The Bible

[ToadBrother]

So what's Troy got to do with the posted fact?

My ongoing point, that finding archaeological evidence that confirms some aspects of an ancient text does not confirm the entire text. I've already brought up the king lists of Egypt and Sumer, both of which are clearly a mix of actual kings and semi-legendary possibly even legendary individuals.

[betsy]

My ongoing point, that finding archaeological evidence that confirms some aspects of an ancient text does not confirm the entire text.

And my point is: the posted archeological fact claims to confirm the findings to be in line with the Biblical narrative of David and Solomon. It does not claim to confirm the entire Bible.

I've already brought up the king lists of Egypt and Sumer, both of which are clearly a mix of actual kings and semi-legendary possibly even legendary individuals.

I missed that. Kindly point me to the right direction.

Edited June 26, 2011 by betsy

[jbg]

And my point is: the posted archeological fact claims to confirm the findings to be in line with the Biblical narrative of David and Solomon. It does not claim to confirm the entire Bible.

Despite my earlier comment, I do agree with you here. I think that archaelogical confirmation is a strong indication of at least substantial accuracy to most of the Bible. You and I will disagree about miracles; I say they're allegorical, you say literal.

[ToadBrother]

Despite my earlier comment, I do agree with you here. I think that archaelogical confirmation is a strong indication of at least substantial accuracy to most of the Bible. You and I will disagree about miracles; I say they're allegorical, you say literal.

And what do you mean by most? For instance, there's no evidence of an Egyptian captivity, and yet that is an enormous portion of the Old Testament, casting a long shadow, so much so that it makes up part of the narrative of the State of Israel, despite the fact that every bit of archaeological evidence thus far discovered indicates that the Yahwehist monotheism was not brought into Canaan by Hebrew refugees out of Egypt, but rather developed within Canaan.

[ToadBrother]

And my point is: the posted archeological fact claims to confirm the findings to be in line with the Biblical narrative of David and Solomon. It does not claim to confirm the entire Bible.

Not by a long shot, nor does it confirm every aspect of even the accounts of those two kings.

I missed that. Kindly point me to the right direction.

I'm not sure what you're asking for here, the king lists?

[jbg]

...despite the fact that every bit of archaeological evidence thus far discovered indicates that the Yahwehist monotheism was not brought into Canaan by Hebrew refugees out of Egypt, but rather developed within Canaan.

You need to read Genesis a bit more carefully. It says that "Yahwehist monotheism" was developed in Canaan or when Abraham was en route fron Ur to Canaan. Thereafter, the Egyptian round-trip.

[Oleg Bach]

I didn't infer you were weak, I openly stated it. Your beliefs are clearly part of it, but self-delusion is not a sign of strength. We are apes, Oleg, get over it and get on with things.

ANY club that would have me as a member..is not one I want to belong too...so I must decline your invitation and suggesting that I join Apes International... I simply don't want too....you sure are bent on turning me into a monkey...If you could see out of my eyes --- I do realize something...that 90% of humanity functions a level slightly above an Ape....With your attitude the ape humans would form a collective of ape communists and hunt down the more evolved and aware apes....,why is it that intelligence and independece are feared --- I am your friend -------now sit down and let me scratch the back of your ear while we order some take out bannanas.

[Oleg Bach]

I am a monkey man ------------why do I feel like breaking out into an old Rolling Stones tune........? nO one wANTs to rise above being an animal.....small wonder we still have this mess on earth. Even animals must hold us in loathing and contempt when we attemp to mimic them as my fellow writer insists we do.

[betsy]

Despite my earlier comment, I do agree with you here. I think that archaelogical confirmation is a strong indication of at least substantial accuracy to most of the Bible. You and I will disagree about miracles; I say they're allegorical, you say literal.

The latest discovery (Khirbat en-Nahas) corrected the mistakes of those who quickly dismissed Nelson Glueck's assessment. The irrefutable dating supports Glueck.

Just my observation/opinion.

Everything is connected - from cosmology, to origin of man, to archeology/historicity, and maybe other sciences that are not in the limelight.

There is this "coming together" of all that - can't think of a better way to verbalize my idea - and perhaps we're at that time - in God's calendar - or near that time when we're about to find out something big. An important information.

Edited June 27, 2011 by betsy

[Sir Bandelot]

... why is it that intelligence and independece are feared

We are whatever we believe ourselves to be. Those who have the cognitive ability to see something greater than the animal can rise above their baser instincts. Those who do not, cannot. But evolution always points the way forward, we mustn't give up hope. Even within a lifetime a person can change, and looking back on themselves see... evolution.

[ToadBrother]

You need to read Genesis a bit more carefully. It says that "Yahwehist monotheism" was developed in Canaan or when Abraham was en route fron Ur to Canaan. Thereafter, the Egyptian round-trip.

My point is that the Bible asserts that worship of Yahweh alone was an import to Canaan, and there's no evidence that it was. There's no evidence for an Egyptian captivity or a wandering through the Sinai. The entire episode, so far as anyone can tell, is myth. Monotheism was a homegrown movement in Canaan. Well, there are some who suggest that the Yahwehists could have been influenced by Akhenaten's brief flirtation with monotheism, but I don't think anyone has ever been able to draw a straight line between the two.

[Oleg Bach]

The father of Jesus - Joesph...spent time in Egypt, He learned a lot there and passed it on to his son. It was a civlization that was sophisticated and lasted for almost 5000 years...which means they were doning something right. You have to view the bible as if you were there and have a good look aroung and make your own judgements. In other language, you have to time travel to gain a good perspective and understanding.

[ToadBrother]

The father of Jesus - Joesph...spent time in Egypt, He learned a lot there and passed it on to his son. It was a civlization that was sophisticated and lasted for almost 5000 years...which means they were doning something right. You have to view the bible as if you were there and have a good look aroung and make your own judgements. In other language, you have to time travel to gain a good perspective and understanding.

You are aware, I trust, that by the first centuries AD Egypt's culture was on a rapid downhill spiral. It had started under the Ptolemies a few centuries earlier, but by the Roman period Egypt was in a steep decline. I'm not sure, even if Joseph's going to Egypt were true, how much he'd learn. By that point Egypt was practically a Greek cultural colony.

[g_bambino]

We've got our own style I guess. Mine happen to be boldness and fonts sizes.

It's juvenile.

[Y]ou know which poster here is the constant biggest baby-whiner about my style.

That's juvenile.

[g_bambino]

Genesis does not say it was a global flooding.

God, as quoted in Genesis, is quite absolute about the extent of the death and destruction that is to happen because of the deluge: "And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, 'I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth... For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die... For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.'"

If the words of Genesis are taken literally, the flood did indeed engulf the entire world. Of course our concept of the entire world has - thanks in no small part to successive scientific discoveries - come to differ significantly from that held by those ancient people with whom the roots of the flood narrative lie, as well as all who later absorbed the tale into their own culture's stories (from the Atra-Hasis, to the Epic of Gilgamesh, to the Talmud, to the Bible, to the Qur'an). However, despite that, the text of the Old Testament remains practically the same as it did two millennia ago; hence the literalists (i.e Creationists) today believe the flood was global. Science, including archaeology, therefore has indeed come, over the centuries, to contradict at least one Biblical reference.

When you said that this thread was to convince skeptics that the Bible is the word of God, that science has proved much of the Bible to be true, that Biblical passages could not be interpreted in any way other than the literal, and as you seemed to defend Creationists, you certainly made it out as though you take the Bible's contents in their unembroidered form; indeed, you yourself called it "Noah's global flooding" [emphasis mine]. You also said you take Jesus' words in a literal fashion; I presume that extends to God's, as well. If, however, you still meant to say "no archaeological discovery has contradicted a Biblical reference as I've personally interpreted it", then you should have said that.

But, even if this is simply a case of you not wording your statement very clearly (rather than you disingenuously shifting your position part way through the discussion - once you realised the original one was indefensible), this still, when held together with the wider body of your posts, highlights how you feel that you alone get to set the terms of reference and set them in your favour: take the Bible's text literally or apply your personal, abstract interpretations, whatever suits the conclusion you've already drawn; any question that can't be answered by doing either, simply ignore it. That's still not any way to engage in honest debate.

[+]

Edited June 28, 2011 by g_bambino

[betsy]

You and I will disagree about miracles; I say they're allegorical, you say literal.

I believe that the miracles are literal. I have to. It's been said by Jesus that there wouldn't be any more miracles (and I assume He refer to big miracles like parting of the Red Sea). Therefore to me, that means miracles were truly in literal sense.

Speaking of miracles, in my opinion I think that in those days people did need something to show them and to convince them of the reality of God.

In the future - God must know that - man will rely on science.

Imho, science is the closest modern-day equivalent of "miracles" in showing us great things that God wants us to know....that He is God, and that He created everything, that we have to place our trust in Him, and please Him...and in all humility be like children that depends on the Father.

Edited June 28, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Not by a long shot, nor does it confirm every aspect of even the accounts of those two kings.

Science is saying that the discovery at Khirbat En-Nahas is in-line with the narrative of David and Solomon. That's not me saying it. It's science!

It is not claiming to confirm every aspect....it is simply saying that it is in-line with the narrative. Big difference.

Khirbat En-Nahas is in-line with the narrative of David and Solomon.

You say no. Not by a long shot.

Well back it up! Cite.

Without any substantiation, that opinion is worth nothing.

I'm not sure what you're asking for here, the king lists?

It's okay, I've found the Sumerian King List - and yes, there's still debate about the list of kings. You made an "authoritative" claim that part of it is legend or myth. Well....it's still being debated/studied....and not confirmed!

Archeology isn't through with excavations - not by a long shot!

Future findings can greatly make a big difference.

A good example is this Khirbat En-Nahas discovery. Scholars were so quick to dismiss Nelson Glueck's dating of his findings. Well, this latest dating is apparently irrefutable, and it confirmed that Glueck is right after all!

Therefore, your statement was not correct. There's nothing conclusive about it.

Edited June 28, 2011 by betsy

[dre]

I believe that the miracles are literal. I have to. It's been said by Jesus that there wouldn't be any more miracles (and I assume He refer to big miracles like parting of the Red Sea). Therefore to me, that means miracles were truly in literal sense.

Speaking of miracles, in my opinion I think that in those days people did need something to show them and to convince them of the reality of God.

In the future - God must know that - man will rely on science.

Imho, science is the closest modern-day equivalent of "miracles" in showing us great things that God wants us to know....that He is God, and that He created everything, that we have to place our trust in Him, and please Him...and in all humility be like children that depends on the Father.

Science has nothing to do with miracles its just a different way to think and collaborate based on observation. Not good news for religion really because it will get driven into a smaller and smaller space over time. They will need to abandon some of their key positions like they had to abandon geocentrism.

Virtually every country that makes an effort to teach science and biology to students gets less religious.

Yer probably gonna have to get a real job one day soon!

[dre]

Genesis does not say it was a global flooding.

Behold, I will destroy them with the earth... For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die...

This is classic stuff right here

[betsy]

God, as quoted in Genesis, is quite absolute about the extent of the death and destruction that is to happen because of the deluge: "And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, 'I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth... For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die... For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.'"

If the words of Genesis are taken literally, the flood did indeed engulf the entire world. Of course our concept of the entire world has - thanks in no small part to successive scientific discoveries - come to differ significantly from that held by those ancient people with whom the roots of the flood narrative lie, as well as all who later absorbed the tale into their own culture's stories (from the Atra-Hasis, to the Epic of Gilgamesh, to the Talmud, to the Bible, to the Qur'an). However, despite that, the text of the Old Testament remains practically the same as it did two millennia ago; hence the literalists (i.e Creationists) today believe the flood was global. Science, including archaeology, therefore has indeed come, over the centuries, to contradict at least one Biblical reference.

But you refuse to acknowledge this.

A Local Flood

The language used in Genesis 6-9 does not insist that the flood was global.

First of all, the Hebrew kol erets, meaning whole Earth, can also be translated whole land in reference to local, not global, geography. The Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer explains that the Hebrew word erets is often translated as Earth in English translations of the Bible, when in reality it is also the word for land, as in the land of Israel.6 Archer explains that erets is used many times throughout the Old Testament to mean land and country. Furthermore, the term tebel, which translates to the whole expanse of the Earth, or the Earth as a whole, is not used in Genesis 6:17, nor in subsequent verses in Genesis 7 (7:4, 7:10, 7:17, 7:18, 7:19).7 If the intent of this passage was to indicate the entire expanse of the Earth, tebel would have been the more appropriate word choice. Consequently, the Hebrew text is more consistent with a local geography for the flood.

Moreover, in this period of history, people understood the whole Earth as a smaller geographical area. There is no evidence to suggest that people of this time had explored the far reaches of the globe or had any understanding of its scope. For example, the Babylonian Map of the World,8 the oldest known world map, depicts the world as two concentric circles containing sites of Assyria, Babylon, Bit Yakin, Urartu, a few other cities and geographic features all surrounded by ocean. There are also small, simple triangles that shoot out from the ocean labeled as nagu or uncharted regions.9 Contextual evidence also suggests that Greek geographers developed comparable maps during the middle of the first millennium, where Greece was positioned in the middle of a circle surrounded by oceans.10 These maps remind us that people were most familiar with the regions surrounding their homelands. Therefore, to say that something happened in the kol erets –– or referring to "all people" (Genesis 6:13), –– would have been an appropriate way of referring to the entirety of Earth and its population in a manner in which ancient Israelites would have been familiar.

[betsy]

When you said that this thread was to convince skeptics that the Bible is the word of God, that science has proved much of the Bible to be true, that Biblical passages could not be interpreted in any way other than the literal,

Gensis 1

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Betsy

There can be no other interpretation - or twisting about - of these very precise and detailed verses!

His heavy emphasis in each creation leaves no room for any doubt whatsoever!

God is telling us very clearly that there is no such thing as macro-evolution!

Well how much more literal can it be? It has to be literal.

There is no proof of macro-evolution!

[betsy]

and as you seemed to defend Creationists, you certainly made it out as though you take the Bible's contents in their unembroidered form; indeed, you yourself called it "Noah's global flooding" [emphasis mine].

Noah's Ark is also based on the ancient Assyrian story about Gilgamesh and a flood. His farm was being flooded, so he built a boat to save himself, his family and his farm animals. Over time, this story grew into the one about Noah.

There are a lot of ancient flood stories....and that certainly could prove to skeptics that indeed Noah's global flooding truly happened.

As to the similarities between Noah's and Gilgamesh....it could perhaps over the course of time, versions changed.

In ancient time, history or events were preserved by oral traditions too.

The one thing we definitely know for sure, the Bible is very much still around today as we speak - the continuity and fluidity of its message hardly changed, if it ever did at all.

On top of that, we've got modern science continuously proving it true.

Well, we're talking in the context of similarities between Gilgamesh and Noah's. I emphasized the word, "could."

Science has not shown any support for the global flooding. So far anyway....and that could change. Again, I'm saying "could."

Since science does not show any support for global flooding - plus the other factors I've mentioned earlier - therefore I have to think that it is localized. Where's the wrong in that? I'm following what science and logic dictates.

I also said that I believe Genesis is just a summary. That's it's not a blow-by-blow account, and I've explained why I believe that.

Furthermore, I never did post Noah's Flood as a fact, did I?

And let me be clear that my view can change again. If in the future science discovers anything that supports global flooding....of course I'll be re-thinking about that! I'd have to believe then that it was global flooding!

That's the thing about empirical evidences. As Eisntein said, they are not certain or absolute.

Edited June 28, 2011 by betsy

[Sir Bandelot]

Seems to me that science is talking about the real possibility of global flooding, right now.

[ToadBrother]

That's the thing about empirical evidences. As Eisntein said, they are not certain or absolute.

And yet you choose to ignore 150 years of biological studies...

[g_bambino]

Since science does not show any support for global flooding - plus the other factors I've mentioned earlier - therefore I have to think that it is localized. Where's the wrong in that? I'm following what science and logic dictates.

There's nothing wrong in that. What's wrong is the claim you made about archaeology having contradicted nothing said in the Bible. Of course ancient people had a very limited concept of the world, but the world was still then the same size as it is now; so, even if they believed the world had been destroyed and all life on it wiped out by a single flood, they were, in reality, quite wrong. Subsequent discoveries that expanded our collective understanding of the world - beginning with wider exploration and cartography, moving into geology, archaeology, physics, hydrology, and biology - have affirmed the ancients' error, and thus the inaccuracy of their story as worked into the Bible, as it remains there today. And, besides, it's God himself who is quoted as saying he would eliminate all life "under heaven" that he had created; surely he should've known better when talking about it the extent of the world he himself supposedly made, which puts into question your assertion that the Bible is the infallible word of God, rather than an omnibus collection of stories that reveals to us now just how much the people of the day knew and didn't know about the world around them.

[+]

Edited June 28, 2011 by g_bambino