OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real
Offline In discussions with Caposkia on his thread regarding his recommended book (New Atheist Crusaders) we have mutually agreed to open a discussion on the OT discussing reality versus myth for stories in the OT. My position is that the OT is largely myths and legends with little basis in reality. There may be stories that may be considered literature as Rook has suggested though it still incorporates myths and legends as well in my opinion. The intent is to examine major stories and discuss the mythical components versus the interpretations by Christians and Jews that these events were real. Caposkia has indicated in many of his posts that he agrees that some of the stories are reality based and in those areas I'm interested in understanding his reasoning or any other believer for acceptance versus others where he does not consider them to be. It may be there are a few where we may find agreement as to a story being a myth or it being real though my inclination is little more is reality based other than kingdoms existed in Palestine that were called Israel and Judah and they interacted with other nations in some fashion.
Since the basis of Christian beliefs started with creation and the fall of man we'll begin there and attempt to progress through Genesis in some sort of logical order sort of like Sunday School for those of you that went. I’m not particularly concerned about each little bit of belief in these stories but I’m more interested in the mythology aspects. We could for pages argue over original sin or free will but that isn’t even necessary in my opinion as the text discredits itself with blatant assertions and impossibilities. Instead consider for example Eve is created in one version from Adam’s rib which can be directly compared to the Sumerian goddess of the rib called Nin-ti which Ninhursag gave birth to heal the god Enki. Other comparisons can be made to the Sumerian paradise called Dilmun to the Garden of Eden as well. These stories predate the OT by thousands of years and tell the tale of the ancient Annuna gods that supposedly created the world. Visit www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/# for more information and some of the translated stories, click on corpus content by number or category.
In order for salvation through Christ from our supposed sins against the God the events of Genesis must have occurred in some fashion. If the Genesis stories are largely mythical or they are simply a parable then this basis is poorly founded and weakens the entire structure of Christian belief. Caposkia claims I error at square one because I don't acknowledge a spiritual world. I suggest that he and other followers error by accepting that which there is no detectable basis. This is done by interpreting parables and myths by the ancients to be more than inadequate understanding by unknowing people that looked for an answer to why things were in the world they observed.
In Genesis 1 is the supposed creation of the world by God. In this account illogical explanations start immediately with the description of the Earth being without form and darkness was upon it. Light is then created and explained as day and night. Next God molded his creation into better detail by creating Heaven above meaning the sky and waters on the earth. He then caused dry land to appear calling it the Earth and the waters the Seas. On this same day he created vegetation with the requirement that it bring forth after its kind by duplication through seeds. The following day he created the heavenly bodies to divide day from night and to be signs for seasons and for years. He made the great light to rule the day and the lesser light the night as well as all the stars. On the 5th day he created all the life in the seas and air with the requirement they reproduce after their own kind. The 6th day he created all the land animals including man both male and female. The gods in this case made man after their image as male and female in their own likeness. He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth.
Problems start with this account immediately. The Earth according to science is leftover material from the forming of our star, the Sun. This material would have been a glowing mass of molten material. The land in any event would emerge first before water could exist as a liquid upon it due to the extreme heat. Light would already exist in the form of the Sun which according to current science is not as old as other stars in our galaxy not to mention in the Universe. The account mentions that day and night were made but this is not so except for a local event on the planet. An object not on the Earth would have no such condition or a different form of night and day. The account further errors in claiming the Sun, Moon, and stars were all formed following the creation of the Earth. In theories of planet formulation the star is formed first and planets afterwords. In the case of the moon multiple theories occur though not one where it zapped into the Universe suddenly. The statement that the heavenly bodies were created for signs and seasons is more evidence of a legend. The other planets and stars are purposeful in ways that aid in life existing or continuing to do so on Earth. Jupiter for example is a great big vacuum cleaner sucking into its gravitational field all sorts of debris that could eradicate life on Earth. Is this then a design by the god or just part of the situation that helped to allow life to progress as it did on the Earth? The observation of specific planets or stars in specific areas of the sky is just that, an observation no more and not placed there by a god to indicate the change of seasons.
One can also see some similarity between Genesis 1 and the Egyptian creation myth Ra and the serpent, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/StudTxts/raSerpnt.html . In this myth Ra is the first on the scene and he creates all the creatures himself doing so before he made the wind or the rain. Ra does not create man but the gods he created gave birth to the people of Egypt who multiplied and flourished.
Some Jewish sects as well as Catholic belief allow for evolution to have been the method for creation of life on Earth. This however is in contradiction to Genesis in that all vegetation and animals were to reproduce only after their own kind. If this is so, then evolution is not compatible with the creation story. Simply put the life could not alter and produce different versions not after its kind. Since obvious examples exist for variation in species such as evolution even as simple as fish in caves without eyes or color versus those that are in streams outside there is obvious adaption thus discrediting this part of Genesis as myth.
The creation of man in Genesis 1 also suggests multiple gods as man was created in their likeness male and female thus following Canaanite gods such as Yahweh and his Asherah or Ba'al and Athirat that may be a reflection of an older tradition from either Egypt or Sumer. Genesis 2 on the other hand has a slightly different version from a variant I'll discuss in a later post.
I consider Genesis 1 to be a myth, legend or a parable based on all the problems discussed with basis in ancient stories from Sumer and Egypt. I leave it to Caposkia and other believers to indicate where they accept parts of Genesis 1 as reality and to indicate their reasoning if they do so.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline No and neither do you.
of course, and this is where I use a little bit of logic
Maybe God would have had another purpose for the tree. The snake, however, had one job only - to do the will of God and make sure that God's plan to bloody up Jesus would have to be implemented.
Right. That was the whole purpose from the beginning.. uh.. can you cite your source for that conclusion please?
Still leaves God as a sadist with a massive blood boner.
if your conclusion is true, than of course it does. I'll have to check your source and how they came to that conclusion.
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:No implication at all, it claims in Genesis 11:8 "So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence . . " Though scattering of everything is evident for millions of years as indicated by fossil records so no god was needed to do the scattering.
unless God's been doing it the whole time in accordance to Him wanting the world populated.
Conjecture and unprovable. What is proved is the Earth has been here for billions of years and man for millions.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:After the Babel event Genesis begins its major story line, the development of Abraham and his descendants. Abe and his relatives came from Ur of the Chaldees which tells you when this part of Genesis was written as in Babylonian times in the 1st millennium BCE. When one attempts to date it to 2000 BCE, there were no people known as Chaldees. Anyway, Abe's dad Terah took his family from Ur to the city of Haran. Both of these cities were worship centers for the Sumerian or Akkadian god Sin, or simply called the moon god. They could have gone from Ur to any place, why pick another city centered on moon god worship? The Bible never claims that Terah or any of Abe's ancestors were believers in Yahweh or El as Abe called him.
I never dispute specific dating of books. I know there are a few theories. I have argued that they are amidts the oldest of manuscripts we have to date. Some older than others. Many written much later than they were told. It is also understood that Genesis is actually one of the newest Old Testiment books.
Nor did it need to. It was just a geneology.
We already have argued over how ancient the OT manuscripts are, the oldest is the DSS, see previous posts. No older than 165 BCE and likely to be from about 60 to 70 CE.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Abe moves his family to the land the god promised him in Genesis 12:1-3. It doesn't indicate whether the god left Abe a post-it on his tent or came to him in a dream but according to the story Abe and his family including Lot packed up all their stuff and relocated to Canaan. When they arrived on a mountain East of Bethel Abe built an altar to the god. This place becomes of later importance during the time of the 2 kingdoms. Abe knows this god as El, which is the same name used by the Canaanites for the main god in their pantheon.
El or Elohim is a Hebrew reference to "Lord" and could reference any god of importance to any people just as Adonai could. Most people of the Bible didn't reference much to God by his name. When questioned however, they were able to say who it was they followed.
The only place this is done is in the OT itself which is a circular argument. Canaanite documents suggest El was someone else, see Ugaritic records.
The problem here is it's the same geographic area and completely different gods are claimed, including Yahweh is a son of El in the Canaanite pantheon. Asherah is Yahweh's consort as is she also mentioned as Ba'al's consort. It is possible that Yahweh and Ba'al are the same god. I'll have to look up the links for this but I think Richard Crappo in Utah has written much on this.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline In the course of other research I have come across mention of how the early church and in fact up to the Reformation viewed these stories. They were not taken literally. A discussion of how god might have started things (always a god) would give a short review or mention and then a dismissal on some grounds of impossibility, very like the kind people would give today. Thus having shown it was not a literally true story their speculation began. Not that their speculation was any less fanciful and not that they rejected everything around and about the story but they had no problem with trying to come up with a better story.
Before the Reformation the Roman church had a get out of jail free card by claiming both scripture and tradition as a source for the faith. What we do is not found in scripture? contrary to scripture? No problem. We have always done it therefore it is correct under the tradition clause.
The Reformation started abandoning traditions which were in favor of Rome. At first they only got rid of as few as possible to set up their own fiefdoms in place of Rome. But a good idea was taken to extremes and scripture only became the rule for the extremist cults which congregated in the American colonies and later in the US proper.
At times the tradition was used against Rome such as the early writings, the records of traditions, were used against Rome and the mainstream Reformation churches like the COE and Lutherans. Seems in all the early writings there is no mention of priests, bishops and presbyters and deacons but no priests. Where did the priest tradition come from?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline Um, all of the above. The OT contains myth, legends and reality. I don't think many people here will disagree that the Genesis creation narrative is fictional. However, 1-2 Kings probably contains some real history about first monarchs of Israel. And other books like Ezra contains real history about the Babylonian Exile. Books like Job and Daniel 7-12 don't seem to refelct history, but instead reflect parable and apocalypticism. Daniel 1-6 seems to be historical fiction.
There is zero archaeological evidence found in all of bibleland in support of anything in the OT stories about bibleland. Probably does not matter. There is nother there to support the stories. What is found is in direct contradiction to the stories. As physical evidence rules the stories are bullshit. Similarly with the Babylon exile story and everything associated with it. There is no evidence for it having happened. There is no evidence or any civilization in bibleland it could have happened to. There is no evidence of it in Babylon. Therefore it is also bullshit.
This really isn't a question you can answer without significant study and probably a decent knowledge of ancient Hebrew. For example, we know that Deuteronomy was written hundreds of years later than Exodus because of the changes in the Hebrew language.
Another problem is there is no evidence Hebrew was ever a spoken language in bibleland. When the Judeans first appear in history in the mid 1st c. BC they are speaking Aramaic. The squared script called Hebrew is the Aramaic script. The mere handful of inscriptions facetiously called proto-hebrew use Phoenician script.
The case against the OT stories all of which is based upon physical evidence or the lack thereof is overwhelmingly against the religious tradition that there is any element of real history in them.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline Topher wrote:I think I need to understand how you're defining good and evil. I have a feeling you're taking it out of context of the story. Keep in mind, due to the fact that translating from the Hebrew to English is not a flawless art. In fact, there are many instances where the words cannot be directly translated. Even if they are, usually the Hebrew word sheds better light on what is being talked about. Context clues are also important in critical analyzation of any document. For this, it's important to understand that you can't always use the broad definitions of the English words and expect them to apply due to the translational discrepencies.They were without knowledge of good and evil, otherwise why the hell did god expressly forbid them this knowledge.
Let us review the bidding here. We know some unknown charlatans invented the story at some unknown date for unknown reasons. We have no reason to assume there is some serious meaning in this story. We do not even know how literate the creators were. Nor do we have any idea if the creators intended it to make any more sense than Hubbard intended his Xenu story to make or the golden plates of Smith to make.
So it is really going off the deep end to bring an basketful of unfounded religious traditions to the story and then pretend there is a problem making sense of it. And that is before going into what the plain words of the story say instead of the traditional religious assertion of what it means which is absolutely absurd.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline BobSpence1 wrote:Hmm - I would likecaposkiato explain why he does not see '
moral discernment', and
'knowledge of good and evil',as meaning pretty much the same thing...
And just what does he see as the distinction between 'ethical discernment' and 'moral discernment'?
These seem to be fundamental to the the debate here.
I have studied the context from which it came and have studied it. It is understood by context and language that it was the source of good vs. evil in nature... e.g. lies, greed, etc.
Many seem to forget that I'm not the only one that has come to these conclusions and that it has been intensely studied by many. I embrace these conclusions because they seem to make the most sense at this time.
Should anyone actually read the story without bring an shitload of religious traditiona to it, it is a much different story.
We read clearly there are many gods. Like us means like US unless a religious tradition tells you it does not. All we know is that tradition has been around as far back as we can find mention of it without the idiot who invented it being identified must less why he invented it.
We read clearly these gods were into creating plot devices. They create all the animals in pairs and then "discover" Adam needs a pairing. Ya think? Plot device one, a subservient women unlike the females among the animals.
Plot device two. They are created to be subservient to the gods. The lack two things be gods. They do not know good and evil and they do not live forever. Enter dramatic theme, forbid one tree but not the other. Ignore the fact they did not head straight for the Tree of Life and become gods immediately and bring on the snake!
The snake is a wilely creature. Had he/she/it really been interested in helping the people they would have been sent direct to the banana tree and they would have become gods straight away and lived happily ever after quite literally. But no he sends them to the apple tree to learn good and evil first so they started wearing clothes. Maybe the snake owned a Gap franchise.
Anyway there is a nasty side effect of knowing good from evil. They get the odd idea that naked is evil. [cue Old Navy theme] Where in the hell did that come from? That is irrelevant to the story so far.
But then the gods get all upset about the banana tree and Adam and Eve becoming gods and kick them out of the entire Garden instead of simply removing the god-making tree. A classic case of over-reaction if there ever was one.
Wherever they got the story it is clearly related to stealing the secret of fire from the gods. It represents man rising above the animals and getting half-way to godhood. They are clearly heroes yet somehow a semi-literate savage converted it into some kind of sin narrative.
You have to wonder why people WANT to bring such nonsense ideas to the story.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline Conjecture and unprovable. What is proved is the Earth has been here for billions of years and man for millions.
understood. It is just as "provable" as your statement that "no god was needed"
We already have argued over how ancient the OT manuscripts are, the oldest is the DSS, see previous posts. No older than 165 BCE and likely to be from about 60 to 70 CE.
I said specifics, not generalities. Again, it is understood that Genesis is one of the newest OT books.
The only place this is done is in the OT itself which is a circular argument. Canaanite documents suggest El was someone else, see Ugaritic records.
When in reference, it's always going to represent someone or something.. If they didnt' follow God Almighty, of course it had to reference to someone else specifically unless it was a general reference to many gods.
The problem here is it's the same geographic area and completely different gods are claimed, including Yahweh is a son of El in the Canaanite pantheon. Asherah is Yahweh's consort as is she also mentioned as Ba'al's consort. It is possible that Yahweh and Ba'al are the same god. I'll have to look up the links for this but I think Richard Crappo in Utah has written much on this.
I'm don't know too much about that tie. Haven't researched it. It does make sense for non-followers of Yahweh to lessen His authority. Otherwise, they'd have no excuse for following another exept for rebellion.
- Login to post comments
Offline There is zero archaeological evidence found in all of bibleland in support of anything in the OT stories about bibleland. Probably does not matter. There is nother there to support the stories. What is found is in direct contradiction to the stories. As physical evidence rules the stories are bullshit. Similarly with the Babylon exile story and everything associated with it. There is no evidence for it having happened. There is no evidence or any civilization in bibleland it could have happened to. There is no evidence of it in Babylon. Therefore it is also bullshit.
On the contrary. I suggest you pick up an "Archeological Study Bible". Let me know what you find. Haven't actually read through all of it myself, but know of a few things it must reference to.
Another problem is there is no evidence Hebrew was ever a spoken language in bibleland. When the Judeans first appear in history in the mid 1st c. BC they are speaking Aramaic. The squared script called Hebrew is the Aramaic script. The mere handful of inscriptions facetiously called proto-hebrew use Phoenician script.
...therefore, God must not exist! What if I told you Biblical scholars know the discrepencies in language already? What if I told you the English language isn't really English?
The case against the OT stories all of which is based upon physical evidence or the lack thereof is overwhelmingly against the religious tradition that there is any element of real history in them.
Do some homework next time, then come to me with that claim.
- Login to post comments
Offline Let us review the bidding here. We know some unknown charlatans invented the story at some unknown date for unknown reasons. We have no reason to assume there is some serious meaning in this story. We do not even know how literate the creators were. Nor do we have any idea if the creators intended it to make any more sense than Hubbard intended his Xenu story to make or the golden plates of Smith to make.
So it is really going off the deep end to bring an basketful of unfounded religious traditions to the story and then pretend there is a problem making sense of it. And that is before going into what the plain words of the story say instead of the traditional religious assertion of what it means which is absolutely absurd.
wow, you came in unprepaired!
I despise religion and therefore avoid using that as an excuse. Sorry, I'm taking what is there. You need to understand what it meant in context and the languages of the times in order to so closely critique it. Unfortunately, most are illprepaired for such critical critique of the scriptures and yet still try to argue the point. I hope you're smarter than that.
- Login to post comments
Offline Should anyone actually read the story without bring an shitload of religious traditiona to it, it is a much different story.
most religions over the years have tried to manipulate it to meet their needs and wants.
We read clearly there are many gods. Like us means like US unless a religious tradition tells you it does not. All we know is that tradition has been around as far back as we can find mention of it without the idiot who invented it being identified must less why he invented it.
You're generalizing tradition. Tradition isn't the culprit, it's religion forming unbiblical traditions and claiming it's Biblical.
We read clearly these gods were into creating plot devices. They create all the animals in pairs and then "discover" Adam needs a pairing. Ya think? Plot device one, a subservient women unlike the females among the animals.
so it is in scripture then that the animals did have other sexes! Please reference. Or were you just assuming again.
The problem is, the story is old, the reference point in the story is much older... at least for what we're talking about at this time. Both of us can continually make assumptions about what really happened, but is that really going to get us anywhere? Both would not be able to prove either way the validity of each assumption and therefore, we are back to square 1.
Plot device two. They are created to be subservient to the gods. The lack two things be gods. They do not know good and evil and they do not live forever. Enter dramatic theme, forbid one tree but not the other. Ignore the fact they did not head straight for the Tree of Life and become gods immediately and bring on the snake!
I think you're pretty close to starting your own religion.
The snake is a wilely creature. Had he/she/it really been interested in helping the people they would have been sent direct to the banana tree and they would have become gods straight away and lived happily ever after quite literally. But no he sends them to the apple tree to learn good and evil first so they started wearing clothes. Maybe the snake owned a Gap franchise.
That must be it.
Anyway there is a nasty side effect of knowing good from evil. They get the odd idea that naked is evil. [cue Old Navy theme] Where in the hell did that come from? That is irrelevant to the story so far.
is that what you get from that? Explain to me why nakedness in public is frowned upon in the first place. Is it really because it's evil?
But then the gods get all upset about the banana tree and Adam and Eve becoming gods and kick them out of the entire Garden instead of simply removing the god-making tree. A classic case of over-reaction if there ever was one.
wow! it's like you know more than God himself!!!
Wherever they got the story it is clearly related to stealing the secret of fire from the gods. It represents man rising above the animals and getting half-way to godhood. They are clearly heroes yet somehow a semi-literate savage converted it into some kind of sin narrative.
You have to wonder why people WANT to bring such nonsense ideas to the story.
Makes them feel better. Where do you get the idea that there was a "rise in power"? From what I understood, the fact that God; "made man in His image" suggests the "power" was already there in man.
To support your conclusion, we must be no better than animals today though, right???
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Let us review the bidding here. We know some unknown charlatans invented the story at some unknown date for unknown reasons. We have no reason to assume there is some serious meaning in this story. We do not even know how literate the creators were. Nor do we have any idea if the creators intended it to make any more sense than Hubbard intended his Xenu story to make or the golden plates of Smith to make.
So it is really going off the deep end to bring an basketful of unfounded religious traditions to the story and then pretend there is a problem making sense of it. And that is before going into what the plain words of the story say instead of the traditional religious assertion of what it means which is absolutely absurd.
wow, you came in unprepaired!
I despise religion and therefore avoid using that as an excuse. Sorry, I'm taking what is there. You need to understand what it meant in context and the languages of the times in order to so closely critique it. Unfortunately, most are illprepaired for such critical critique of the scriptures and yet still try to argue the point. I hope you're smarter than that.
Don't you mean you despise the established versions of religion? You have no problems practicing your own version, I trust.
Why do the "I have a relationship not a religion" folks seem to be unable to have this relationship except within the rules of the religion?
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Conjecture and unprovable. What is proved is the Earth has been here for billions of years and man for millions.
understood. It is just as "provable" as your statement that "no god was needed"
OK. So in your opinion why is no god needed unprovable?
The Universe seems to exist. Many different stories exist from ancient times how it happened. None seem to correlate with science. You can go to the Catholic view, God used evolution and science to create the Universe but a hole is left. The hole is other than stories from ancient times no god has been documented.
My opinion is no god has been adequately shown to exist above myth and superstition. The stories you accept as documenting a relationship between Yahweh and mankind have much in common with myths of the Canaanites. Stories that are thousands of years old do nothing to present proof, only that ancient people had working imagination just as people today. Proof is the god in person or on a lab table, Brian's request for God-Sperm in nicer terms.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:We already have argued over how ancient the OT manuscripts are, the oldest is the DSS, see previous posts. No older than 165 BCE and likely to be from about 60 to 70 CE.
I said specifics, not generalities. Again, it is understood that Genesis is one of the newest OT books.
Our friend A nony mouse will tell you all of the OT books were generated about 1st century BCE and hence is nothing but a con job to control a group of people in Palestine. I see it as documenting ancient beliefs/myths incorporated from others into a story. It is not exactly possible to date when this actually happened, hence the discussion we are having.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The only place this is done is in the OT itself which is a circular argument. Canaanite documents suggest El was someone else, see Ugaritic records.
When in reference, it's always going to represent someone or something.. If they didnt' follow God Almighty, of course it had to reference to someone else specifically unless it was a general reference to many gods.
Consider that Canaanite and Sumerian traditions can be shown to be far older than the Hebrew god myths for instance. Then what does that do to the situation? It indicates the Hebrew traditions derived from other god beliefs into Yahweh the sole god. But when? As indicated, Jeremiah ranted against Asherah and statuettes of her are found throughout Judah especially during the periods when God is supposedly the only one being worshiped, as during Hezekiah's reign. Even up to Roman times she was worshiped in Judea, check it out.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The problem here is it's the same geographic area and completely different gods are claimed, including Yahweh is a son of El in the Canaanite pantheon. Asherah is Yahweh's consort as is she also mentioned as Ba'al's consort. It is possible that Yahweh and Ba'al are the same god. I'll have to look up the links for this but I think Richard Crappo in Utah has written much on this.
I'm don't know too much about that tie. Haven't researched it. It does make sense for non-followers of Yahweh to lessen His authority. Otherwise, they'd have no excuse for following another exept for rebellion.
If you utterly dismiss a point without researching it you are being closed minded. I don't think you are close minded so you need to research the possibilities that El of the Bible is the Canaanite god and Yahweh of the Bible is a Canaanite god that were in myth before the Hebrew god is made the sole god of the Jews. This of course may change your view of your beliefs, though you claim to be objective so you should be fair about this and spend an adequate amount of time before you assert anything regarding motivations of the ancient non-Jewish people of Canaan. Such as saying that the Canaanites who seem to be non-followers of the Jewish god use similar name to denigrate the god is conjecture and biased by your beliefs in Yahweh. Take another look. You need to spend a lot of time researching Ugaritic gods, gods of Canaan, gods of Sumer and show how they weren't already using El and Yahweh first. There are many, many similarities.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:There is zero archaeological evidence found in all of bibleland in support of anything in the OT stories about bibleland. Probably does not matter. There is nother there to support the stories. What is found is in direct contradiction to the stories. As physical evidence rules the stories are bullshit. Similarly with the Babylon exile story and everything associated with it. There is no evidence for it having happened. There is no evidence or any civilization in bibleland it could have happened to. There is no evidence of it in Babylon. Therefore it is also bullshit.On the contrary. I suggest you pick up an "Archeological Study Bible". Let me know what you find. Haven't actually read through all of it myself, but know of a few things it must reference to.
What I have been through is the archaeology itself as conducted in bibleland and there is nothing which supports the OT stories beyond the region being populated. The archaeology covers only what was in fact found. Believers are always "interperating" things with the bible open. Things which contradict the bible stories are explained away on the assumption the bible stories are fact.
For example there are some coins found around Jerusalem dated to the 6th c. BC with images of living things which is forbidden in Judaism. Without opening the bible one conclude Judaism did not exist at the time. So instead of using the find to narrow down the time of the invention of Judaism believers explain them away saying that aspect had not developed at that time.
For more than a century the absense of any evidence of Exodus in all of Egypt was sufficient for rational people to discredit the idea of Exodus. Believers like Cecil B. DeMille, invented an order to destroy all the evidence. It is a fundamentally dishonest approach.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Another problem is there is no evidence Hebrew was ever a spoken language in bibleland. When the Judeans first appear in history in the mid 1st c. BC they are speaking Aramaic. The squared script called Hebrew is the Aramaic script. The mere handful of inscriptions facetiously called proto-hebrew use Phoenician script....therefore, God must not exist! What if I told you Biblical scholars know the discrepencies in language already? What if I told you the English language isn't really English?
Therefore the OT was created in the late 2nd BC at the earliest and was created to impress the Greek rulers. Hebrew was invented for writing later. The archaeology and even historical documents show the locals worshiped Astarte and Yahweh into the 2nd c. AD. The Yahwist cult is best likened to the Taliban or Wahahbist version of Islam. The Yahwist cult thing does not show up again in history until the 6th c. AD with the Mishna in Aramaic followed by the Babylonian Talmud some centuries after that also in Aramaic.
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Do some homework next time, then come to me with that claim.The case against the OT stories all of which is based upon physical evidence or the lack thereof is overwhelmingly against the religious tradition that there is any element of real history in them.
I have done quite a bit. Enough to know about the temple of Astarte in Jerusalem until Rome rebuilt the city in the 2nd c. AD and that it was where the Muslim Dome of the Rock stands today. The Yahweh temple was below it.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Let us review the bidding here. We know some unknown charlatans invented the story at some unknown date for unknown reasons. We have no reason to assume there is some serious meaning in this story. We do not even know how literate the creators were. Nor do we have any idea if the creators intended it to make any more sense than Hubbard intended his Xenu story to make or the golden plates of Smith to make.So it is really going off the deep end to bring an basketful of unfounded religious traditions to the story and then pretend there is a problem making sense of it. And that is before going into what the plain words of the story say instead of the traditional religious assertion of what it means which is absolutely absurd.
wow, you came in unprepaired!
I despise religion and therefore avoid using that as an excuse. Sorry, I'm taking what is there. You need to understand what it meant in context and the languages of the times in order to so closely critique it. Unfortunately, most are illprepaired for such critical critique of the scriptures and yet still try to argue the point. I hope you're smarter than that.
The least rational thing to do is to assume there is an honest purpose in the creation of the stories. It does not matter what the words meant in context. The purpose of the OT was to establish a theocratic tyranny over the populace. Think Taliban. Think Ayatollahs. Think Maccabes.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
Offline Don't you mean you despise the established versions of religion? You have no problems practicing your own version, I trust.
By definition a religion is any following agreed upon by a group of people. This would then include Atheism among others. By that literal definition, you are right. I dispise established religions. Basically any religion that says you're wrong because I'm right, therefore, we must be separate.
I guess I dispise separatism. I'll respect any religion that does not discriminate another belief or put themselves on a pedistal above others because they think they've got it right. It doesn't mean I'll agree with them, but I'll have respect for them and I won't despise them.
Why do the "I have a relationship not a religion" folks seem to be unable to have this relationship except within the rules of the religion?
depends on what "rules" you are referring to. There are characteristics that define what a person follows. Are those also religious rules? E.g. an atheist will deny the existance of God. That is a characteristic of that following. I guess you could get technical and say that you can't be an atheist unless you deny the existance of God (as is by definition) in turn making it a "rule".
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:Don't you mean you despise the established versions of religion? You have no problems practicing your own version, I trust.
By definition a religion is any following agreed upon by a group of people. This would then include Atheism among others. By that literal definition, you are right. I dispise established religions. Basically any religion that says you're wrong because I'm right, therefore, we must be separate.
I guess I dispise separatism. I'll respect any religion that does not discriminate another belief or put themselves on a pedistal above others because they think they've got it right. It doesn't mean I'll agree with them, but I'll have respect for them and I won't despise them.
jcgadfly wrote:Why do the "I have a relationship not a religion" folks seem to be unable to have this relationship except within the rules of the religion?
depends on what "rules" you are referring to. There are characteristics that define what a person follows. Are those also religious rules? E.g. an atheist will deny the existance of God. That is a characteristic of that following. I guess you could get technical and say that you can't be an atheist unless you deny the existance of God (as is by definition) in turn making it a "rule".
Except that your definiton of religion doesn't square with reality. Atheism doesn't attempt to explain the origin of the universe or provide a moral code. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity - that's all.
You despise separation and yet you follow a religion found in a holy book that has separation as the focal point? Interesting.
I'm talking about the rules found in your Bible - or don't you use the Bible?
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline OK. So in your opinion why is no god needed unprovable?
If you take both sides from a non-bias perspective. There is just as much evidence (or lack thereof depending on your approach) for both points. You can't base your belief off either idea without other reasons to support it beyond that topic. It would be ignorant to do so.
To answer your question simply, you can't emperically prove that God was not needed.
The Universe seems to exist. Many different stories exist from ancient times how it happened. None seem to correlate with science. You can go to the Catholic view, God used evolution and science to create the Universe but a hole is left. The hole is other than stories from ancient times no god has been documented.
The stories, though different, tend to coenside with each other. Why would an in depth scientific approach to the conclusions of the stories be included in any of them at that time? Was that even possible at that time? Are you also taking into consideration translational discrepencies?
My opinion is no god has been adequately shown to exist above myth and superstition. The stories you accept as documenting a relationship between Yahweh and mankind have much in common with myths of the Canaanites. Stories that are thousands of years old do nothing to present proof, only that ancient people had working imagination just as people today. Proof is the god in person or on a lab table, Brian's request for God-Sperm in nicer terms.
As humans, our minds can only comprehend what we see inside the box we live in... and inside this box we only have time, space and matter. All that's in this box is understood to be physical. Anything that might fall outside this box is understood to be metaphysical or beyond the physical. Because we live inside the physical box, our minds can't comprehend metaphysical.
Now, both you and Brian have requested physical evidence of what is understood to be metaphysical. That is not only against any logic of science, but it is irrational thinking.
Your opinion, nothing has been presented to you that would make you consider the existance of God. It seems the only reason is because you won't even consider for a moment the possibility of anything outside the box you live in. How are you suppose to fit a God inside a box that He is said to be much bigger than?
Our friend A nony mouse will tell you all of the OT books were generated about 1st century BCE and hence is nothing but a con job to control a group of people in Palestine. I see it as documenting ancient beliefs/myths incorporated from others into a story. It is not exactly possible to date when this actually happened, hence the discussion we are having.
be it that the dates are not of major importance. As I presented earlier, there are sources dated much earlier than the first century BCE credited to the OT.
If you utterly dismiss a point without researching it you are being closed minded.
I mearly explained a logical conclusion that has been proven through historical understanding of opposing beliefs in a community. I was not being close minded or dismissing the topic. As you stated after that, you do know me better than that.
I don't think you are close minded so you need to research the possibilities that El of the Bible is the Canaanite god and Yahweh of the Bible is a Canaanite god that were in myth before the Hebrew god is made the sole god of the Jews. This of course may change your view of your beliefs, though you claim to be objective so you should be fair about this and spend an adequate amount of time before you assert anything regarding motivations of the ancient non-Jewish people of Canaan. Such as saying that the Canaanites who seem to be non-followers of the Jewish god use similar name to denigrate the god is conjecture and biased by your beliefs in Yahweh. Take another look. You need to spend a lot of time researching Ugaritic gods, gods of Canaan, gods of Sumer and show how they weren't already using El and Yahweh first. There are many, many similarities.
As I've said, I hadn't taken much time to study those. It didn't mean I wasn't going to. I have my knowlegable sources for things I don't know. I will find out.
btw, they are non-biased.
- Login to post comments
I think I need to understand how you're defining good and evil. I have a feeling you're taking it out of context of the story. Keep in mind, due to the fact that translating from the Hebrew to English is not a flawless art. In fact, there are many instances where the words cannot be directly translated. Even if they are, usually the Hebrew word sheds better light on what is being talked about. Context clues are also important in critical analyzation of any document. For this, it's important to understand that you can't always use the broad definitions of the English words and expect them to apply due to the translational discrepencies.
yea, all those "contradictions" that have been brought to my attention on this site thus far have either been taken out of the context of the story or were just misunderstood and were clearly refuted.
You seem so sure you know exactly what knowlege and abilities these 2 in the story posessed. There must be a source for such a matter of fact conclusion. psychology has nothing to do with assuming what's not there. This again might go into your understanding of what "Good and Evil" are representing here.
From the quotes you've presented, it makes Todd look ignorant to the point that it seems as if he skims through the book, finds words that stand out to him and then analyzes them by themselves without considering context or translation. It is possible he has been quoted out of context as well. There could be more to his conclusions than what is presented here.
k
You're going against what you said earlier. I mentioned that because you said children and Adam and Eve aren't comparable. That obviously was a general reiteration. At least that's what I understood from you.
I'm keeping up. i'm wondering if you are. Context implies more knowlege than you're suggesting. Again, definition of good and evil could be the breaking point here.
To suggest that lacking the comprehension of good and evil "knowlege", you're taking it to the extreme to say they have no capabilities of understanding opposing points. It's obvious if you take it into context that your conclusion can't be the case.
This is what I was looking for. You seem to know exactly where the mental state of Adam and Eve were. There must be some sort of source you're getting that information from... unless you're doing the research yourself, in which case I would request to see your notes.
in the part you quoted? I'll have to try and find it.
You are. You're definitely taking the words good and evil to the most extreme possibility of their meaning. You've turned it into a comprehensible knowlege of opposing points to moral understanding. It's taking it way out of context of what's there. Context clues are key in critical analyzation of the Bible.
alright. Let's use this defense in context then. What other context clues can you provide for me for your conclusion besides the specific words "good and evil"?
and yet are implied by context...
ok. Simply put. The punishment was death. Simply put, regardless of what knowlege you're talking about, they understood the ramifications of disobeying God, namely 'death'. This is understood by looking at Gen 2:17, 3:3-4. The knowlege they gained from eating the fruit had nothing to do with them comprehending death. It was understood. Otherwise the serpant wouldn't have had to assure them they wouldn't die.
The good and evil here is understanding the 'forces in nature that give rise to wickedness or evil', not the moral act of doing wrong. definition cited from the dictionary. Comprehension cited from Zondervan. In other words, they understood what was wrong or right. They didn't understand the forces that might cause them to do wrong or right. It's why a lie was so easily pulled over on them.
I fear too you might be losing focus. Remember that the issue is whether they understood what it meant to die... which was the consequence given for eating the fruit.
in the Hebrew and context in general from what I understand.
A specific question was asked, I answered it. If you want to get back to the morals thing, it's in the context. You fail to realize I'm trying to work with you, not pull one over on you. You can ask my biggest opposers on here. I'm not here to run away from the issues. I challenge people on here to question what I understand to be Truth. That way I can either correct myself where I'm wrong, or be stronger in what I know.
alright, how about the general quote that they were given specific commands? (Gen 2:15-17, 3:1-5,) You can try to conclude via the myth assumption or lack of direct implication thereof, but it's clear that if they didn't have such knowlege, the specific commands would have been pointless and useless to give. It's in the context.
and the 2nd quote wasn't because she recited, it also shows the command was questioned and shows that she needed some convincing in order to think it was ok to eat the fruit. Otherwise, why not just hand it to her and say 'here, trust me, eat it.'?
yes
I'm just reiterating what I'm understanding from you. This is why specifics are important when you're going to so critically analyze something. Apparently analogies aren't goign to work between us at this point. How about plain comprehensions. I've done my part above.
In other words, no matter how long Adam and Eve were walking around, their state of mind was constant even if it was 100 years... that's hard to comprehend. They must have drooled a lot too.
their exact state of mind as completely oblivious.
well, just to set myself right on here. i have nothing to gain from anything that happens on here. I don't win a medal or score church points or get a plack for "converting" someone. If you never told me you converted....(if that ever happens) it wouldn't be any different for me than if you did.
How do you explain then the command that was given to them?
Then why bother lie about it to get them to eat it? If they didn't understand, there was no reason to lie, or to assure them they wouldn't die in the first place. Remember, they can't comprehend it. right?
oh, come on. You're so sure that there was no moral intent, there must have been an alternative intent then. It has to be implied... unless you're trying to prove a negative.....
explain why God bothered to tell them of the moral ramifications then. There has to be a reason for it to be said.
I never got far on this site answering questions with questions. I'm willing to work with you on it though.
It would clarify where you are coming from.. e.g. what you think the 'good and evil' is specifically refering to and shed light on what knowlege they did have according to your theory. I understand you think it's moral, but specifically what would they have understood then. They knew wrong... but not moral wrongs. They were told of death... but didn't comprehend death. They didn't know it would be bad to disobey God... so why bother following through with obeying in the first place. Why didn't they just go for it? What held them to the conviction that it might be bad before they were lied to? If nothing, then why didn't they eat it until they were lied to?
ok. goes back to above.
moral is simply distinguishing right and wrong by definition. There would be no need for anything or anyone to come by and convince them if they had no moral understanding what-so-ever.
I will say yes to this... and you will find something that was written metaphorically as suggested in the context and ask me how it happened. Even if it's literal, I will not be able to explain to you how many things happen without using God as an explanation.
yet.... i still don't see the inconsistencies you're presenting. I think I see where you're coming from. In order to conclude what you have, I would have to ignore some pretty obvious context clues that were referenced above. The only other way I could conclude it is to blindly say... it has to be myth without any evidence to support that other than me not fully understanding what the state of mind of the characters were. Tell me what you think of the forces definition. Does that clarify the difference?
If you're wondering how Zondervan got the conclusion they came up with, it's most likely from the literal Hebrew context that implies it.
I have studied the context from which it came and have studied it. It is understood by context and language that it was the source of good vs. evil in nature... e.g. lies, greed, etc.
Many seem to forget that I'm not the only one that has come to these conclusions and that it has been intensely studied by many. I embrace these conclusions because they seem to make the most sense at this time.
unless God's been doing it the whole time in accordance to Him wanting the world populated.
I never dispute specific dating of books. I know there are a few theories. I have argued that they are amidts the oldest of manuscripts we have to date. Some older than others. Many written much later than they were told. It is also understood that Genesis is actually one of the newest Old Testiment books.
Nor did it need to. It was just a geneology.
El or Elohim is a Hebrew reference to "Lord" and could reference any god of importance to any people just as Adonai could. Most people of the Bible didn't reference much to God by his name. When questioned however, they were able to say who it was they followed.