BIBLE
- Started
- Last post
- 302 Responses
- vburo0
wow. if everyone put this much time and effort into design critiques and answering questions this would be the best design board in the world!
i love you religiontoday!
kOna
(Apr 6 05, 07:52)haha, i was just thinking the same..
- discipler0
you raise two great questions, acescence.
1. The Bible teaches (see Romans Ch. 1) that God has revealed his invisible attributes through creation and implanted in the hearts of everyone, knowledge of him. It teaches that everyone in every culture will be accountable for the "light they have received". God is perfectly just - he will not allow people to spend an eternity seperated from him based on not hearing the Good News of Christ. We are accountable for the light we've received. In the case of people here... you've heard the Good News and are without excuse, according to the Bible. What will you do with it? :)
2. God's omniscience (all knowing foreknowledge) does not negate our free-will. It just means that He knows who will choose him and who will not. We have to draw a line of demarkation between fore-knowledge and Predestination. They are not mutually exclusive.
- RobTheMighty0
The potential for evil = a good thing :)
- TortOise0
agreed k0na!
everyone should respect other people's opinions and views.
there is no RIGHT way.
Jaline
(Apr 6 05, 07:47)Unfortunately, that will never be the case, if it were we wouldn't be invading other countries left right and centre. I think it is all bollocks and is the cause the majority of problems in this world. Religion, Money and Power. Without it we would be alot better off.
- wade0
Whether you like the Bible or not, or have even read the whole thing AND understood it, it has had the biggest influence on people of any book as this thread will testify.
- discipler0
a very significant point, wade.
- ********0
it is not significant. the popularity of a religion in no way attests to it's truthfulness.
- seed0
If anyone is interested. The Mars Hill Church site is a large content managed Flash site with tons of interesting sermons on MP3 available for download. I really like the sermons by Pastor Mark Driscoll.
- ********0
It has often been asserted in Christian apologetics that the discoveries of archeology ‘prove the reliability of the Bible as an historical document.' However at the same time this argument fails to address the problems inherent in the Biblical manuscripts themselves so this line of reasoning is faulty. The reliability of the Bible as history is not something that can be proven by an archeological discovery independant of an analysis of the manuscripts themselves. The first proof of the Bible as an historical document must come from the Bible proving itself as a consistent document. Let us suppose that we found in the Bible two mutually exclusive descriptions of an historical event. Let us further suggest that both events are set in a city named ‘Lor' and involve a person whose name is ‘Jack.' If we were to dig up an ancient stone with an engraving referring to the city of Lor, or an ancient document which mentions the name ‘Jack' (and for the purposes of our argument we will assume that the ‘Jack' being referred to in our Bible and the extra biblical source are one and the same person) it does not then follow that ‘the Bible is a reliable historical document.' All archeology has demonstrated is that two sources exist which refer to ‘Lor and Jack'. This discovery is of no use to us whatsoever in trying to sort out what so often proves to be the convoluted and contradictory history presented in the Bible. The Bible is a religious document, not a purely historical document, and many of the conflicts on its pages are political and polemical in nature, thus accounting for the inconsistencies. And an ancient dig is of no use in settling polemical disputes. It is of no use to us in trying to determine which of our two contradictory Bible stories is ‘true' and which is to be excluded. And if our archeological source brings to light a third variant version of events we are in a worse muddle than we were before.
- Hym0
well i vote Kes, or do wars have no victors anymore these days ?
it has had the biggest influence on people of any book as this thread will testify.
wade
(Apr 6 05, 08:10)I wouldnt be too proud about that influence, but put it into perspective, youre looking at a measly 3000 years in human evolution, oh yeh i remember this planet is only 10k old right ?
- discipler0
Kes, I'm not sure where that cut n' paste came from, but it's frightfully lacking. For one thing it makes the errant presupposition that there are contradictions and variances in the manuscript evidence. This is false. Those who claim otherwise have the burden of proof to deal with - provide examples. The only variances in the abundant manuscript evidence are in grammatical items like use, or lack of use of the definite article "the", etc... Nothing that impacts doctrine or teaching. Rather, the manuscripts compliment one another and attest to the astounding accuracy as a whole. Whoever penned your article there, is obviously not versed in Textual Criticism.
In fact, the more I personally read the Bible, the more I marvel at this awesome Book. How is it possible for forty different authors to write over a span of 1,600 years, on three continents, in three languages, on hundreds of subjects — yet, without contradiction — and with one central storyline, God’s redemption of mankind. Truly, it can be said without contradiction that the Bible must be divine, rather than human in origin.
With every turn of the archaeologist’s spade, we see further evidence of Scripture’s trustworthiness. Such renowned and historical scholars as William Albright and Sir Frederick Kenyon have clearly testified that the findings of archaeology have served to underscore the authenticity of the Bible.
- ********0
The fact is that with all that is known of Egyptian history from this time (since scholars can now read the records the ancient Egyptians with the ease of a modern newspaper), and the fact that the history of Egypt in this period is well documented, there is no evidence from the records of Egypt itself that the events of Exodus ever occured, either archaeologically or documentarily in the manner in which the Bible describes the events. The reality is that if a series of plagues had been visited upon Egypt, thousands of slaves escaped in a mass runaway, and the army of the Pharaoh were swallowed up by the Red Sea, such events would doubtless have made it into the Egyptian documentary record. But the reality is that there isn't a single word describing any such events.
Instead, what we do have from Egyptian sources is a remarkably different story of the Exodus. From about the beginning of the second millenium B.C.E., through about 1200 B.C.E., Egypt ruled the region known today as Palestine. How do we know this? We know it not only from Egyptian records themselves, which talk about tribute taken from the various towns and cities in Canaan, but from archaeological evidence within the region itself, which shows a number of settlements which were clearly Egyptian military outposts.During this time, the region which was to become the land of Israel, occupying the northern highlands between the coastal plain and the valley of the Jordan river, was sparsely populated and densly forested with stands of oak and terebinth trees. This land was populated by one of two groups (we're not sure which), either the Apiru or Shoshu peoples. The former were known to have originated as intinerant nomads, largely on the fringes of lowland society, who may have taken refuge in the highlands, or the Shosu, a more cohesive, well-defined group. The linguistic association of Apiru (sometimes Habiru) with the word, "Hebrew" had long, in the minds of scholars, been considered good evidence that this was the group that gave rise to the Hebrews, but we now know that the association wasn't quite that simple. The name may have been from that source, but the people probably weren't.
In any event, the highlands of northern Palestine which was home to the Kingdom of Israel has a highly variable climate. Agricultural productivity, and the ability of people to sustain trade with the lowlands, was subject to varying climatic conditions, meaning that famine was a frequent occurence. When crops failed and trade could not be sustained, it was not uncommon for people to flee the region and head for refuge where crops were dependable. The nearest such place was the Nile delta in Egypt.
So many of the "Hebrews" (culturally indistinct from the Canaanites at this time), who were citizens of Egypt, fled to the Nile delta. Time and again. Every time there was a famine in Judah, Israel or Canaan, refugees headed for Egypt. The event was so common, and the refugees so numerous, that they eventually became a substantial minority group, influential in Egypt, where they were known as the Hyksos, as is now very clear from the archaeological record.
The story of the expulsion of the Hyksos is easily the closest parallel we have from either the Egyptian record or the archaeological record to the story of the Exodus as recorded in the Bible. There are problems, though. Besides the Exodus story line, the biggest problem is the dates: the Bible places the Exodus at about 1200 B.C.E., yet the story of the Hyksos culminates in 1570 B.C.E. It is quite likely that the story of the Hyksos is the story that eventually, through generations of revisionistic retelling, became the myth of the Exodus -- another example of history being rewritten to flatter the storytellers rather than to record the unvarnished truth.
Anyway, the Hyksos grew in influence until they eventually took control of Egypt, which they ruled, with considerable cruelty and tyrrany during the Fifteenth Dynasty, beginning in 1670 B.C.E. The Egyptians had finally had enough, though, and rebelled against the rule of the Hyksos and drove them out a century later in 1570 B.C.E. They weren't just driven out, either; the Egyptians pushed them back into Canaan with considerable force, driving them all the way to the Syrian frontier, sacking and burning Canaanite cities along the way. Sometime later, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, Avaris, in the eastern Nile delta, was razed to the ground by the Pharoah Ahmose, who chased the last remnants of the Hyksos back into Canaan and even laid siege to Sharuhen, the main Canaanite citadel, destroying it and ending Canaanite influence there. At least one historian claims (a millenium after the fact) that the Hyksos refugees settled in Jerusalem and built a temple there, but the archaeological record does not support the claim of either a temple or large numbers of refugees in Jerusalem from this period.
It is quite clear from the archaeological record, as well, that there never was a "wandering in the desert for 40 years," either. Extensive archaeological surveys of the Sanai desert have never shown any encampments dating from the time of the Exodus, either before, during or after the time of the Ramsean pharoahs. At least two sites mentioned in the exodus story have been positively identified and carefully and extensively excavated, but no evidence of late bronze-age occupation or encampment has been found at either site. Additionally, the Sanai Desert was literally dotted with Egyptian military outposts, and nowhere in the Sanai could the Hebrews have been more than a day's travel from one of them. It is inconceivable that they could have remained undetected in the Sanai for forty years. The story of the Exodus is clearly mythmaking designed to portray a possible forced expulsion of oppressors as an escape of victims.
By the 12th century B.C.E., the Hebrews assumed an identity unique enough in the archaeological record to become discernible for the first time. In the mountains and plateaus of the northern highlands of Canaan, from Jerusalem north to the Jezreel Valley, the highland settlements, poor for their day, begin to show a single distinguishing feature from other, similar highland settlements in regions around them. There is little to go on - pottery shows an impoverished lifestyle, with little decoration and use other than as storage and cooking vessels. Yet one thing is clear - the bones of pigs become absent from the archaeological record. The prohibition on eating pork is therefore the oldest archaeologically supported feature of Jewish culture. It is representative of the beginnings of the transformation of the god "El" into "El-ohim," the god of gods, the god of Israel.
We now know this Mesopotamian god as "El-ohim," and our author "E," one of the earliest scriptorialists writing about this time, first has El introducing himself to Abraham as "El Shaddai" (El of the Mountain). He also appears as El Elyon, or El of Bethel in other, non-canonized scripture, and his name is also preserved in such Hebrew names as Isra-El and Ishma-El. The word Elohim was originally a plural of El.2
To the south, from Bethel to the Valley of Beersheba, a similar transformation is taking place. In this climatically and geologically harsher place, a place with a much smaller and less settled population with greater geographical isolation, the Canaanite god Yahweh is being transformed by a culturally similar people of the land of Judah. The unknown author known to scholars simply as "J" has his god being familiar with and comfortable with Abraham, and he casually appears to Abraham in Genesis 18, introducing himself as Yahweh. But "J's" contemporary, author "E" in the north can't have God being so casual, and first appears as a voice, commanding Abraham to leave his people in Mesopotamia and settle in Canaan.3
Yahweh, in his transformation from a pagan Canaanite god to the god of the Jews, becomes a cruel and vindictive god in the hands of author "J." He commands Abraham to sacrifice his first born son, an act which is not at all surprising given the nature of the pagan religions of the time. Many of these pagan religions (and remember that Yahweh got his start as a Canannite pagan god) considered the first-born to be the seed of a god. Because of this, they were often sacrificed to the god who presumably sired them.
Yet Elohim in the north continues to be a much more subtle god, who directs the affairs of men by revelation of the voice, hidden from the view of mere mortals. There is a tension among these peoples, both of whom identify themselves as culturally decendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. One people, perhaps, but two gods.
The people of the north, with a much more favorable geography and climate, eventually prosper and establish trading links with their neighbors. Their wealth eventually comes to greatly exceed that of the south - to the extent that they become a nation in their own right - the nation of Israel. Israel prospers to the extent that it becomes a significant trading nation - greatly eclipsing its poorer neighbor, Judah. The archaeological record clearly shows Israel to be a major regional power, one that certainly attracted the interest of its neighbors.
By now, the Egyptian hegemony in the region has faded, and the geopolitical vacuum was filled by Assyria. The Assyrians eventually assumed control of the region, with two provincial areas, Israel in the north, and Judah in the south. Israel, vastly more prosperous and populous than Judah, had its capital at various times in Megiddo, Samaria and Seschem, and Judah had its capital at Bethel, on it's northern frontier, or sometimes at Hebron in the south. Jerusalem, up until this time, was a tiny agricultural village of insignificance, and, until the Assyrian deportations, was certainly not a cultural center.
By the end of the eighth century, B.C.E., a Hebrew alphabet appears, and literacy rapidly spreads among the wealthier Hebrews. Finally, after centuries of oral tradition, writing becomes widespread for the first time, and culturally changes everything. The myths are written down and compared. And the two gods come into open conflict with each other.
Widespread literacy and the geopolitical events of the day, changed everything. Israelite rebellion against the Assyrians brought repression in the north, and with it, waves of refugees into the south. With the arrival of waves of refugees, Jerusalem is quickly transformed from a tiny agricultural village of no particular significance into a major town, with a religious influence of its own. The arriving Israelites with their gods with El at the helm, and the Judeans, with their single god Yahweh, are now forced to reconcile their religious differences. It is also from this era that the myths of the Old Testament become frozen in the form in which they have come down to us - the story of Abraham and his family travelling and trading Arabian goods with the use of camels, the myth of Exodus transformed as it was from the story of the expulsion of the Hyksos, the stories of the conquest of Canaan with David slaying Goliath, which was really a story based on the forced resettlement by the Egyptian authorities, of Solomon's great wealth and his great temple at Jerusalem; all were myths substantially altered from the facts as they originally occured. But writing them down now froze those myths, and it is from this time they came to us unaltered for the most part. For the first time, the Biblical record begins to correspond with the archaeological record
- ********0
You should read into the story of Yahweh and Zoroastrianism to understand the true origin of your faith discipler
- discipler0
Kes, the events in the writings that define "my faith" far predate those of zoroastrianism. C'mon, we have to have our facts straight to engage in a productive and intelligent discussion. :)
- ********0
eugh, you're so annoying
Zoroastrianism was the foundation of the great monotheistic religions and predates Abraham and the jews
- discipler0
For starters, by the traditional chronology of Egyptian history the 18th dynasty ruled from about 1550 to 1320 BC. According to Bible chronology the Exodus occurred about 1446 BC. But there is no evidence from 18th dynasty Egyptian records of a major disaster such as would have resulted from the 10 devastating plagues that fell on Egypt, or of the destruction of the Egyptian army during this period. Nor is there archaeological evidence for an invasion of Palestine under Joshua during this period.
The solution to this problem is a recognition that the chronology of Egypt needs to be reduced by centuries, bringing the 12th dynasty down to the time of Moses and the Exodus. When this is done there is found abundant evidence for the presence of large numbers of Semitic slaves at the time of Moses, the devastation of Egypt and the sudden departure of these slaves.
A reduction of the chronology of Egypt would also be reflected in the interpretation of the archaeological ages in Israel. There is little evidence for an invasion of Palestine at the end of the Late Bronze Period. But at the end of the Early Bronze Period there is evidence of Jericho’s fallen walls and the arrival of a new people with a new culture who should be identified as the invading Israelites under Joshua.
- ********0
That Zoroastrian beliefs made an impression upon the religion of the Judeans is apparent. Although the complete extent to which this imfluence played is debatable, there are several points of interests concerning this Zoroastrian influence, three of which, shall be mentioned here. As to the means of influence, some suggest that the sect of the Pharisees derived it's name from "Farsi" the Iranian name for the district Parsa, which might indicate direct Zoroastrian preistly influence in the region, however, this can not be confirmed with certainty, although it is not impossible; another possible etymology of the term is that it originated from the term for "heretic" or that of "separatist" as initially the Pharasaic movement was a vastly outnumbered sect within the Judean community.
One clear adaption from Zoroastrian doctrine was the Judean conception of god. The idea of a universal, non-partisian, monotheistic deity was the result of their contact with the Zoroastrian Ahura-Mazda, which allowed them transcend the tribal, henotheistic conception of god that they had hitherto espoused. This can be seen in the literary works of the time of the Persian occupation; at that time they began to more clearly talk of a single god as opposed to pronouncing their god as the greatest among many other gods - which was clearly the conception espoused by Abraham, Moses and other mythical figures from their ancient past.
Another significant manner in which Judaism was affected by Zoroastrian doctrines was in the concept of an enemy to God; the Judean conception of Ha-stan, that is - Enemy - did not occur until its mention in Zechariah during the late 6th century B.C.E. under Persian rule and the influence of Zoroastrian dualism - that cosmic fight between Ahura Mazda and Ahriman.
Yet another adaptation from Zoroastrian belief was that of Ge-hinnom (valley of Hinnom) or Hell, which was a doctoring of the earlier Judean conception of sheol (grave) such that sheol became only the upper most level of a multi-level underworld - a clear account of which is given in the creation myth of the Haggadah (collection of non-canonical legends). Although there can also be seen Egyptian themes in the Judean conceptions of hell, it can be confidently argued that, at the least, Zoroastrian ideas of hell influenced Judean religious development coupled with Egyptian influences, while at the most they were the primary influence in the formation of these beliefs.
This significant grafting on of the concept of monotheistic god, the adversary and of hell would prove instrumental in the later Christian conceptions of Satan and hell. As such, apart from direct influences with Mithraism and the Zoroastrian dualism imbedded within it upon the later Christian community, we can see a distant influence many centuries earlier upon Christianity through the Judean adoption of Ha-stan, Ge-hinnom, and the 'One God.'
- ********0
cool! a cut&paste contest!
- moondog0
i had to read the bible cover to cover during my undergraduate career.
i was a literature major.
it's literature, for fuck's sake.
and, as such, it's somewhat palatable.
- discipler0
Kes. other "religions" existed prior to Zorastrianism. (Of course, when we assert our claim that "Adam" had the oldest religion, which incidently is consistently passed down through the Hebrew scripture, we understand this needs to be supported by good biblical apologetics; both external and internal supporting evidence).
When folks speak of "the oldest religion," they are usually speaking of the oldest for which they have written records. I know of no records that predate the flood. Zoroastrianism cannot possibly "predate Judaism by 1000 years" because Zoroaster (Zarathustra) was thought to have been born about 628 BC). If you define Judaism as that which came out of Babylon then his religion could only predate it by a few years and if you define "Judaism" as what existed prior to the Babylonian exile then Judaism predates Zoroastrianism by at least 900 years. The definitions I can find say that Judaism is "The religious doctrines and rites of the Jews as enjoined in the laws of Moses. --J. S. Mill." making Judaism the oldest recorded monotheistic religion.
Rough Timeline: 2,085 BC = Judaism, 1,500 BC = Hinduism, 560 BC = Buddhism, 550 BC = Taoism, 628 BC = Zoroastrianism, 599 BC = Jainism, 30 AD = Christianity, 50-100 AD = Gnosticism, 150-250 AD = Modalism (Monarchianism)–Sabellius, Praxeus, Noetus, Paul of Samosata, 325 AD. -After being persecuted for almost 200 years Constantine made Christianity a legal religion, compromise enters, 590 AD = Roman Catholicism -Developed after Constantine, 610 AD = Islam -original manuscript was burned up.
Now, Cosmos Chaos and the world to Come by Norman Cohn says "According to a Zoroastrian tradition the prophet lived 258 years before Alexander, which would place him in the middle of the sixth cent B.C. and this has been accepted by some eminent scholars. However the tradition in question has been shown to derive from a late calculation based on a greek fiction*. For more than a hundred years linguistic and archeological evidence has been accumulating in favour of the alternate view-which is that Zoroaster lived in a far earlier period, some time between 1500 and 1200 B.C., when the Iranains were still settled pastoralists rather than farmers*. Zoroasters own liturgical hymns,the Gathas abound in references to the instsitutions, customs technology and ways of thought of the traditional pastoral society-where as not a single similie is drawn from agriculture."
*Norman Cohn provides references in the bibliography.
So if the Cohn is correct you have to move Zoroasterism up to between 1500 and 1200 BC.