The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[GostHacked]

OMG, how stupid are you? Stupid or drunk or both? Have another one Mr. Hockey Helmet you're actually entertaining in a sort of tragic foot-meets-banana-peel way . Please, do go on...

Well, the challenge still stands.

[M.Dancer]

Anyone want to take a stab as to why anthopological myth analysis fails with the Gospels?

It's a rather simple answer, though Shwa might have difficulty googling it...

[Shwa]

Fine, now apply that science to something in the Bible, which was your original hypothesis.

For what purpose? I have already given you the question, the method and a workable hypothesis, are you not capable of applying that science to the bible at all or do you need someone to do the work for you?

Here, try one of these links from Arizona State University's ArchNet resources:

http://archnet.asu.edu/topical/Selected_Topics/Biblical%20Archaeology/institution.php

Go through the links and choose one of the resources and see if they are sufficiently objective enough for you to see that science can use the Bible as a source of information. I dunno about the U of Jerusalem, but hey, you might find they are objective enough. Once you have selected a site, get back to me.

[Shwa]

Well, the challenge still stands.

A challenge from an idiot would trend towards being an idiotic challenge don't you think? But, wait, he has asked a question. Shhhhh. Let's see what he has to say, I can't wait.

[Shwa]

Anyone want to take a stab as to why anthopological myth analysis fails with the Gospels?

It's a rather simple answer, though Shwa might have difficulty googling it...

I do! I do! And I won't google either. I promise!

[M.Dancer]

http://archnet.asu.edu/topical/Selected_Topics/Biblical%20Archaeology/institution.php

You google long time. Number 10! Number 10! Couldn't find Lazarus though...

Of course whether there is any archaeogical relevance to the bible is a light year away from the bible containing scientific fact...well, in a post hoc sort of way, sure. The Bible talks about Jericho and sure enough, there was a Jericho. The Bible talks about the Caananites and sure enough, there were caananites. Like I said, post hoc.

Now be a good little googler and find the some scientific data backing up the creation of man. Or how kangaroos made it to the ark in time, or how the earth stopped orbitting the sun (or was it the sun stopped circling the earth?).

[GostHacked]

You google long time. Number 10! Number 10! Couldn't find Lazarus though...

Of course whether there is any archaeogical relevance to the bible is a light year away from the bible containing scientific fact...well, in a post hoc sort of way, sure. The Bible talks about Jericho and sure enough, there was a Jericho. The Bible talks about the Caananites and sure enough, there were caananites. Like I said, post hoc.

Now be a good little googler and find the some scientific data backing up the creation of man. Or how kangaroos made it to the ark in time, or how the earth stopped orbitting the sun (or was it the sun stopped circling the earth?).

Hey now, as he says, we should not be talking literal interpretations of the bible. Remember, to Shwa, that is irrelevant.

[M.Dancer]

Hey now, as he says, we should not be talking literal interpretations of the bible. Remember, to Shwa, that is irrelevant.

...because science, and literal, are opposites....

[Shwa]

You google long time. Number 10! Number 10! Couldn't find Lazarus though...

Of course whether there is any archaeogical relevance to the bible is a light year away from the bible containing scientific fact...well, in a post hoc sort of way, sure. The Bible talks about Jericho and sure enough, there was a Jericho. The Bible talks about the Caananites and sure enough, there were caananites. Like I said, post hoc.

Now be a good little googler and find the some scientific data backing up the creation of man. Or how kangaroos made it to the ark in time, or how the earth stopped orbitting the sun (or was it the sun stopped circling the earth?).

Awesome, simply awesome. Cherry picking I mean. Saying archaeological confirmation to biblical references is post hoc is grossly overstating the plainly obvious. Du-uh. The Bible has been around a little bit longer than modern archaeology there Mr. Hockey Helmet. Archaeology says that indeed a battle was fought at Gettysburg, but you know, it's all post hoc. I mean, Gettysburg, it was in all the newspapers.

The problem is that you are a idiot polemicist that has nothing to else to offer, but intellectually deficient quips and boring observations about topics you know almost nothing about. You are the prime example that a little bit of knowledge is a bad thing.

...find the some scientific data backing up the creation of man.

What a total idiot. OMG...

[Shwa]

Hey now, as he says, we should not be talking literal interpretations of the bible. Remember, to Shwa, that is irrelevant.

Are you saying that literal interpretations of the bible are relevant?

Edited December 9, 2009 by Shwa

[M.Dancer]

Poor Shwa....still trying to rescue his credibility with his pants around his ankles.

That's what you get when you try tro maintain there is science in the bible by linking bible archaeology sites I suppose...

One mo' time,,,

Can a Biblical report - specifically the report of the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus - be factual both from a Biblical and scientific perspective?

Literally, no.

Figuratively, no...

Feel free to google up an opposing answer.

[charter.rights]

Chin Strap -hockey helmet....that's a good one considering your pants are around you ankles

And you...are still on your knees facing him.....LOL

[M.Dancer]

And you...are still on your knees facing him.....LOL

Yes, but I'm waiting for you to finish him.

[GostHacked]

Are you saying that literal interpretations of the bible are relevant?

No, I think the bible in it's entirety is irrelevant.

[charter.rights]

Yes, but I'm waiting for you to finish him.

I'm not involved in your job. Given that you blow more than anyone else here it is only fitting that you finish the job you started.

You get finished faster if you undid the chin strap to your helmet first and placed it on your Barney Lunchbox.

[Shwa]

Poor Mr. Hockey Helmet, trying to gain any kind of credibility at all.

Still trying to deny that science can provide any insight into his precious Bible.

Feel free to google 'creationists'

[M.Dancer]

You get finished faster if you undid the chin strap to your helmet first and placed it on your Barney Lunchbox.

I just love how originally sycophantic you are

[Shwa]

No, I think the bible in it's entirety is irrelevant.

Ah. Therein lies the problem. But I must say, for someone who thinks the Bible is irrelevant, you sure do spend a considerable amount of time and energy discussing it. Perhaps deep down you are still undecided.

[GostHacked]

Ah. Therein lies the problem. But I must say, for someone who thinks the Bible is irrelevant, you sure do spend a considerable amount of time and energy discussing it. Perhaps deep down you are still undecided.

Every other poster who has tried to argue the bible as fact, or god, or creationism always run into the same roadblock. You are just the latest one to run into it.

So wanna get back to the Lazarus story or do you want to move on to something else again?

[M.Dancer]

Poor Mr. Hockey Helmet, trying to gain any kind of credibility at all.

Still trying to deny that science can provide any insight into his precious Bible.

Feel free to google 'creationists'

Actually the premise of the thread is the otherway around. Can the Bible provide insight into science. To wit, does the account of creation hold more truth than the scientific view. Betsy seemed to think yes, What you seem to think is dubious...

Feel free to google pantsed.

Right after you google up an answer for your original question.

Can a Biblical report - specifically the report of the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus - be factual both from a Biblical and scientific perspective?

[Shwa]

But you are missing the trees for the forest here GH. I am not saying the "Bible as fact." You are. Whether you are for or against that assertion, it is your assertion, not mine. And for a guy who says the Bible is entirely irrelevant, you do seem to have some latent creationist tendencies there. Or so it appears.

I kid! I kid! I have already made it clear that the Bible "...is nothing more than a compendium of stories and myths structured to transmit cultural imperatives to future generations."

I think any rational anthropologist would tend to agree with that assesment and thus open the door for cultural studies of an ancient people in the very same way that the Three Sisters can provide for ancient Iroquoians.

The problem is, you are coming at this whole question with your mind made up about outcomes, you say so yourself:

Every other poster who has tried to argue the bible as fact, or god, or creationism always run into the same roadblock. You are just the latest one to run into it.

If you close yourself off from resources because they are some ancient text from a long gone past, you are cutting yourself off from some pretty interesting information - from the Sumerians and Gilgamesh, to Ancient Egypt and the hieroglyphs to petroglyphs carved on cliffs in the southeast US thousands of years ago.

While the source might be a huge obstacle for you, it isn't for me - anymore than the Tibetan Book of the Dead or the Dresden Codex. They are fascinating glimpses into ancient and not-so-ancient past and the peoples who created and maintained them.

As for Lazarus? Well the fun has run its course. I either made my point or I didn't. And if not, well, at least I had some fun. I hope you did too.

[ToadBrother]

BUT it may very well be the precursor to all science.

The concept of spirtuality is far to vague to pin that on. Science clearly has its origins in the notion put forward by the Greeks that knowledge could systematized. Science clearly was born out of the economic situation in Europe at the end of the Middle Ages. Certainly some branches of science are rooted in older traditions like alchemy and astrology, but the rigorous epistemological nature of science is something quite different than what came before.

[ToadBrother]

I think any rational anthropologist would tend to agree with that assesment and thus open the door for cultural studies of an ancient people in the very same way that the Three Sisters can provide for ancient Iroquoians.

Well of course researchers (and its a lot more than anthropologists) pay attention to the Bible. The Bible has probably occupied more man-hours in investigation, both scholarly and field work, than any other book ever written. Certainly we can tell a great deal about the culture of pre-Hellenic Palestine from the Old Testament, though, like anything, pretty much all scholars of any note have abandoned any notion that most of the specific accounts are true in and of themselves.

The New Testament poses a much greater problem, because unlike the Old Testament, which is largely divided between a mythical and semi-mythical history of the Hebrew peoples (much as Homeric Troy in many ways represents a sort of semi-mythical history of the Greeks during the Dark Age), it involves a very short period of time, and it's difficult to see how it gives anything other than highly-biased view of 1st Century Judea. While there certainly must be some historical aspects to it, it's long been viewed as dangerous to simply assume, for instance, that the Gospels are literal stories, or the Acts of the Apostles constitute a true account of those first years after the death of Christ. What's more, the New Testament involves a rather small group of people, and what we can garner from the Acts and from Paul's letters is that there was a rather titanic struggle in the very earliest phases of the Church between the followers of St. Peter (the supposed founder of the and first patriarchal Christian Church) and St. Paul, with the Paulite wing ultimately winning. So it comes into question whether much of the New Testament may in fact, as much as anything else, be propagandistic and self-aggrandizing. We really don't have solid information on the Church until the end of the 1st century and into the 2nd century, and it appears that it is during this period, decades after the death of Christ, that the Gospels that we know of appeared.

It appears the Early Church was a rather chaotic place. As with everything else in the Eastern Mediterranean, there were Christians heavily influenced by Gnosticism and the more Eastern mystical ideas (much as the Essenes, another contemporary Jewish sect were). Arianism and other early sects may very well have been heavily influenced by Gnostic traditions, and the key phase in Christianity's evolution during the 3rd and 4th centuries, was clearly to eradicate many of the mystical trappings in favor of a more Paulene neo-Aristotelean view.

I guess the point of my long-winded monologue is that we can learn a lot from the Bible, but it probably isn't going to inform us very much Judea and Palestine. For that, you'd have better luck reading Josephus, whose interests were much more general. Certainly his only passing references to Christianity suggest that even a few decades after the death of Christ, no matter how important the New Testament may declare Christianity, it was still a very minor Jewish sect that had spread some branches out into Asia Minor and the western Mediterranean.

In particular, the story of Lazarus seems to fit well within a sort of legendary motif of the fallen hero risen again. Young religions and ideologies will always try to attach themselves to older traditions and motifs, because these are powerful symbols. So you see, the story of Lazarus can tell us something. It can't really tell us that a man named Lazarus was dead three days, and came back to life, because anyone who has actually dead three days, particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean, would already be decomposing. But it can tell us that Early Christians were keenly bringing over elements of both formalized belief (Aristotle, Eastern mysticism, Judaism, polytheism) and more informal supernatural beliefs.

One of the best examples I ever saw of any of this was the roots of Early Christian iconography, in particular those of Jesus and the Saints. The radiant halo seen on Christian iconography, invoking Jesus, the Apostles and the Saints was adopted wholesale from the Apollo cult (Alexander the Great also did exactly the same thing when he deified himself). It's actually rather extraordinary, and involves not just iconography, but the transition from the God of the Sun (helios) to the Son (huios) of God.

So what I learn from the Gospels isn't much about the society of 1st century Palestine. I do learn, however, that the Early Christians were as enamored with Greek philosophy and religion as the Romans, and adopted elements of it, much as so many others before them and after them would do.

[GostHacked]

Good post ToadBrother. I liked this part the best. I guess it is just how it is worded.

In particular, the story of Lazarus seems to fit well within a sort of legendary motif of the fallen hero risen again. Young religions and ideologies will always try to attach themselves to older traditions and motifs, because these are powerful symbols. So you see, the story of Lazarus can tell us something. It can't really tell us that a man named Lazarus was dead three days, and came back to life, because anyone who has actually dead three days, particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean, would already be decomposing. But it can tell us that Early Christians were keenly bringing over elements of both formalized belief (Aristotle, Eastern mysticism, Judaism, polytheism) and more informal supernatural beliefs.

I'll tell you one thing Shwa, is that I am about as religionless as they come. I simply don't understand the inner workings. I can surmise as a whole, and that is about it. I never read the bible on whole, I have in bits and pieces but I have never read the whole thing. So I claim ignorance on most things religious. Because of this and when I start asking questions, people view me as not genuine in my inquiry about the 5W's regarding religion ect.

[ToadBrother]

Good post ToadBrother. I liked this part the best. I guess it is just how it is worded.

I'll tell you one thing Shwa, is that I am about as religionless as they come. I simply don't understand the inner workings. I can surmise as a whole, and that is about it. I never read the bible on whole, I have in bits and pieces but I have never read the whole thing. So I claim ignorance on most things religious. Because of this and when I start asking questions, people view me as not genuine in my inquiry about the 5W's regarding religion ect.

The sad thing is that the emerging story of Early Christianity is fascinating, much more human and political than the one repeated for the last 1,900 years. I was particularly taken aback by the links between the Apollo cult, Alexander the Great and Jesus, right down to the Greek punnery of "sun" to "son", a clear transformative bridge between Pagan polytheism and Christian monotheism, with the Trinity as a sort of compromise. Most Christians are completely unaware that the early formulators of Christian theology were essentially trying to formulate a union of Aristotelean thought, Eastern mysticism (and by Eastern, I mean Sumero-Akkadian and Persian, not India or East Asia) and Judaism. In fact, all three of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), despite their clear affinities to the Sumero-Akkadian religion (and its semi-successors in the Hittite and Persian mash-up with their Indo-European roots), to one degree or another, betray the influence to Hellenic civilization. In particular, Christianity and Islam have been enormously influenced.

Edited December 9, 2009 by ToadBrother