Aantares    Aantares BB  Hop To Forum Categories  Your Lifestyle & Culture  Hop To Forums  Religion & Spirituality    Biblical Scholar: Dont take Bible literally
      Page: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 37
Go To
Post
Search BB
Notify Me
TOS/Tools/Smilies
Reply
  
Biblical Scholar: Dont take Bible literally
 Login/Register
 
Zealot...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Bhagworm:
Walmart or K-mart?
HB


Please do me a major favour and switch your target.

Nothing I need more than a critical analysis of what I say, so every time you see me goof give me a big shout please.


No problem, pal.

"Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you that you will not see Me again until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

HB
 
Posts: 22265 | Location: 1 | Mbr Since: 08-11-2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Devoted...
Picture of Reed N D Dark
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Bhagworm:
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Bhagworm:
Walmart or K-mart?
HB


Please do me a major favour and switch your target.

Nothing I need more than a critical analysis of what I say, so every time you see me goof give me a big shout please.


No problem, pal.

"Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you that you will not see Me again until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

HB


That’s funny! Thanks.,
 
Posts: 5037 | Location: Central PA | Mbr Since: 05-14-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Here to stay...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:
That’s funny! Thanks.,


Almost has a Monty Python ring to it.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 1567 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Here to stay...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
You want to assume that God was ordering genocide. I would rather discuss it. That is if, you would be willing to stick to just one topic and not start off into another direction.


I raised it in the first place so we could discuss it.

Instead, you merely added it to the long list of allegations what I was "assuming" yet again.

No discussion.

No factual refutation.

I'm beginning to wonder how you define "assume".

Or even "discuss".

You alleged I "assumed" the Bible God had ordered his people to commit genocide.

I quoted some of the words in the Bible which make it clear I am perfectly correct, yet you yet again tried to avoid the topic.

That, as with so much else, is the stock response we get from the posse type.

Now you know I am right, perhaps you might now discuss your thoughts on the Bible God's order to commit genocide, leave alive nothing that breathes, completely destroy them.

I note, too, you still avoid the offer to discuss ish milchama.

Why is it so?

quote:
Vicki: (sigh) And if you can accept that what I believe comes from study and evaluation of the Bible passages and involves rational thought processes, then we might be able to make progress.


Yet that is precisely the opposite of the language you are using.

You refuse to address any issue I raise for discussion, dismissing it all as "assumption".

Care to discus the obvious point that many Christians refer to their Devil as Lucifer when we all know Saint Jerome was doing nothing more than providing a Latin word for Venus as Morning Star?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 1567 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Here to stay...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
Gotta love history, Reed and bluelamp.

When I posted on Connolly's story of the Last Supper really being held in the Saracen Head in Gallowgate, I mentioned the five roads which are associated with Glasgow Cross.

That raised the obvious question, what did Trongate originally mean?

High Street, London Road, were easy, and Saltmarket was pretty obvious. It was where salmon was salted, though it did later become important in the wool trade.

I knew the Gallowgate was just that, the way to the place for public hangings for all those villains who stole a loaf of bread to feed their starving children. (Gait in old Scots meant "way to", not our standard gate. Apparently Glasgow had no city walls requiring gates, though there are indeed arches.)

But Trongate?

Turns out tron was a Norman name for scales:

Previously known as St Thenew's Gait (the way to the supposed site of St Thenew`s burial) it was around the start of the 1500s that the name Trongate first began to be used. The name comes by virtue of a weighbeam erected in the mid-16th century, used for all goods requiring to be weighed for duty reasons, including from early shipping on the Clyde. Tron is a Scots word of Norman origin for weighing scales.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trongate

This is an old favourite:

Sauchiehall Street
A bit of a tongue twister for non-Scots, Sauchiehall Street is actually a corruption of the Scots word ‘sauchiehaugh’. ‘Haugh’ means a meadow or valley and ‘sauchie’ refers to the type of trees that grew there, so Sauchiehall roughly translates to Willow Grove.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/...-explained-1-4376082


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 1567 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Here to stay...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by bluelamp:
They were talking origins for Christianity and Judaism; Judaism had a major re-write of religious history that wasn't even theirs while Christianity kind of started with and as you say kept their bad traits.


One thing I'd dearly love to know is where Christianity's Original Sin comes from.

Since it appears nowhere in the Jewish Bible, I'm stuck with the thought Saint Augustine created it as his excuse for his former behaviour. However, I seem to recall it did appear before that.

I could not get past the first three or four chapters of his Confessions.

Do you have any leads?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 1567 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Here to stay...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
I mean that it would not make sense. Let me see if I can give you an example, using other meanings for the same Hebrew word and other Hebrew words using the same combination of letters without vowels, to translate a passage into English, using my paleo- Hebrew/ English interlinear Torah.
Genesis 1:1
Chief ate One Mighty with sky against the land
(As you can see, one can have a lot of fun with it).


Please provide the source of this.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 1567 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Here to stay...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
Allan: You did not address the perfectly appropriate comment: a scholar with a secular bias would produce a different translation of the same text from that produced by a scholar with a religious bias. This may be very easily illustrated.
Context is important.
You bet it is.
Vicki: I guess I missed that comment. Tell me which translation of the Bible is the secular translation? I would be interested in looking at it.


How did you manage to see an actual secular Bible in that?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 1567 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Here to stay...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Allan:
Yet I have repeated shown that few believers have any idea of the context, the history, the culture of the Bible times.
Vicki: No, you haven't. You have demonstrated your bias against the education and knowledge of Christians, though.[QUOTE]
Can you please illustrate exactly why you think I am biased, and which of my own words leads you to think that way?

[QUOTE]Allan: That is one reason I am looking forward to your response to my questions on David's census.
What is known of the culture of the time, especially given there is no evidence at all of the existence of a king named David?
Vicki: Says the man who totally disregards the most ancient and detailed account of the life and reign of Kind David and his descendants, simply because it is a religious manuscript.


I don't know of any scholars who restrict themselves to a single source when carrying out their research.

Can you name any?

Especially when that source is what is itself being examined.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 1567 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Here to stay...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vicki:
Now, let me explain how I find many of your questions- they contain unjustified assumptions that I find myself wanting to deal with more than I want to deal with the actual questions. This might be why you think that I am not answering your questions. [QUOTE]

But you do not in fact deal with what you allege are assumptions.

Instead you merely label them as assumptions and make this your excuse for dismissing my sourced comments, interpretations and statements.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 1567 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Here to stay...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
My third go at this one. My second disappeared into the ether.

quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
If this is true, why does God bring up his own charges against His people and against Gentiles in the writings of the Prophets? You also find God bringing up his own charges in the book of Exodus and in Joshua. Why would He need an Assistant District Attorney? He knows people's hearts, already.
Allan: How much time do you have?
In fact, I invite you to ask yourself why virtually the entire Tanakh ...
Vicki: I see that you have chosen not to answer my point.


And I note that you not only ignored what I said, you deleted this from me: No. It's 2am, so I'll take this one on after I've had a sleep.

Why did you find it necessary to do that, Vicki?

My answer is straightforward.

As I said earlier, Bible prophets not only are said to be predicting the future, they also are said to be interpreting the past.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/prophecy
Prophecy, in religion, a divinely inspired revelation or interpretation. Although prophecy is perhaps most commonly associated with Judaism and Christianity, it is found throughout the religions of the world, both ancient and modern.
In its narrower sense, the term prophet (Greek prophētēs, “forthteller”) refers to an inspired person who believes that he has been sent by his god with a message to tell. He is, in that sense, the mouthpiece of his god. In a broader sense, the word can refer to anybody who utters the will of a deity, often ascertained through visions, dreams, or the casting of lots; the will of the deity also may be spoken in a liturgical setting. The prophet, thus, is often associated with the priest, the shaman (a religious figure in tribal societies who functions as a healer, diviner, and possessor of psychic powers), the diviner (foreteller), and the mystic.

So when the Jewish people were faced with the facts of life, they called on those prophets to interpret them.

As I demonstrated conclusively with David's census, one legitimate interpretation is to say the priests created this story in order to explain the plague.

The Bible is perfectly clear on this. Please note my emphasis.

Exodus 30:11-16 is a tax that serves to ransom those counted in a census from a plague sent by God as judgment. It reads as follows: “Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: “When you take the census of the children of Israel for their number, then every man shall give a ransom for himself to the Lord, when you number them, that there may be no plague among them when you number them. This is what everyone among those who are numbered shall give: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (a shekel is twenty gerahs). The half-shekel shall be an offering to the Lord. Everyone included among those who are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering to the Lord. The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when you give an offering to the Lord, to make atonement for yourselves. And you shall take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the Lord, to make atonement for yourselves.”
https://edgeinducedcohesion.bl...1-16-the-census-tax/

Nothing at all there to cause David to be punished in any way. The Bible says nothing at all that I can find about whether or not David levied that tax.

I also noted earlier that the Bible clearly states God was angry with Israel -- no cause is ever stated for that that I can find.

Samuel 2 24:1 says, “Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.’”

Can you find the reason?

Yet again, its verbiage notwithstanding, gotquestions.org demonstrates I am correct yet again.

The reality is that God didn’t justify His actions with a reason, nor does He have to.
https://www.gotquestions.org/David-census.html

Since God ordered his loyal ha-satan/Adversary to question Jesus in the desert, that raises the obvious question: Did God not know what was in the mind of Jesus?

If he did, what was the point of this interrogation?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 1567 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Devoted...
Picture of Reed N D Dark
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
quote:
Originally posted by bluelamp:
They were talking origins for Christianity and Judaism; Judaism had a major re-write of religious history that wasn't even theirs while Christianity kind of started with and as you say kept their bad traits.


One thing I'd dearly love to know is where Christianity's Original Sin comes from.

Since it appears nowhere in the Jewish Bible, I'm stuck with the thought Saint Augustine created it as his excuse for his former behaviour. However, I seem to recall it did appear before that.

I could not get past the first three or four chapters of his Confessions.

Do you have any leads?


Anne rice did a pretty good discussion on how original sin and immaculate conception came into being. The beginning is in Genesis where sin enters the word in the garden, and ultimately man. I’m sure you seen my questions about knowing good and evil, before it enters the world, but that is not how the Adam and Eve story is understood. There is a bit of a leap to sin being handed down through conception after the original sin, Er first sin, but supposedly that is clear to some from that passage. Mrs exp explains that well, I think. Anyway from there all born after then have inborne sin as part of their humanity. That seems easy enough since at the time there were no know specimens of humanity that didn’t sin, so where could it have come from other than their very nature. This works fine until Jesus is born. From what I learned he was the first that showed one could live without sinning by following God. At this point the fully aged thing isn’t part of what I learned. For some, Jesus needs to be without sin but he was born with sin through human birth. Enter the Immaculate “stuff”. Mary now needs to have been without sin so she doesn’t pass on the “sin gene”. Anne pointed to several New Testament verses that seem to be there, but I don’t recall if they were pro or con. She grew up catholic but I believe she wasn’t buying the inheritance of sin from birth seems to contract that one is not responsible for the sins of their fathers! Of course that sort of negates from Adam too. There is a verse I believe from Paul that says Adam is responsible for some such thing, but I believe it says first man or something similar.

From here it even gets more tangled up because I can see the need for sin being due to much more than our choices or nature. From psychology perhaps misfiring or no wiring at all. The churches that believe in an age of accountability claim that children are learning and don’t deliberstely sin if even they can. When they come to the age of reason, which differs from about 7 to about 12, for generally normal children, by church belief. Chericlaimed she made her confession of faith at 8. Science tells us that the ability to see around corners, basically predict the consequences of our actions isn’t fully developed in our brains until around 27/28. How a child can make decisions at 7 is beyond me. 12 is close to the age a boy becomes a man so I’d buy that that was the old tradition of being accountable for your actions!

Confused? I still am, and I’m not confident I answered your question because I can’t answer my own. And the concept of Originsl Sin, in my upbringing only belonged to the Catholics! From theNicene Creed you may get a glimpse of how the concept is understood, but I can’t get through it either
 
Posts: 5037 | Location: Central PA | Mbr Since: 05-14-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Devoted...
Picture of Reed N D Dark
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Allan:
Yet I have repeated shown that few believers have any idea of the context, the history, the culture of the Bible times.
Vicki: No, you haven't. You have demonstrated your bias against the education and knowledge of Christians, though.[QUOTE]
Can you please illustrate exactly why you think I am biased, and which of my own words leads you to think that way?

[QUOTE]Allan: That is one reason I am looking forward to your response to my questions on David's census.
What is known of the culture of the time, especially given there is no evidence at all of the existence of a king named David?
Vicki: Says the man who totally disregards the most ancient and detailed account of the life and reign of Kind David and his descendants, simply because it is a religious manuscript.


I don't know of any scholars who restrict themselves to a single source when carrying out their research.

Can you name any?

Especially when that source is what is itself being examined.


I think I can name a few, but then I don’t call them scholars. On the other side Bart Ehrman does a pretty good job of explains how to use a text to proof itself, as far as history goes. In particular he believes that Paul’s letters are probably more accurate than what Acts says about him. But, even Bart as a professor uses the Gospel of Thomas, the various old copies that differ of Paul’s letters, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. He is who introduced me to the zgospel of Mary which I didn’t know existed. He uses surrounding thought of the times to help decipher the times themselves and customs. What is phenomenal to me is he went to Moody Bible School which teaches a fairly ridged understanding of the literalness of the Bible and its infaliabilty. He seems to have broken loose as evidence of his writings and his “non standing” as a theologian in their view and others that subscribe to their teaching. Moody produces a lot of Scholars that write commentaries about parts of the Bible, some even seem to disagree to a point. It is some of those that preach that I consider using one text. They aren’t really but they are rejecting documents outside the canon or acceptable documents.
 
Posts: 5037 | Location: Central PA | Mbr Since: 05-14-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
Bluelamp:
From an Allan-like secular history point of view there was a plague 250 years before David that had kings wondering what they did to offend their favorite pantheistic god; there were even pantheistic gods that flew through the air with a drawn sword Angel of God-like. Thus secular history-wise I would actually suspect reuse of an old story rather than a totally made up new story.

Vicki:
My degree is in history. I think that "secular history" is a misnomer.

There are many plagues throughout history. Should we say that the accounts of the Black Death are just a reuse of an old story? Or any other account of sickness, just a retelling of an old story? Of course not!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 398 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by bluelamp:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vicki:
Vicki:
Your question was akin to asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" As Gotquestions said, it is a complex issue. You want to assume that God was ordering genocide. I would rather discuss it. That is if, you would be willing to stick to just one topic and not start off into another direction.


Bluelamp:
We aren't narrowing down ideas for a purpose like writing a book here so I'm actually fine with lots of brainstorming in various secular directions.

Vicki:
I have answered some of Allan's points, and then he has not responded. Instead, he simply brings up other questions. Is it so terrible to want to dig into one topic for awhile?

Bluelamp:
Secular history-wise, the only group ravaging Canaan at the time were the Hittites so I would suspect them for inspiring genocide accusations.

Vicki:
Again, "secular history-wise" is a misnomer. Biblical accounts are historical accounts and should not be dismissed because they are religious. Historians weigh the internal evidence, look at place names that are mentioned, people groups, customs, etc. and evaluate what is there and compare with what they know from other sources of the day.

As far as the term, "genocide"- I don't believe that term should be used to describe God's judgment. I know that is not a popular idea nowadays. I would not have wanted the job he gave to the Israelites to kill all who were in Jericho, including children. But, God had given the Canaanites 400 years to repent. They knew the Israelites were on the move and they knew that they were coming to settle in the land. They could have left. They chose to stay and fight.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 398 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vicki:
You want to assume that God was ordering genocide. I would rather discuss it. That is if, you would be willing to stick to just one topic and not start off into another direction.


Allan:
I raised it in the first place so we could discuss it.

Vicki:
No, you didn't. You wanted to assume that God had ordered genocide. You weren't discussing that question. Your question was about other religions.

Allan:
No factual refutation.

Vicki:
That's right. How do I refute an assumption that you fail to recognize? You didn't say, "Let's discuss the invasion of Canaan and why that sure looks like genocide". You assumed from the start that God ordered genocide and you wanted to go on and see if other religions' gods had done so.

Allan:
Or even "discuss".

Vicki:
I'm wondering what you mean by discuss, too. You are so intent on controlling the discussion with me, I have to wonder if the peppering me with questions on different topics is just a ploy.

Allan:
I quoted some of the words in the Bible which make it clear I am perfectly correct, yet you yet again tried to avoid the topic.

Allan:
Now you know I am right, perhaps you might now discuss your thoughts on the Bible God's order to commit genocide, leave alive nothing that breathes, completely destroy them.

Vicki:
Would you be discussing that you know you are right?

Oh well, at least you have reframed your question and it is a worthy topic for discussion, if you can stay on topic.

Allan:
I note, too, you still avoid the offer to discuss ish milchama.

Why is it so?

Vicki:
Is it another topic change? Or is it related to the topic of the Canaanite invasion? Posting the Hebrew words for man of war is not very helpful. What is the context?

Vicki: (sigh) And if you can accept that what I believe comes from study and evaluation of the Bible passages and involves rational thought processes, then we might be able to make progress.

Allan:
Yet that is precisely the opposite of the language you are using.

You refuse to address any issue I raise for discussion, dismissing it all as "assumption".


Care to discus the obvious point that many Christians refer to their Devil as Lucifer when we all know Saint Jerome was doing nothing more than providing a Latin word for Venus as Morning Star?

Vicki:
Considering how you ignored my post about the precedent that 1 Maccabbees set for Paul's trip to Damascus when he intended to arrest believers in the Way, I am reluctant to go through the trouble of formulating an answer.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 398 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
I mean that it would not make sense. Let me see if I can give you an example, using other meanings for the same Hebrew word and other Hebrew words using the same combination of letters without vowels, to translate a passage into English, using my paleo- Hebrew/ English interlinear Torah.
Genesis 1:1
Chief ate One Mighty with sky against the land
(As you can see, one can have a lot of fun with it).


Please provide the source of this.


Vicki:
I did. I have a paleo-Hebrew/English interlinear Torah that gives the different meanings for the Hebrew words.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 398 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Allan:
Yet I have repeated shown that few believers have any idea of the context, the history, the culture of the Bible times.
Vicki: No, you haven't. You have demonstrated your bias against the education and knowledge of Christians, though.[QUOTE]
Can you please illustrate exactly why you think I am biased, and which of my own words leads you to think that way?

[QUOTE]Allan: That is one reason I am looking forward to your response to my questions on David's census.
What is known of the culture of the time, especially given there is no evidence at all of the existence of a king named David?
Vicki: Says the man who totally disregards the most ancient and detailed account of the life and reign of Kind David and his descendants, simply because it is a religious manuscript.


I don't know of any scholars who restrict themselves to a single source when carrying out their research.

Can you name any?

Especially when that source is what is itself being examined.


Vicki:
Of course historians look at other sources, if they are available. But I don't know of any historians who dismiss religious manuscripts, simply because they are religious.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 398 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
Allan:
Since God ordered his loyal ha-satan/Adversary to question Jesus in the desert, that raises the obvious question: Did God not know what was in the mind of Jesus?

If he did, what was the point of this interrogation?

Vicki:
Jesus' temptation in the wilderness shows us that he was tempted in the same ways that we are tempted. It also shows us how to deal with temptation when we are faced with it- with the truth of God's Word.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 398 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
Allan:
My answer is straightforward.

As I said earlier, Bible prophets not only are said to be predicting the future, they also are said to be interpreting the past.


So when the Jewish people were faced with the facts of life, they called on those prophets to interpret them.

Vicki:
Allan, you have not addressed the point I brought out.

The books of the prophets are filled with specific warnings that Israel, Judah will be conquered if they do not repent.

These very writings, if we go with your view that prophets interpreted the past and wrote after the exile occurred, explain in vivid detail to the people why they were conquered- they were corrupt, committed idolatry, oppressed the poor, etc.

With such specific charges written in the books of the prophets, why would the priests have written the book of Job to explain their defeat, as you claim? The connection between what is written in Job and what happened to Israel and her exile, is not there.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 398 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Here to stay...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
I have answered some of Allan's points, and then he has not responded. Instead, he simply brings up other questions. Is it so terrible to want to dig into one topic for awhile?


Can you provide examples of what you allege I do or are you prepared to accept more sin?

quote:
Bluelamp:
Secular history-wise, the only group ravaging Canaan at the time were the Hittites so I would suspect them for inspiring genocide accusations.
Vicki: Again, "secular history-wise" is a misnomer. Biblical accounts are historical accounts and should not be dismissed because they are religious. Historians weigh the internal evidence, look at place names that are mentioned, people groups, customs, etc. and evaluate what is there and compare with what they know from other sources of the day.


So what historical and archaeological evidence can you provide to prove me wrong in anything I have said?

What sources can you provide to affirm from on-site evidence that everything the Bible says is virtually true?

quote:
As far as the term, "genocide"- I don't believe that term should be used to describe God's judgment. I know that is not a popular idea nowadays. I would not have wanted the job he gave to the Israelites to kill all who were in Jericho, including children. But, God had given the Canaanites 400 years to repent. They knew the Israelites were on the move and they knew that they were coming to settle in the land. They could have left. They chose to stay and fight.


How do you define "genocide"? Care to provide your source?

God ordered that every man, woman, and child be murdered. No question about that unless you find you need to say God is lying here. Or the Bible is.

So how do you excuse God and the Bible from your assumption?

When and how has the Jewish God given the Canaanites 400 years to repent?

Who were the Canaanites and when did God give them this order you say he did?

What are your source?

What, exactly, are you basing all this on?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 1567 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Here to stay...
Picture of Allan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:


Reed, it's after 1am, so please be sure that when I awake yours will be the first I respond to.

You're bloody good at making it difficult for me to actually get to sleep, aren't you Smile-Big   :D


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead
...Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
 
Posts: 1567 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Devoted...
Picture of Reed N D Dark
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:


Reed, it's after 1am, so please be sure that when I awake yours will be the first I respond to.

You're bloody good at making it difficult for me to actually get to sleep, aren't you Smile-Big   :D


Well I am up at late hours too!
 
Posts: 5037 | Location: Central PA | Mbr Since: 05-14-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by bluelamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
Vicki:
Your question was akin to asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" As Gotquestions said, it is a complex issue. You want to assume that God was ordering genocide. I would rather discuss it. That is if, you would be willing to stick to just one topic and not start off into another direction.

We aren't narrowing down ideas for a purpose like writing a book here so I'm actually fine with lots of brainstorming in various secular directions. Secular history-wise, the only group ravaging Canaan at the time were the Hittites so I would suspect them for inspiring genocide accusations.


Vicki:
Actually, if the early date for the Canaanite invasion is used, the Hittites were in temporary decline. By early date, I mean around approximately 1446BC. There is some variation in the early date hypothesis.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 398 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Constant...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
Vicki:
Actually, if the early date for the Canaanite invasion is used, the Hittites were in temporary decline. By early date, I mean around approximately 1446BC. There is some variation in the early date hypothesis.

I tend to use the Amarna period however they want to date it exactly since there was a plague associated with that Hittite invasion of Canaan too. I've actually seen it used as a backing for the Judeo-Christian view; allowing Canaan to have at least two enemies I guess.
 
Posts: 900 | Location: Tucson, AZ | Mbr Since: 04-23-2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata       Page: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 37 
 

    Aantares    Aantares BB  Hop To Forum Categories  Your Lifestyle & Culture  Hop To Forums  Religion & Spirituality    Biblical Scholar: Dont take Bible literally

© 2003-2019 Aantares Online LLC. All Rights Reserved.