year gap to the Jesus and a 2,600 year gap to the present day.

Forever means forever. Gaps are not allowed, yet there is no ruler of Judah/Israel after Zedekiah that is a descendant of David.

This to me places this chapter into legend and adds it to the mythical tales of the ancient one David who is not so much unlike Greek hero characters such as Herakles or Jason who are mentioned but no proof of their deeds exists.

The rest of the chapter discusses David talking to the god though the god does not answer him in the text of 2 Sam 7:18-29.

2 Sam 8

This chapter has David warring against the Philistines, Moab, King Hadadezer king of Zo-bah, and the Syrians.

Issues with this chapter-

V4 - The claim David took of the king of the Zo-bah 1000 chariots, 700 horsemen, and 20,000 footmen. There weren't this many people in the area of Judah/Israel at this time. An army of 20,000 plus is very unlikely.

V5 -6 - David supposedly slew 22,000 Syrians or Aramaeans from Damascus. He then put garrisons in Damascus and the Syrians (Aramaeans) became his servants. Yet David's  country had no where near the resources or manpower of either Egypt or the main superpower of the time Assyria. Assyria had conquered the area called Syria under Tiglathpileser I (1115-1077 BCE) and had suppressed the Mushki (related to the Phrygians) devastating their army of 20,000. Yet even Assyria had continued conflicts with the Aramaeans as they were progressing towards the Euphrates. The king is mentioned as fighting them over 28 times in an inscription. The Aramaeans continued expansive activities and warfare in all directions including against Assyria. This continues through the reigns of subsequent Assyrian kings until Adad-nirari II (911 BCE). So no I'm not buying into a storyline of David invading Damascus as he no way had the means or the army to do so.

V 7-13 details booty and other claims. No one used gold for war shields only for ceremonies. In v 13 it makes a claim that David became well known after smiting the Syrians, funny they don't mention him so how well known is that.

v 14-18 - mentions names of officers placed over garrisons and other officials.

 

I'm not buying into David's conquests or the supposed area he ruled. Read the claimed area he conquered supposedly and look at the available resources he would have had to do so versus those he supposedly conquered. Not a possibility.

This chapter is not based in reality and is more story telling.

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

So if there's no historical support against it, and minimal support in history (which means there is reason to believe it could have been) then it is logical to take a position that Enki ran a brewery.  I'm curious if they found any recipes. 

 

Don't think so.

That's too bad... that was likely quite a brew! Eye-wink

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The argument the Mormons use is the argument of omission. Just because nothing has been found in New York from the supposed great battle between the Jaredites and the Nephites only means it has not been found. Other arguments they give as to horses, asses, sheep are actually comical. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

My point was your statement seems to suggest that because something was mentioned in an old book ( in the case of the Book of Mormon not so old, but they say it is) that unless something is shown to contradict it through other history or archeaology it must have some basis. Perhaps it was your wording.

And I agree this is for some other day.

My point is that if there is "minimal" evidence or reasoning in history supporting something and yet "no" support against it, then it is logical to accept the claim as historically true.  Granted due to the minimal support many might say there's not enough for them to fully accept it and I can understand that, but with the Bible, it is an accumulation of 'minimal" support that gets me historically.  Sure maybe 1 book out of 66 has minimal support and the rest do not... good reason to question it... but if 99% of all the books. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This thread is primarily for the purpose of examining the OT to see if we can classify the stories as Myths, Legends, Parables or Real. Archeaology and history are the only sources outside the OT book itself which is independent (at least in theory) of the beliefs propagated in the OT. As we have seen, sometimes we cannot tell whether the story has basis or not. As unlike you, I don't accept magic (and I use magic here to mean things that go against what is generally accepted as possible in our dimension of reality) as explanatiion at all. There is an explanation for everything, even things that we do not understand today, and eventually many will be understood dispelling the "magic" associated with them.

some of the claimed "magic" in the OT does have a natural explanation theory of some sort.  Much of it we have too little information to go on and some of it would have to be deemed "magic" by your definition.  Though again, your definition is subjective to who is determining.  Anyone who accepts a metaphysical existence would not see sorcery or raising someone from the dead magic as defined, but would accept it as possible and reasonable to have some sort of access to the other existence.   Your definition of magic seems to have some underlying implications such as scientific law and empirical and scientifically testable evidence.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As to use of historical names, places and people in ficition, legends, and myths this was done by all ancients just as it is done today, sometimes for the same reasons as today, entertainment and sometimes to explain different things. Most of the pagans (those who supposedly believed in the Greek and Roman gods for example) did not seriously believe the myths described actual events but were done to put forth "truths" or ideas of importance. Where "truths" mean something other than the purported event but pertain to principles and ideas.

It is true that people of ancient times would use names places, etc. as described as entertainment, but they wouldn't have used such (at the time) expensive and difficult to come by means of recording those stories if they didn't see some sort of importance and truth to them.   It is also noted that they were careful to write down much of the scripture in a means that would be preserved over time and not fade or decay.  That seems like a bit too much careful planning for a story for sheer entertainment or even just to make a point.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Not that I know of.

Hazael was not a god, he was the king of Damascus. I know of no stories where he is considered as a god, so no the god is known but various names doesn't work here.

Case 1 - King Hazael of Damascus wrote on a stelae that he killed the 2 kings

Case 2 - 2 Kings claims it was Jehu that did so.

In case 1 we have an object dated to the 9th century BCE. This was a victory stele.

In case 2 we have a claim from a book which can't be shown to be older than the 2nd century BCE, (the date of the DSS) what may have circulated prior to that is not known.

I go with the older actual physical artifact as the likely real story versus one in a book that was smearing King Ahab and all his descendents showing how the god took vengeance upon them all.

right... I'd agree.  It is said they were both in power around the same time.  Are you sure these aren't 2 different stories with similar outcomes? 1 kings seems to detail "...It shall come about, the one who escapes from the sword of Hazael, Jehu shall put to death...."  1 Kings 19:17.  NASB

If the Biblical account is written from an outsider's perspective, i can easily see how who killed who would be misinterpreted and yet the stories still be true.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't know if King Hazael made beer, probably not he was in wine country.

The Tel Dan inscription is not a story, it is an artifact.

good point...  Wine must be it.

artifact or not, it still explains something in history that seems to have minimal support.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This is different than the Greek hero stories how? The stories in regard to Jason and Herakles use place names like your example of a battle near Boston in 1400 CE. In the case of the Greek stories these cities or towns may have existed at the time. So should the magic and fantasy be accepted as real? That's what you are telling me in regard to Jewish legends isn't it? I should buy into the Jewish stories but not the Medusa legend. Neither one has archeology on its side and neither do the Saul and David stories.

There is absolutely no support for those stories and no gaps to fill for those stories to fit into.  These particular Bible stories do have minimal support and can fill in historical holes.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You claim the archeology adds up based on what researcher or archaeologist? I gave you 2 books with references you gave me none. What's your source?

Yes there is something specific you missed here, go read the books I mentioned. There is support against the stories happening, see Finkelstein.

And now back to the story telling legends of 2 Samuel.

 

 

Archaeological Study Bible might be a start... be it there were 30 different contributors to that book, you could start looking into those names.  Also Wikipedia would support the idea of arechaeological evidences.  They even give reference to the "artifact" you mentioned when you look up "David".  

If i remember correctly, i did provide links in past posts... if i didn't i apologize and had intended to.  
As for Saul... look up archaeology for Labayu.  Labayu's career seems to match the career of Saul... which might link the 2 to be the same person.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Chapter 7 begins with David in a discussion with Nathan the prophet about building the god a house. Nathan that night has a visitation (dream or??) where the god informed him to tell David that his son would build the house for the god not him. He also makes several commitments to David and his descendants.

2 Sam 7:13 - " He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever."

2 Sam 7:14-16 - "...if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; 15 - but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 - And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever."

So in both of these verses according to Nathan who told this supposedly to David the descendants of David would rule Judah/Israel forever. Is the current prime minister or president of Israel of the lineage of David?

Issues are created when Nebuchadrezzar (King Nabu-kurdurri-usur mispelled as Nebuchadnezzar in the OT) removes the last king of the lineage of David in 587 BCE. The promise here is forever in these verses, regardless of his actions or his descendants actions. They will be chastised however the god's mercy shall not depart from them and the lineage continues forever.

What should be noted is this promise is multiple hearsay. Nathan is claimed to have been told by the god  this promise and the writer of these verses claims David was told this.

Since Jewish faith and Christian faith bases much on the promises made to David, who ruled after Zedekiah until our current time? Or just until the time of the Jesus since many claim the Jesus is a descendant of David and is now ruling forever. There is a 600 year gap to the Jesus and a 2,600 year gap to the present day.

Forever means forever. Gaps are not allowed, yet there is no ruler of Judah/Israel after Zedekiah that is a descendant of David.

I'll bite on this for a minute.  The idea of rule could be spiritual or physical or both.   Spiritually, God/Jesus rules over Israel though the trials of Revelation through to the new world.  That would imply forever.  I don't know the lineage of the current prime minister... he could be a descendant of David.  Either way, this is likely a terminology debate and whether forever meant Through to Jesus and from his resurrection on ruled by Jesus, or physical rule from constant descendants of David.  

Forever seems to be forever.  I'm curious what the context of the Hebrew said here just to see if we're nitpicking an English rendition of what was said or whether it literally said forever from the rule of David without gaps.  


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

caposkia wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This thread is primarily for the purpose of examining the OT to see if we can classify the stories as Myths, Legends, Parables or Real. Archeaology and history are the only sources outside the OT book itself which is independent (at least in theory) of the beliefs propagated in the OT. As we have seen, sometimes we cannot tell whether the story has basis or not. As unlike you, I don't accept magic (and I use magic here to mean things that go against what is generally accepted as possible in our dimension of reality) as explanatiion at all. There is an explanation for everything, even things that we do not understand today, and eventually many will be understood dispelling the "magic" associated with them.

 

some of the claimed "magic" in the OT does have a natural explanation theory of some sort.  Much of it we have too little information to go on and some of it would have to be deemed "magic" by your definition.  Though again, your definition is subjective to who is determining.  Anyone who accepts a metaphysical existence would not see sorcery or raising someone from the dead magic as defined, but would accept it as possible and reasonable to have some sort of access to the other existence.   Your definition of magic seems to have some underlying implications such as scientific law and empirical and scientifically testable evidence. 

Since I do not accept a metaphysical explanation I don't buy the "magic". As we occupy this dimension we call reality and do not seem to be able to transcend dimensions, at least so far, I have no scientific basis to accept a metaphysical explanation. So all things are seen from our perspective in reality and must have explanations based in it even if we can't understand them at this time.

We now fly airplanes and travel outside the planet Earth. "Magic" 2000 years ago.

I can talk to and see someone on the other side of the Earth as well. Also "magic" 2000 years ago.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As to use of historical names, places and people in ficition, legends, and myths this was done by all ancients just as it is done today, sometimes for the same reasons as today, entertainment and sometimes to explain different things. Most of the pagans (those who supposedly believed in the Greek and Roman gods for example) did not seriously believe the myths described actual events but were done to put forth "truths" or ideas of importance. Where "truths" mean something other than the purported event but pertain to principles and ideas.

It is true that people of ancient times would use names places, etc. as described as entertainment, but they wouldn't have used such (at the time) expensive and difficult to come by means of recording those stories if they didn't see some sort of importance and truth to them.   It is also noted that they were careful to write down much of the scripture in a means that would be preserved over time and not fade or decay.  That seems like a bit too much careful planning for a story for sheer entertainment or even just to make a point. 

Note, I did not suggest these stories were simply entertainment. Many were done to explain "truths" or parables to put forth ideas and a way to live one's life. Where "truths" does not mean the story telling was the "truth" but the lesson to be learned from the story contained "truths".

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Not that I know of.

Hazael was not a god, he was the king of Damascus. I know of no stories where he is considered as a god, so no the god is known but various names doesn't work here.

Case 1 - King Hazael of Damascus wrote on a stelae that he killed the 2 kings

Case 2 - 2 Kings claims it was Jehu that did so.

In case 1 we have an object dated to the 9th century BCE. This was a victory stele.

In case 2 we have a claim from a book which can't be shown to be older than the 2nd century BCE, (the date of the DSS) what may have circulated prior to that is not known.

I go with the older actual physical artifact as the likely real story versus one in a book that was smearing King Ahab and all his descendents showing how the god took vengeance upon them all.

right... I'd agree.  It is said they were both in power around the same time.  Are you sure these aren't 2 different stories with similar outcomes? 1 kings seems to detail "...It shall come about, the one who escapes from the sword of Hazael, Jehu shall put to death...."  1 Kings 19:17.  NASB

If the Biblical account is written from an outsider's perspective, i can easily see how who killed who would be misinterpreted and yet the stories still be true.

It's really simple here -

The Bible claims Jehu killed the 2 kings. The Bible is copy of copies of copies.

Hazael claims to have killed the 2 kings in contrast to the version of the OT.

The Tel Dan inscription is from the period when the event happened.

The OT version is not supported by this, it is contradicted.

Simple to 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:

This is different than the Greek hero stories how? The stories in regard to Jason and Herakles use place names like your example of a battle near Boston in 1400 CE. In the case of the Greek stories these cities or towns may have existed at the time. So should the magic and fantasy be accepted as real? That's what you are telling me in regard to Jewish legends isn't it? I should buy into the Jewish stories but not the Medusa legend. Neither one has archeology on its side and neither do the Saul and David stories.

There is absolutely no support for those stories and no gaps to fill for those stories to fit into.  These particular Bible stories do have minimal support and can fill in historical holes. 

Herakles aka Heracles (not Hercules the Roman hero)  has possibilities as a real person. Even the Christian bishop Eusebius quoted Clement as dating him as a king around 1264 BCE, when he ruled as a king of Argos. He supposedly was deified about 38 years later.

As to Jason, who can say. The stories again date to before 1000 BCE as with Heracles.

Once upon a time we didn't know about all the stories of ancient Sumer either, and then clay tablets were translated.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You claim the archeology adds up based on what researcher or archaeologist? I gave you 2 books with references you gave me none. What's your source?

Yes there is something specific you missed here, go read the books I mentioned. There is support against the stories happening, see Finkelstein.

And now back to the story telling legends of 2 Samuel.

  

Archaeological Study Bible might be a start... be it there were 30 different contributors to that book, you could start looking into those names.  Also Wikipedia would support the idea of arechaeological evidences.  They even give reference to the "artifact" you mentioned when you look up "David".

Of course they mention the Tel Dan inscription, it's the only artifact that mentions "David" at all. Just the house of David, like the "sons of Zeus".

caposkia wrote:

If i remember correctly, i did provide links in past posts... if i didn't i apologize and had intended to.  
As for Saul... look up archaeology for Labayu.  Labayu's career seems to match the career of Saul... which might link the 2 to be the same person.  

I have read the stories of Labayu before. There are similar events. He however lived around 1350 BCE or so based or the Armarna letters. It's possible that he became the "mythical Saul" with story telling. Though the sea peoples were just then invading that would become the Philistines. Or they could have been early settlers after Thera went boom in the 1500s BCE from Myacenean or Minoan cultures. Generally though they are associated with the Sea Peoples invasions documented by Egypt in the 13th century BCE being resettled by Ramses II around the early 12th century in the 5 cities that become associated with them. It's possible that the legends of Labayu and Saul are intermixed story telling with some basis. From Google research on Labayu and wiki as you suggested.

Though this does not make the Saul of the OT at all.

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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:

Chapter 7 begins with David in a discussion with Nathan the prophet about building the god a house. Nathan that night has a visitation (dream or??) where the god informed him to tell David that his son would build the house for the god not him. He also makes several commitments to David and his descendants.

2 Sam 7:13 - " He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever."

2 Sam 7:14-16 - "...if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; 15 - but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 - And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever."

So in both of these verses according to Nathan who told this supposedly to David the descendants of David would rule Judah/Israel forever. Is the current prime minister or president of Israel of the lineage of David?

Issues are created when Nebuchadrezzar (King Nabu-kurdurri-usur mispelled as Nebuchadnezzar in the OT) removes the last king of the lineage of David in 587 BCE. The promise here is forever in these verses, regardless of his actions or his descendants actions. They will be chastised however the god's mercy shall not depart from them and the lineage continues forever.

What should be noted is this promise is multiple hearsay. Nathan is claimed to have been told by the god  this promise and the writer of these verses claims David was told this.

Since Jewish faith and Christian faith bases much on the promises made to David, who ruled after Zedekiah until our current time? Or just until the time of the Jesus since many claim the Jesus is a descendant of David and is now ruling forever. There is a 600 year gap to the Jesus and a 2,600 year gap to the present day.

Forever means forever. Gaps are not allowed, yet there is no ruler of Judah/Israel after Zedekiah that is a descendant of David.

I'll bite on this for a minute.  The idea of rule could be spiritual or physical or both.   Spiritually, God/Jesus rules over Israel though the trials of Revelation through to the new world.  That would imply forever.  I don't know the lineage of the current prime minister... he could be a descendant of David.  Either way, this is likely a terminology debate and whether forever meant Through to Jesus and from his resurrection on ruled by Jesus, or physical rule from constant descendants of David.  

Forever seems to be forever.  I'm curious what the context of the Hebrew said here just to see if we're nitpicking an English rendition of what was said or whether it literally said forever from the rule of David without gaps.  

Recall I don't do spiritual or metaphysical. So I require a real physical relationship to support the claim here.

And I don't see one.

Zedekiah was the very last ruler of Judah/Israel of the house of David.

After his removal, Judah/Judea was ruled by Babylon, Persia, the Greeks, Egypt, and the Seleucids from 587 BCE.

The next time Judah would rule itself would be after Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BCE under the Hasmoneans, circa 140 BCE. Herod who would be made king by the Romans was a Idumean, they were forced to convert to Judaism under the Hasmoneans when they invaded Idumea, so he wasn't of the house of David either.

Israel/Judea is destroyed in the Jewish/Roman wars and as a country no longer existed until 1947. Over 1800 years without a leader.

I'm not sure if after 1947 any leader of the Modern state of Israel is of the house of David or if it is even possible to determine such.

Clearly we will not see this the same because of your beliefs in the Jesus. The Hebrew scriptures do not provide for the Jesus as the leader forever either, even as the mashiach as he was to be a human, not a god.

This discussion can wait until we get into the NT or a new thread I'm going to start very soon based on Bart Ehrman's Book "Forged"

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
2 Samuel 9-12

Continuing in 2 Samuel

Chapter 9 is a discussion how David gave back to Mephibosheth the son of Jonathan all that which was owned by the house of Saul.

Nothing to really comment about.

Chapter 10 details battles between the Ammonites and the mercenaries they hired, the Syrians after the death of their king as supposedly they disrespected David's emissaries who were sent in comfort.

As always, the numbers in battle & killed in battle are extremely unlikely for the population of Palestine of the time period. There is nothing to support these accounts once again.

Chapter 11 begins the discussion of how David breaks some commandments. He spies Bathsheba taking a bath and lusted after her. He finds out she is the wife of Uriah. He managed to get her to come to him and had sex with her and she became pregnant. He then arranges for Uriah to be sent to the front assault on a city where he is killed. Waiting until after the mourning period passed David then married her.

So the king gets the women he wanted and has the husband killed. Arthur and Guinevere from Camelot. Or Henry the 8th. Or any king for that matter. David followed the desires of his little head.

Clearly the god was miffed at David so in chapter 12 the god sent Nathan. He tells a parable of how a rich man had much and there was a poor man who had only 1 lamb he nourished and cared after. A traveler came to visit the rich man and he ordered the poor man's lamb be taken and cooked for the traveler. David reacted in anger, the man should be killed, who is he. Nathan told him it is you. You have taken another man's wife and had him killed. David repented however, Nathan told him the child born of this wife would surely die. Soon thereafter it became sickly and eventually died.

Bathsheba has another son with David and it's Solomon.

The war against Ammon continued and eventually Joab tells David to come as the city is ready to fall such that it's not named after him. So he goes to the front along with the men of Jerusalem and the city fell. He takes the crown and has all the spoil of the city in great quantity. He then put the children of Ammon to work as bricklayers, and workman with saws and axes.

These chapters can't be shown whether they are based in reality or just story telling. The next chapters also read like Greek tragedies as well, or at least 20th century soap operas.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Since I do not accept a metaphysical explanation I don't buy the "magic". As we occupy this dimension we call reality and do not seem to be able to transcend dimensions, at least so far, I have no scientific basis to accept a metaphysical explanation. So all things are seen from our perspective in reality and must have explanations based in it even if we can't understand them at this time.

If we're talking science, how do you feel about the Quantum angle?  

As I mentioned, some of the "magic" is subject to the observer.  What you might deem Biblical magic may in fact have a rational, physical scientific explanation, but we just don't have enough information to go on.  There is some of course I believe is beyond our realm of understanding.  Which is where the quantum theory comes in.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

We now fly airplanes and travel outside the planet Earth. "Magic" 2000 years ago.

I can talk to and see someone on the other side of the Earth as well. Also "magic" 2000 years ago.

exactly.  Point and case, that magic may have a reasonable explanation.  Conspiracy theorists would say all the people raised from the dead in the Bible weren't actually dead, but just very very sick and eventually got better.  The conspiracies go on...

Just for the record, I do believe in the actual raising from the dead and don't buy into the conspiracies.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Note, I did not suggest these stories were simply entertainment. Many were done to explain "truths" or parables to put forth ideas and a way to live one's life. Where "truths" does not mean the story telling was the "truth" but the lesson to be learned from the story contained "truths".

right... and the Bible in many cases does preface the story as being a parable... moreso in the NT.  Though there is theory such as Job for example that could be parable.  The problem with taking the stories we're currently going through as parable is that they continue a timeline.  One that you and I have gone through and agreed on as far as no reasoning or evidence that would suggest that timeline to be flawed.  exaggerations don't deem a story a parable.  The names, places, events etc would all likely be made up to parallel a bigger picture.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It's really simple here -

The Bible claims Jehu killed the 2 kings. The Bible is copy of copies of copies.

Hazael claims to have killed the 2 kings in contrast to the version of the OT.

The Tel Dan inscription is from the period when the event happened.

The OT version is not supported by this, it is contradicted.

Simple to see. 

When Bush was running for presidency, I think ti was Fox that predetermined the outcome and announced it as if it was final... they ultimately were wrong and Bush was elected, but that doesn't mean the election never happened... they just jumped the gun.  

You are right to say that the Bible is copies of copies.... at least of what we have now.   Though of the copies of copies we do have in our hands right now, they are all almost identical.  Therefore, there is no reason to assume the copies we don't have wouldn't be the same.   It is generally understood by historians that the Bible is written accurately... mainly because the thousands of pieces of scriptures we have are identical and have very little if any variance in stories regardless of location and culture.  The exception obviously would be these discrepencies (which are minor in the grand scheme of the story)... It is likely Bible scholars had both versions and someone in history decided on this perspective... This in no way invalidates the stories of scripture or God for that matter.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Herakles aka Heracles (not Hercules the Roman hero)  has possibilities as a real person. Even the Christian bishop Eusebius quoted Clement as dating him as a king around 1264 BCE, when he ruled as a king of Argos. He supposedly was deified about 38 years later.

As to Jason, who can say. The stories again date to before 1000 BCE as with Heracles.

Once upon a time we didn't know about all the stories of ancient Sumer either, and then clay tablets were translated.

Most of the significant characters of the Bible have possibilities as real people too.  That is obviously not enough information to make the stories legitimate.  I know we've questioned the possibilities of characters so far, most only because we have lack of information in the gap and not because we have anything to fill the gap.  The questions usually come to who the person really was rather than whether they were real people or not.  

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Of course they mention the Tel Dan inscription, it's the only artifact that mentions "David" at all. Just the house of David, like the "sons of Zeus".

house of David reference is just like any other ancestrial reference.  Not a deity reference.    Therefore we have an artifact referencing to the geneology and many hundreds of pieces of writings that reference to David... it's a good possibility he's a real person.  Again, lack of resources doesn't suggest the story is false.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have read the stories of Labayu before. There are similar events. He however lived around 1350 BCE or so based or the Armarna letters. It's possible that he became the "mythical Saul" with story telling. Though the sea peoples were just then invading that would become the Philistines. Or they could have been early settlers after Thera went boom in the 1500s BCE from Myacenean or Minoan cultures. Generally though they are associated with the Sea Peoples invasions documented by Egypt in the 13th century BCE being resettled by Ramses II around the early 12th century in the 5 cities that become associated with them. It's possible that the legends of Labayu and Saul are intermixed story telling with some basis. From Google research on Labayu and wiki as you suggested.

Though this does not make the Saul of the OT at all.

it's a start and only a piece of the whole puzzle.  The bigger picture is that we have to keep looking beyond names and dates.    It does not make Saul from what we know, but of course we are looking at 2 different perspectives as well.  The parallels are a bit strong and both stories together could fit into each other from what I've seen.    I could be wrong.. guess I haven't sat down and actually pieced them together an analyzed them thoroughly.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

Recall I don't do spiritual or metaphysical. So I require a real physical relationship to support the claim here.

And I don't see one.

I know where you stand on that.  I only brought it up because if we're going to question a Biblical reference of a future event or time in the future, then you'd have to question as to which plane it was in reference to.  Forever could be taken on many different levels.  Forever to me is until I die.  Forever for history is still happening today and always will be happening from what we can see.  Forever spiritually would be the existence of God, here always no beginning, no end.  IN the case of this story, no end.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Zedekiah was the very last ruler of Judah/Israel of the house of David.

After his removal, Judah/Judea was ruled by Babylon, Persia, the Greeks, Egypt, and the Seleucids from 587 BCE.

The next time Judah would rule itself would be after Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BCE under the Hasmoneans, circa 140 BCE. Herod who would be made king by the Romans was a Idumean, they were forced to convert to Judaism under the Hasmoneans when they invaded Idumea, so he wasn't of the house of David either.

Israel/Judea is destroyed in the Jewish/Roman wars and as a country no longer existed until 1947. Over 1800 years without a leader.

I'm not sure if after 1947 any leader of the Modern state of Israel is of the house of David or if it is even possible to determine such.

Clearly we will not see this the same because of your beliefs in the Jesus. The Hebrew scriptures do not provide for the Jesus as the leader forever either, even as the mashiach as he was to be a human, not a god.

This discussion can wait until we get into the NT or a new thread I'm going to start very soon based on Bart Ehrman's Book "Forged"

yes it can wait.  just for the record, Jesus was a human.   If the scriptures weren't congruent, then the NT wouldn't have gotten far be it that it was former Jews that spread the word.  

 

 

 

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Chapter 10 details battles between the Ammonites and the mercenaries they hired, the Syrians after the death of their king as supposedly they disrespected David's emissaries who were sent in comfort.

As always, the numbers in battle & killed in battle are extremely unlikely for the population of Palestine of the time period. There is nothing to support these accounts once again.

I think we've agreed numbers aren't a determining factor unless all of history is questionable when dates aren't exact. 

Let's keep it level to say there's nothing to support these accounts or any other accounts that might have happened instead of these... in other words, there's nothing to claim anything.  In reference to what we've confirmed so far, there's nothing to suggest this didn't happen and congruency supports it. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Chapter 11 begins the discussion of how David breaks some commandments. He spies Bathsheba taking a bath and lusted after her. He finds out she is the wife of Uriah. He managed to get her to come to him and had sex with her and she became pregnant. He then arranges for Uriah to be sent to the front assault on a city where he is killed. Waiting until after the mourning period passed David then married her.

So the king gets the women he wanted and has the husband killed. Arthur and Guinevere from Camelot. Or Henry the 8th. Or any king for that matter. David followed the desires of his little head.

Clearly the god was miffed at David so in chapter 12 the god sent Nathan. He tells a parable of how a rich man had much and there was a poor man who had only 1 lamb he nourished and cared after. A traveler came to visit the rich man and he ordered the poor man's lamb be taken and cooked for the traveler. David reacted in anger, the man should be killed, who is he. Nathan told him it is you. You have taken another man's wife and had him killed. David repented however, Nathan told him the child born of this wife would surely die. Soon thereafter it became sickly and eventually died.

Bathsheba has another son with David and it's Solomon.

The war against Ammon continued and eventually Joab tells David to come as the city is ready to fall such that it's not named after him. So he goes to the front along with the men of Jerusalem and the city fell. He takes the crown and has all the spoil of the city in great quantity. He then put the children of Ammon to work as bricklayers, and workman with saws and axes.

These chapters can't be shown whether they are based in reality or just story telling. The next chapters also read like Greek tragedies as well, or at least 20th century soap operas.

for these we'd have to take into consideration a consolidation of events.  A summary if you will.  It is only detailing what is important to continue the timeline.  The events of the war and David lusting continues the timeline into Solomon.  I'm sure a lot more "normal life stuff" happened in between, but is not relevant to the progression of the story or timeline.  

 

 


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

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Since I do not accept a metaphysical explanation I don't buy the "magic". As we occupy this dimension we call reality and do not seem to be able to transcend dimensions, at least so far, I have no scientific basis to accept a metaphysical explanation. So all things are seen from our perspective in reality and must have explanations based in it even if we can't understand them at this time.

If we're talking science, how do you feel about the Quantum angle? 

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

caposkia wrote:

 

As I mentioned, some of the "magic" is subject to the observer.  What you might deem Biblical magic may in fact have a rational, physical scientific explanation, but we just don't have enough information to go on.  There is some of course I believe is beyond our realm of understanding.  Which is where the quantum theory comes in.

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.

caposkia wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

We now fly airplanes and travel outside the planet Earth. "Magic" 2000 years ago.

I can talk to and see someone on the other side of the Earth as well. Also "magic" 2000 years ago.

exactly.  Point and case, that magic may have a reasonable explanation.  Conspiracy theorists would say all the people raised from the dead in the Bible weren't actually dead, but just very very sick and eventually got better.  The conspiracies go on...

Just for the record, I do believe in the actual raising from the dead and don't buy into the conspiracies.

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

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.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Note, I did not suggest these stories were simply entertainment. Many were done to explain "truths" or parables to put forth ideas and a way to live one's life. Where "truths" does not mean the story telling was the "truth" but the lesson to be learned from the story contained "truths".

right... and the Bible in many cases does preface the story as being a parable... moreso in the NT.  Though there is theory such as Job for example that could be parable.  The problem with taking the stories we're currently going through as parable is that they continue a timeline.  One that you and I have gone through and agreed on as far as no reasoning or evidence that would suggest that timeline to be flawed.  exaggerations don't deem a story a parable.  The names, places, events etc would all likely be made up to parallel a bigger picture. 

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".

caposkia wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It's really simple here -

The Bible claims Jehu killed the 2 kings. The Bible is copy of copies of copies.

Hazael claims to have killed the 2 kings in contrast to the version of the OT.

The Tel Dan inscription is from the period when the event happened.

The OT version is not supported by this, it is contradicted.

Simple to see. 

When Bush was running for presidency, I think ti was Fox that predetermined the outcome and announced it as if it was final... they ultimately were wrong and Bush was elected, but that doesn't mean the election never happened... they just jumped the gun.  

You are right to say that the Bible is copies of copies.... at least of what we have now.   Though of the copies of copies we do have in our hands right now, they are all almost identical.  Therefore, there is no reason to assume the copies we don't have wouldn't be the same.   It is generally understood by historians that the Bible is written accurately... mainly because the thousands of pieces of scriptures we have are identical and have very little if any variance in stories regardless of location and culture.  The exception obviously would be these discrepencies (which are minor in the grand scheme of the story)... It is likely Bible scholars had both versions and someone in history decided on this perspective... This in no way invalidates the stories of scripture or God for that matter.  

As the Bible story of Jehu was written by Israel hating Yahweh worshipers or priests in Judah that especially had disdain for Ahab no surprise that they want to show that a Judahite killed the evil descendants of Ahab. That however is in conflict with an actual artifact from outside the bias of Judah, namely the victory stelae of King Hazael.

We can go into this more when we get to 2 Kings shortly.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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:

Herakles aka Heracles (not Hercules the Roman hero)  has possibilities as a real person. Even the Christian bishop Eusebius quoted Clement as dating him as a king around 1264 BCE, when he ruled as a king of Argos. He supposedly was deified about 38 years later.

As to Jason, who can say. The stories again date to before 1000 BCE as with Heracles.

Once upon a time we didn't know about all the stories of ancient Sumer either, and then clay tablets were translated.

Most of the significant characters of the Bible have possibilities as real people too.  That is obviously not enough information to make the stories legitimate.  I know we've questioned the possibilities of characters so far, most only because we have lack of information in the gap and not because we have anything to fill the gap.  The questions usually come to who the person really was rather than whether they were real people or not. 

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.

caposkia wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Of course they mention the Tel Dan inscription, it's the only artifact that mentions "David" at all. Just the house of David, like the "sons of Zeus".

house of David reference is just like any other ancestrial reference.  Not a deity reference.    Therefore we have an artifact referencing to the geneology and many hundreds of pieces of writings that reference to David... it's a good possibility he's a real person.  Again, lack of resources doesn't suggest the story is false. 

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.

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?

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have read the stories of Labayu before. There are similar events. He however lived around 1350 BCE or so based or the Armarna letters. It's possible that he became the "mythical Saul" with story telling. Though the sea peoples were just then invading that would become the Philistines. Or they could have been early settlers after Thera went boom in the 1500s BCE from Myacenean or Minoan cultures. Generally though they are associated with the Sea Peoples invasions documented by Egypt in the 13th century BCE being resettled by Ramses II around the early 12th century in the 5 cities that become associated with them. It's possible that the legends of Labayu and Saul are intermixed story telling with some basis. From Google research on Labayu and wiki as you suggested.

Though this does not make the Saul of the OT at all.

it's a start and only a piece of the whole puzzle.  The bigger picture is that we have to keep looking beyond names and dates.    It does not make Saul from what we know, but of course we are looking at 2 different perspectives as well.  The parallels are a bit strong and both stories together could fit into each other from what I've seen.    I could be wrong.. guess I haven't sat down and actually pieced them together an analyzed them thoroughly.  

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.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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:

 

Recall I don't do spiritual or metaphysical. So I require a real physical relationship to support the claim here.

And I don't see one.

I know where you stand on that.  I only brought it up because if we're going to question a Biblical reference of a future event or time in the future, then you'd have to question as to which plane it was in reference to.  Forever could be taken on many different levels.  Forever to me is until I die.  Forever for history is still happening today and always will be happening from what we can see.  Forever spiritually would be the existence of God, here always no beginning, no end.  IN the case of this story, no end.

And in the case of the promise to David, forever meant continously into the future. This did not happen after Zedekiah was removed as king. We can and will talk about his when we get to him.

 

caposkia wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Zedekiah was the very last ruler of Judah/Israel of the house of David.

After his removal, Judah/Judea was ruled by Babylon, Persia, the Greeks, Egypt, and the Seleucids from 587 BCE.

The next time Judah would rule itself would be after Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BCE under the Hasmoneans, circa 140 BCE. Herod who would be made king by the Romans was a Idumean, they were forced to convert to Judaism under the Hasmoneans when they invaded Idumea, so he wasn't of the house of David either.

Israel/Judea is destroyed in the Jewish/Roman wars and as a country no longer existed until 1947. Over 1800 years without a leader.

I'm not sure if after 1947 any leader of the Modern state of Israel is of the house of David or if it is even possible to determine such.

Clearly we will not see this the same because of your beliefs in the Jesus. The Hebrew scriptures do not provide for the Jesus as the leader forever either, even as the mashiach as he was to be a human, not a god.

This discussion can wait until we get into the NT or a new thread I'm going to start very soon based on Bart Ehrman's Book "Forged"

yes it can wait.  just for the record, Jesus was a human.   If the scriptures weren't congruent, then the NT wouldn't have gotten far be it that it was former Jews that spread the word.  

You are on record that the Jesus character was a human. I can wait to discuss how this impacts the situation until we get to the NT in about 2014 at the rate we are going. Though, I'm going to start a new thread this fall as I mentioned and we can beat it to death there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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:

Chapter 10 details battles between the Ammonites and the mercenaries they hired, the Syrians after the death of their king as supposedly they disrespected David's emissaries who were sent in comfort.

As always, the numbers in battle & killed in battle are extremely unlikely for the population of Palestine of the time period. There is nothing to support these accounts once again.

I think we've agreed numbers aren't a determining factor unless all of history is questionable when dates aren't exact. 

Let's keep it level to say there's nothing to support these accounts or any other accounts that might have happened instead of these... in other words, there's nothing to claim anything.  In reference to what we've confirmed so far, there's nothing to suggest this didn't happen and congruency supports it.

Battles could have happened with less than 1/10 th the claimed numbers, in other words, 200 could have been slaughtered and it would be reasonable. The high numbers are needed by the Judahite priests that wrote or redacted these stories to continue the greatness claims. The greatness claims are erroneous as shown by archeology. It doesn't look very impressive if David ruled a thousand people and had a total army of 100 or so.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Chapter 11 begins the discussion of how David breaks some commandments. He spies Bathsheba taking a bath and lusted after her. He finds out she is the wife of Uriah. He managed to get her to come to him and had sex with her and she became pregnant. He then arranges for Uriah to be sent to the front assault on a city where he is killed. Waiting until after the mourning period passed David then married her.

So the king gets the women he wanted and has the husband killed. Arthur and Guinevere from Camelot. Or Henry the 8th. Or any king for that matter. David followed the desires of his little head.

Clearly the god was miffed at David so in chapter 12 the god sent Nathan. He tells a parable of how a rich man had much and there was a poor man who had only 1 lamb he nourished and cared after. A traveler came to visit the rich man and he ordered the poor man's lamb be taken and cooked for the traveler. David reacted in anger, the man should be killed, who is he. Nathan told him it is you. You have taken another man's wife and had him killed. David repented however, Nathan told him the child born of this wife would surely die. Soon thereafter it became sickly and eventually died.

Bathsheba has another son with David and it's Solomon.

The war against Ammon continued and eventually Joab tells David to come as the city is ready to fall such that it's not named after him. So he goes to the front along with the men of Jerusalem and the city fell. He takes the crown and has all the spoil of the city in great quantity. He then put the children of Ammon to work as bricklayers, and workman with saws and axes.

These chapters can't be shown whether they are based in reality or just story telling. The next chapters also read like Greek tragedies as well, or at least 20th century soap operas.

for these we'd have to take into consideration a consolidation of events.  A summary if you will.  It is only detailing what is important to continue the timeline.  The events of the war and David lusting continues the timeline into Solomon.  I'm sure a lot more "normal life stuff" happened in between, but is not relevant to the progression of the story or timeline.  

 

 

It's just story telling to build the character David in other words. What may or may not be real in it has no real impact on where this story is headed other than continung into the next kings.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:In

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)  

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.  

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.  

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.  

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.  

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As the Bible story of Jehu was written by Israel hating Yahweh worshipers or priests in Judah that especially had disdain for Ahab no surprise that they want to show that a Judahite killed the evil descendants of Ahab. That however is in conflict with an actual artifact from outside the bias of Judah, namely the victory stelae of King Hazael.

We can go into this more when we get to 2 Kings shortly.

 

sounds good


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The

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.

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.

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.

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.  

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The

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.

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.

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.

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.  

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:You

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You are on record that the Jesus character was a human. I can wait to discuss how this impacts the situation until we get to the NT in about 2014 at the rate we are going. Though, I'm going to start a new thread this fall as I mentioned and we can beat it to death there.

definitely.

ya know, though its' fun to beat around with stories that haven't much to go on.  We could easily agree that there's just not enough information to empirically prove or disprove a particular story and move on.  There are definitely stories I'd like to focus more on as well.  I think we should still touch on each story basically, but don't need to dwell on any stories that most obviously have such a lack of resource it's impossible to know for sure what should have been going on at that exact moment in that exact lineage.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It's just story telling to build the character David in other words. What may or may not be real in it has no real impact on where this story is headed other than continung into the next kings.

To a point.  the ultimate goal here is to understand whether this story, no matter how insignificant in ancient history has a place in history or not.  Be it that you claimed this story possible on a much smaller scale, it sounds like we could be in agreement as far as its possibility of having a place in history.  As far as confirming that, all we have to go on are the other stories that fill in the lineage, with the minimal support in history, which still is support vs. no support of any other possibility.  


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

As I'm pn a trip, in Vegas actually with only 3G access I'll respond to your post next week.

Off to see what trouble I can get into.

____________________________________________________________
"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 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).

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: 2605
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:As

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As I'm pn a trip, in Vegas actually with only 3G access I'll respond to your post next week.

Off to see what trouble I can get into.

ah, sweet... have fun