BIBLE
- Started
- Last post
- 302 Responses
- cybo0
Read it, seemed to be in a very confused style, many plot mix ups and contradictions, with disapointing ending.
I'm suprised it's sold so well, must have one hell of a publicist.
If the writer is planning a sequel I recommend the harvard guild fiction writers course.
- ********0
Next, you say that “it is generally assumed that archaeological digs in the Near East usually confirm the biblical record”. No it is not generally assumed. If it was generally assumed, then the three separate Encyclopaedic resources I used yesterday, would also state such a thing. I got no evidence from any that this was true. There have been several digs in the early part of the 20th century that did confirm a certain degree of historicity of the Bible, but this confirms nothing more than the fact that the Bible was written in the Middle East, a long time ago. Your statement twists words and uses language in a wholly dishonest fashion. It is like saying that the writings of John Grisham are confirmed by archaeological digs, because there indeed is /was a Manhattan on the East coast of America, and that lawyers did work in giant sky-scrapers there. Nothing more superfluous than that, can be proven archaeologically. That is the position of Bible minimalist (which stands to reason) and, as the three Encyclopaedias state is the widely held opinion of academics. You on the other hand (a Bible maximalist) believe everything in the Bible is true, unless proven otherwise (this is called arguing out of ignorance/incredulity – “this is so, because you can’t prove otherwise”). When you dismiss recent archaeological findings as the discoveries of “various groups of radical revisionists” – well then that is not you being academic, but using carefully selected phrasing to discredit a much wider and uncertain academic debate.
- ********0
Onto the next one. “A series of stunning archaeological discoveries that directly corroborated places, personalities, and events in the Old and New Testaments only confirmed the general impression that biblical records were historically reliable.” In response to this statement, refer to my John Grisham analogy – just because a city mentioned in the bible was mentioned, and a certain king was found to have existed, does not mean that The Client was a true story. It does not mean that it was a false story either. But nor does it mean it was true. Words such as “stunning discoveries” is just you adding gloss. As I said, since the Bible is a series of tales passed down in that region over time, it would come as no surprise that it contained actual cities and kings. Just like the tale of Robin Hood was set in the real Sherwood Forest and there actually was a King John. Such as thing is not THAT stunning, or THAT amazing.
- ********0
The group known as the Bible minimalists, are, according to yesterdays reading of Britannica, who believe that the Bible is based on real historical places and contains historical people, but much of it (which is patently unprovable) are mythical and allegorical stories. NOT, as you say – ““biblical minimalists” sees little or no correlation between archaeological and biblical evidence and thus no reliable history in the Hebrew Bible”. That was an interesting attempt at your part to put the skeptics at extremes in order to try and discredit them. There aren’t extremes here.
Also I would advise you to look up the term “post-modernist” before making ridiculous statements like this one “Leading spokesmen among the minimalists are Thomas L. Thompson and Niels P. Lemche of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, with like-minded, postmodernist colleagues in both the East and the West.” Just because an academic disagrees with your position, does not make him/her a post-modernist.
Anyways. You’re next line of argument is pretty incredulous. Or rather, the argument you copy and pasted is pretty increduluos. “This attack on Old Testament Scripture is of a full-fledged, no-holds-barred variety. Such extreme views invite dismissal of this assault as the work of a cadre of sensation-seeking quasi scholars whose radical revisionism almost guarantees attention in the media.” I think it is sufficient for me to quote you here, rather than actually explain how all the meandering bullshit you spout is lacking in academic objectivity and is nothing more than carefully worded name-calling. Then you wonder why people laugh at you and react with anger.
- ********0
OK, next you list the archaeological discoveries that correlate with certain elements of the Bible. No one is disputing that fact, that Ur existed (see my John Grisham/Robin Hood analogy). However I’ll be fucked if I’m gonna pay for that Britannia and Encarta article again just to counter your annoying belligerence. So I’ll re-quote some of the Wikipedia stuff (which none of what you pasted contradicts – except that it uses a very excitable tone).
Let me first quote something from Britannica that I quote earlier in this thread:
“Archaeology tells us about historical eras and kingdoms, ways of life and commerce, beliefs and societal structures; however only in extremely rare cases does archaeological research provide information on individual families. Thus, archaeology was not expected to, and indeed has not, provided any evidence to confirm or deny the existence of the Biblical patriarchs.”
And then....
“The Patriarchs are Abraham, his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob. The Biblical narratives about them are generally held to be myths, that is stories which may have a basis in fact but are not themselves historical. (The King Arthur myth is a good example — there is a kernel of historical truth there, though finding it is difficult and requires much archaeological detective work. Several Biblical passages narrate realistic and detailed cultural traits of the 2nd millenium BCE, as corroborated by archeology, fueling the debate.) No archeological evidence supporting the person of the Patriarchs was found, nor was it likely to expect archeological proof for the existence of a single household in the 18th century BCE.”
“The historicity of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt is a matter of some speculation. Looking for hints in the extensive Egyptian records, some scholars identify the Israelites with the Hyksos, Asian tribes that inhabited Egypt in the 17-16 centuries BCE. Others suggested the Apir which are reminded occasionally between the 15th and 11th centuries BCE. The earliest known reference to "Israel" (c 1200BCE), is the "Victory Stele" (or "Merneptah Stele", refered to erroneously as the "Israel Stele") of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah, in which among other victories it is recorded that "Israel is laid waste; his seed is not". Egypt continued to rule the area until the 10th century BCE. Some researchers have speculated that the stories of Exodus simply reflect the liberation of Israel from the Egyptian yoke in the land of Israel as presented in the Merneptah Stele, although the validity of the Stele's claims of victory is questionable. Supporting the idea, however, that Israel began as roving nomads as suggested in Exodus is Donald Redford, whose research indicates of a band of roving people- the Shasu- included among their number a Yahwistic group, providing a potential origin for the nation of Israel.
The number of Israelites stated in the Bible, 600,000, cannot be taken at face value, as this number is thought to exceed the total Egyptian population at the time. (The record shows significant periodic movements by Asiatic populations in and out of Egypt, in particular retreating to the fertile Egyptian delta in times of drought.) Researchers however differ widely in their opinion on the true number, and indeed if the event ever took place”“The historicity of the book of Joshua was strongly suspected, as archeological research found no evidence of a massive population increase in Canaan during the traditionally calculated time dates. At this time the land had a population of between 50,000 and 100,000. Kathleen Kenyon excavated in Jericho from 1952-1958, using improved methods of stratigraphy, and found many details which would seem to conform to the Biblical account of the conquest of Jericho, but she determined that the siege took place 150 years too early for it to have been the city Joshua's army destroyed. She dated the city by the absence of a type of imported pottery common to the era around 1400 B.C. She concluded, as had Sellin and Watzinger before her that the Biblical account of the conquest of Jericho was untenable if the traditional dates were upheld. Jericho and other settlements do show signs of violent disruption (an event common on the other hand throughout early history in the area), but, so far, archeology does not suggest that the Kingdom of Israel was formed by a violent struggle, nor does archeology show the Israelite Kingdom as having existed before at the very latest 853 BC.”
It seems to me your “stunning” archaeological discoveries are not as exciting and convincing are you make them out to be. And all of this was in my own words save the stuff I clearly put in quotation marks. So stick that in your Bible and burn it.
- ********0
sorry discipler this bit should go above what cybo said to read logically:
First of all, you call into question the authority of Encylopedia’s. Using the word “mainstream”, in a derogatory fashion. Well Britannica, Encarta, Wikipedia are not instituions upon themselves. Their entire credibility is based upon the wider academic community. If their presupposition on Bible History is that large parts of it are myth – then it is only because the wider academic community believes it is so. If this wasn’t the case, the whole purpose of the Encyclopedia would become obsolete, and, as the Britannica website claims, it would not be respected by such institutions as the US Supreme Court. Objectivity comes as standard. If the Encyclopedia Britannica quantifies Rohl and James’ position as being marginal; then it is safe to assume that the wider Egyptologist community agrees with this position. On the other hand, if Christian writers from your Christian websites (and other Christian’s that happen to have a PhD), hail Rohl as the saviour of bible truth; then reason will lead me to believe that there is an agenda there. This by the mere fact that they don’t also state that Rohl’s position is far from widely accepted, as is the case. An example of the contrived and immensely selective arguments your sources put forward. It is telling that you constantly present a conspiracy theory of “secularists” that are out to discredit Christianity. May I remind you, academia does not have an agenda, and the leading academics of history have had their own beliefs and presumptions challenged by academic enquiry (as Galileo found out to his cost). Statements such as “their sources are liberal/skeptical “experts” who are prejudiced against the Bible” that you “liberally” make, are derisive allegations.
- discipler0
Kuz, it would be far too time consuming to address the plethora of accusations you raise in your ramblings. It is noteworthy though that nothing in what you've said has addressed the specific evidences, or the false claims I mentioned in my statements above. Rather, you've chosen to focus on definitions of terms and make assumptions about the stance of certain researchers I've mentioned, who most cerainly ARE postmodern revisionists. It seems that you need to spend some time getting familiar with such terms. Additionally, it says something about your scholastic honesty (or lack thereof) that after a perusal or the encyclopedias you quoted, I discovered how selective you were in the passages you cited, namely with Encyclopedia Britanica. You accuse me of "carefully worded name-calling" yet you have been the one guilty of this. Whereas I have addressed the specific archaeological issues that launched this portion of the discussion in the first place.
As for you inexperience with knowledgable Christian Apoligists who know what they believe and why they believe it, you raise an argument from silence. Because you've never encountered someone like me in your life experience or circle of influence, does not negate the validity of my postion (and the position of countless others you've yet to run into). Again, it's an argument from silence. And for the record... there are LOTS of Christians with far more knowledge than me on these issues. In fact, it's a Biblical command (Jude 3) for believers to know what they believe and to be able to respectfully defend their faith.
Now, once again I'm going to address the SPECIFIC issues regarding the archaeology issue and please feel free to address each one specifically.
1. Abraham a Myth?
Early critics in the 1800s denied the existence of Abraham’s hometown, Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 11:31). This continued until Sir Leonard Woolley’s systematic excavations from l922–34 uncovered the immense ziggurat or temple tower at Ur near the mouth of the Euphrates in Mesopotamia. The name “Abraham” appears in Mesopotamian records, and the various nationalities the patriarch encountered, as recorded in Genesis, are entirely consistent with the peoples known at that time and place. Other details in the biblical account regarding Abraham, such as the treaties he made with neighboring rulers and even the price of slaves, mesh well with what is known elsewhere in the history of the ancient Near East.
2. No Migration from Mesopotamia?
Semitic tribes of the time were continually moving into and out of Mesopotamia. In fact, Abraham’s recorded trek into the Promised Land along a route up the Euphrates valley to Haran in southern Anatolia, which has also been identified and excavated, and then down through Syria to Canaan is geographically accurate. Using that Fertile Crescent route was the only way to travel successfully from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in those days.
3. The Patriarchs?
Nothing in the Genesis account contradicts the nomadic way of life, replete with flocks and herds, that was characteristic of life in the nineteenth or eighteenth centuries BC. The agreements and con­tracts of the time, such as finding a bride from members of the same tribe and other customs, are well known elsewhere in the ancient Near East. To argue that the patriarchs did not exist because their names have not been found archaeologically is merely an argument from silence — the weakest form of argumentation that can be used. As fair-minded historians put it, “Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.”
4. No Israelite Sojourn in Egypt or Exodus Therefrom?
Critics make much of the supposed “fact” that there is no mention of the Hebrews in hieroglyphic inscriptions, no mention of Moses, and no records of such a mass population movement as claimed in the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt. This “fact” is questionable. The famous Israel Stele (an inscribed stone or slab) of Pharaoh Merneptah (described more fully below) states, “Israel — his seed is not.” Furthermore, even if there were no mention whatever of the Hebrews in Egyptian records, this also would prove nothing, especially in view of the well-known Egyptian proclivity never to record reverses or defeats or anything that would embarrass the majesty of the ruling monarch. Would any pharaoh have the following words chiseled onto his monument: “Under my administration, a great horde of Hebrew slaves successfully escaped into the Sinai Desert when we tried to prevent them”? The ancient Egyptians, in fact, transformed some of their reverses into “victories.” One of the most imposing monuments in Egypt consists of four-seated colossi of Rameses II overlooking the Nile (now Lake Nasser) at Abu-Simbel. Rameses erected the colossi to intimidate the Ethiopians to the south who had heard correctly that he had barely escaped with his life at the battle of Kadesh against the Hittites, and so they thought Egypt was ripe for invasion. The story told on the walls inside this monument, however, was that of a marvelous Egyptian victory!
5. No Moses?
The very name Moses is Egyptian, as witness pharaonic names such as Thut-mose and Ra-meses. The ambient life as described in Genesis and Exodus is entirely consonant with what we know of ancient Egypt in the Hyksos and Empire periods: the food, the feasts, everyday life, customs, the names of locations, the local deities, and the like are familiar in both Hebrew and Egyptian literature.
6. No Exodus?
It is true that few remains of encampments or artifacts from the Exodus era have been discovered archaeologically in the Sinai, but a nomadic, tribal migration would hardly leave behind permanent stone foundations of imposing buildings en route. Hardly any archaeology is taking place in the Sinai, and if this changes, evidence of migration may very well be uncovered. Again, beware of the argument from silence.
7. No Conquest of Canaan by Joshua?
The “Battle of Jericho” continues to be fought! When Dame Kathleen Kenyon excavated at Jericho in the 1950s, she claimed not to have found any collapsed walls or even evidence of a living city at Jericho during the time of Joshua’s invasion — nothing for him to conquer. She did, indeed, find an earlier, heavily fortified Jericho that c. 1550 BC was subject to a violent conquest with fallen walls and a burnt ash layer a yard thick, indicating destruction by fire. That, in her view, was before Joshua and the Israelites arrived.6 Critics immediately seized on her interpretation as solid evidence that Joshua’s conquest of Jericho must have been folklore.
Archaeologist Bryant G. Wood, however, editor of Bible and Spade, found that Kenyon had misdated her finds and that the destruction of Jericho actually took place in the 1400s BC when Joshua was very much on the scene, according to earlier (1400 rather than 1200 BC) datings of the Israelite invasion. In a brilliant 1990 article in BAR, Wood based his chronology on stratigraphy, pottery types, carbon-14 datings, and other evidence, including collapsed walls, to show a rather surprising archaeological confirmation of the biblical detail recorded in Judges 6 and following.
8. Kings David and Solomon Barely Historical or Even Mythical?
The critics again rely much too heavily on the argument from silence or absence. They contend that for all the wealth and grandeur of the reigns of David and Solomon, some of the golden goblets and other luxurious items from their palaces should have come to light in the excavations, but they have not. Lazare complains, “Yet not one goblet, not one brick, has ever been found to indicate that such a reign existed. If David and Solomon had been important regional power brokers, one might reasonably expect their names to crop up on monuments and in the diplomatic correspondence of the day. Yet once again the record is silent.”
This contention, however, is hopelessly flawed because of one simple fact: Jerusalem has been destroyed and rebuilt some 15 to 20 times since the days of David and Solomon, and each conquest took its toll on valuable artifacts. What, moreover, did Belshazzar set out as tableware for his famous feast in Babylon (Dan. 5:2–3)? Gold and silver cups that Nebuchadnezzar had plundered from the Temple in Jerusalem!
As for David’s name itself, the record is no longer silent. In 1993, archaeologist Avraham Biran, digging at Tel Dan in northern Israel, discovered a victory stele in three stone chunks on which David’s name is inscribed, the first archaeological reference to David outside of the Old Testament. The Aramaic inscription contains a boast by the king of Damascus (probably Hazael) that he had defeated the king of Israel (probably Joram, son of Ahab) and the king of “the house of David” (probably Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, c. 842 BC).
This discovery alone should have quieted minimalist claims that there was no David, but never underestimate the rigidity of minds locked onto a course of revisionism. They are still desperately trying to retranslate the message on the stele or even claim that the name David is a forgery — folly compounding folly!
9. King Ahab of Israel As the Master Builder of the Temple Rather than David and Solomon?
This is a favorite conclusion of archaeologist Finkelstein, but his archaeological time grid differs from the standard model by some 150 years, which is — not surprisingly — precisely the difference between David at 1000 BC and Ahab at 850 BC.
One is also struck by the sudden silence of the revisionist critics concerning the record from about the time of King Hezekiah (fl. 700 BC) on. At that point, evidently, the Old Testament instantly becomes “more historical” for them. This concession, of course, is forced on them because of the overwhelming number of correlations from archaeology, records of surrounding nations, and ancient history in general that fully corroborate the biblical evidence. The Assyrians did not conquer mythical northern Israelites in 722 BC, nor did Nebuchadnezzar deport into the Babylonian captivity a legendary, folkloric band of Jews who never existed. We leave it to the critics to explain how fact suddenly emerges out of supposed fantasy in the Old Testament.
- ********0
oh my god discipler
you can't even engage in a proper discussion with me. and i'm getting bored of you
- brtman0
Kuz, you are doing a magnificent job! Wanted to do the same, but I don't have the time. Keep it up!
- ********0
first tell me how have i been selective in the Encylopedia things? You lying cunt
What assumptions have i made of the stance of researches?
You idiot - they are NOT FUCKING POSTMODERN REVISIONISTS!! Do you know what post-modernity means?????? eugh!!! It is not simply looking at conflicting evidence!!!! You don't even know what post modernism is you tit!
Carefully worded name-calling? you cunt! where have i done this??? for fucks sake!! there's no talking to you. Fuck you, fuck your jesus and i piss on your bible and wipe my ass with it
What the fuck is a Christian apologist? How am i raising an argument from silence?????? Just because of i've never met someone like you doesn't mean shit - I went to school! I watch the discovery channel for fucks sake! I read those Encyclopaedias - which i did not take out of context by the way - big fat liar.
NOW STOP QUOTING THAT ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUFF
I TOLD YOU
ITS LIKE ROBIN HOOD
JUST CAUSE SHERWOOD FOREST EXISTS
AND KING JOHN EXISTS
DOES NOT MEAN ALL THOSE CRAZY STORIES TOOK PLACE!!
AND I READ UP ON ALL THOSE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE YOU KEEP REPEATING AND I FOUND THEM TO BE CONTENTIOUS
THE ARE NOT FACT - THOSE ARE OPINOINS AS THE ENCYCLOPAEDIAS SAY.
I'M MERELY SAYING EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS CONTENTIOUS
YOU DUMB FUCK
GO FUCK YOURSELF
- discipler0
kuz,
Again, you site only a portion of what the Encyclopedias state on these issues. Encyclopedias are not recognized as demonstrable authority on Biblical Archaeology. So, you're beginning with a faulty premise. You make the claim, "Their entire credibility is based upon the wider academic community." Please name those involved in this community. And furthermore, please list for everyone the comprehensive treatments that the Encyclopedias actually give on these issues. Kuz, just as there is a community of Minimalists, there is a vast community of Traditionalists - from which the science of Biblical Archaeology originated. And no, the minimalist's presupposition about the Bible record being myth stems from a postmodern prejuidice against the supernatural. They begin with this premise. I say there is a frightful lack of objectivity. Look at the evidence! My sources do not stem from "Christian websites" but from Biblical Archaeological reviews, communities, scholars and Professors of History, like Dr. Paul Maier, to name just one. Rohl is someone I just recently became acquainted with actually. To say that my sources are contrived... well, the burden of proof lies with you. It seems that there are people in all camps with an agenda and who begin with certain presuppositions.
And now let's talk about the shoddy methodology of said minimalists...
- discipler0
Well, there we go. End of discussion.
- I'm out.
- mrdobolina0
discipler, kuz is right. you may have proven that these places exist and even that people existed but it doesnt mean there is a proven god.
- mrdobolina0
we were sent by satan to test your faith.
- ********0
hehe, i got angry.
he's a stubborn bastart that one. snow is black kinda guy
- Nac0
just something to say...
I've read the book, it may not be the best written like the authors of today...however, it has multiple authors, and I am sure they all do not have the same writing style.
I am not going to sit here and preach to anyone how they should be or, or what they should be doing religiously. Thats up to you. There are people here who have their beliefs, and others who think differently, and my honest opinion, leave them alone, comments and opinions are welcomed, but no disrespecting anyone.
I will say that I went to private (lutheran) school for 10 years, it was good educational wise, because it kind of got me a jump start, however I wasn't too fond of ALOT of the other classmates. Alot of them were stuck up pricks, with the same types of families, and I honestly hated it. I guess faith is whatever you want it to be pointed at or put into. Whether it be God, Buddha, a diety of some other type of religion, or just yourself. Sometimes that faith brings hope, and it keeps you going.
Thats all I have to say, not trying to stir anyone.
- _smk0
"And no, the minimalist's presupposition about the Bible record being myth stems from a postmodern prejuidice against the supernatural. They begin with this premise. I say there is a frightful lack of objectivity."
it's objective to colour everything with the Truth of a supernatural influence in teh world?
funny ideas that guy, though the subject as a whole is a potentialy great discussion, when someones beliefs allow them so little room to manouver it makes the argument pretty redundant...
Just to be all fair and even to the guy though - that last post was WAY ott Kuz mate - WAY ott :)
- Xela0
kuz = wanker
- ********0
fuck off Xela you cunt
- cybo0
i prefer the koran.
then again, crowleys 'thoth' has much going for it.
The Karm Kaand and the Mahaabhaarat are examples of deeply spiritual books in the vast hindu library.
I'm sure that other faiths have books of equal merit, and ALL of them claim to be true - doubtless some of them are based on certain historical facts.
but none of them are the word of god or proof of his existence, they are all written by men.
even the christian bible in its many versions differ in many areas.
"Jesus passed water into wine and said 'here Judas - drink this', the rest of the apostles laughed behind their hands."
Thats in my version, i plan to publish it quite soon. :)