Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well pretty much all archaeology agrees on the first half likely not being highly historic. You can pick up William Dever's , or Amihai Mazar's books on the areas archaeology for real details on the matters. Jon Von Seters' book "Abraham in History and Tradition" is a good book that argues for the development of the old testament canon. I would also suggest "The historicity of the patriarchal narratives", but that book is a very very very dry read. But in essence we could take the exodus as an example of a made up event since nothing points towards one. It flies in the face of history at the time, which records no large scale movements of a people. Either in text, campsites in the sinai, or in the ancient settlements in the eastern highlands. While people did live there, the settlements were very small, and very sparse. The pottery, and design of the village looks the same as Canaanite ones, with the exception of the style of the houses, and the pottery being plained. Then you have other issues such as mentions of groups of peoples that didn't exist in the late bronze age *Philistines, Moabites, Edomites*. A failure to mention the campaigns of the Pharoah Merneptah into the southern highlands of what was the tribe of Israels territory at the time. And a lack of a mention about the collapse of the late bronze age Canaanite cities. Which the tribes that were there should have noticed, since it affected from Mycenaea to Egypt. Not to mention the story doesn't make sense. The fled Egypt to go into a land controlled by Egypt? And there are no documents reporting this incursion?
And then this massive incursion that is supposed to have happened under Joshua, has no record. Most of the cities he was supposed to have conquered were not inhabited at the time. In fact unless you take a late date for the exodus *around 1250 or so* you have no cities for him named in the book to conquer. If you do take a late date then you have 3, Hazor, Lachish, and Meggido *I think the last one is Meggido anyway*. All destroyed, though from the 1st to the last you have a period of roughly 100 years separating them, and Hazor is in dispute or whether it's an actual conquest or not. Now that's not to say that some minor exodus took place of Semitic people from Egypt at some point that became the story of the exodus. Just that the story as we know it, is not very accurate.
I do believe there was an exodus of slaves from Egypt. However the scriptures read--
RSV Exodus 12:37 And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.
That's a lot of people--a lot of people--well over a million, most likely over two million, perhaps as high as three million. Even given manna from heaven once they got out of Egypt there is a huge logistical problem---for latrines alone!!!
Pregnancies? Only two midwives are mentioned in the scripture, but that is often explained away as meaning the "leaders" of the midwives.
No matter how someone accepts the OT scripture, the fact that it had to have oral traditions as background means that human exaggeration played a role in writing the autographs.
That is still not a problem for people of faith and in no way makes me think the Bible is "uninspired." It makes me think it isn't a history book, or a science book, or a history book as we currently understand those texts. But it remains a faith book that traces the thread of the spirit from its earliest beginnings to what we have today. Sometimes that is murky and troubling, sometimes profound and uplifting, but always it can only be understood in the context of ALL scripture, not piecemealed about as most are prone to do.
Well pretty much all archaeology agrees on the first half likely not being highly historic. You can pick up William Dever's , or Amihai Mazar's books on the areas archaeology for real details on the matters. Jon Von Seters' book "Abraham in History and Tradition" is a good book that argues for the development of the old testament canon. I would also suggest "The historicity of the patriarchal narratives", but that book is a very very very dry read. But in essence we could take the exodus as an example of a made up event since nothing points towards one. It flies in the face of history at the time, which records no large scale movements of a people. Either in text, campsites in the sinai, or in the ancient settlements in the eastern highlands. While people did live there, the settlements were very small, and very sparse. The pottery, and design of the village looks the same as Canaanite ones, with the exception of the style of the houses, and the pottery being plained. Then you have other issues such as mentions of groups of peoples that didn't exist in the late bronze age *Philistines, Moabites, Edomites*. A failure to mention the campaigns of the Pharoah Merneptah into the southern highlands of what was the tribe of Israels territory at the time. And a lack of a mention about the collapse of the late bronze age Canaanite cities. Which the tribes that were there should have noticed, since it affected from Mycenaea to Egypt. Not to mention the story doesn't make sense. The fled Egypt to go into a land controlled by Egypt? And there are no documents reporting this incursion?
And then this massive incursion that is supposed to have happened under Joshua, has no record. Most of the cities he was supposed to have conquered were not inhabited at the time. In fact unless you take a late date for the exodus *around 1250 or so* you have no cities for him named in the book to conquer. If you do take a late date then you have 3, Hazor, Lachish, and Meggido *I think the last one is Meggido anyway*. All destroyed, though from the 1st to the last you have a period of roughly 100 years separating them, and Hazor is in dispute or whether it's an actual conquest or not. Now that's not to say that some minor exodus took place of Semitic people from Egypt at some point that became the story of the exodus. Just that the story as we know it, is not very accurate.
So you place your faith in men who were not there and their claim that because they are not capable to prove every single thing then God must have made a mistake!
I think I will just keep my faith in God and the eyewitness accounts if you don't mind.
The Pastor today said Jesus whipped The Money Changers out of The Temple twice because the gospels are inerrant, The Word Of God and it spoken differently. So Jesus had to do it twice! And not once!
Man, they will go to any length to keep a false doctrine!
The Pastor today said Jesus whipped The Money Changers out of The Temple twice because the gospels are inerrant, The Word Of God and it spoken differently. So Jesus had to do it twice! And not once!
Man, they will go to any length to keep a false doctrine!
LOL!!
I still believe in God and read my scriptures and OTHER inspired writings, but church attendance just leaves me angry. The vast majority of people in churches have no power of discernment and no ability to have faith in anything beyond the Idol of the Bible. The Bible isn't even ABOUT the Bible. It's about God, so it should be a window through which we look to see how God wants us to live.
Instead it has been turned into a weapon to bludgeon the lost, a banner of self righteousness, and a wedge of obtrusiveness into the lives of those seeking to work out their own faith with fear and trembling.
So you place your faith in men who were not there and their claim that because they are not capable to prove every single thing then God must have made a mistake!
I think I will just keep my faith in God and the eyewitness accounts if you don't mind.
God didn't write the bible, men did. And my faith in man bears out more proof than your faith in eyewitnesses that didn't exist. It's not even about finding proof, it's that the proof that is found contradicts what the bible says. And that's not to say the bible is not accurate. Once you get into kings, you can cross references a lot of events with other sources. For example the assassinations of Jehoram and Ahaziah , the rebellion in Moab, invasions by Sennacherib. The only difference is they tell different versions of how the events played out. But before that court history, the evidence for biblical proof just isn't there.
Last edited by ~HecateWhisperCat~; 08-20-2013 at 08:41 PM..
I do believe there was an exodus of slaves from Egypt. However the scriptures read--
RSV Exodus 12:37 And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.
That's a lot of people--a lot of people--well over a million, most likely over two million, perhaps as high as three million. Even given manna from heaven once they got out of Egypt there is a huge logistical problem---for latrines alone!!!
Pregnancies? Only two midwives are mentioned in the scripture, but that is often explained away as meaning the "leaders" of the midwives.
No matter how someone accepts the OT scripture, the fact that it had to have oral traditions as background means that human exaggeration played a role in writing the autographs.
That is still not a problem for people of faith and in no way makes me think the Bible is "uninspired." It makes me think it isn't a history book, or a science book, or a history book as we currently understand those texts. But it remains a faith book that traces the thread of the spirit from its earliest beginnings to what we have today. Sometimes that is murky and troubling, sometimes profound and uplifting, but always it can only be understood in the context of ALL scripture, not piecemealed about as most are prone to do.
There is certainly the possibility of some story being there to tell. Perhaps a very small group of slaves did leave Egypt at some point, and travel into canaan. But then is the story only meant to convey a message, rather then a literal tale?
There is certainly the possibility of some story being there to tell. Perhaps a very small group of slaves did leave Egypt at some point, and travel into canaan. But then is the story only meant to convey a message, rather then a literal tale?
That's all ANY of it was meant to do--convey a message. Two people walk away from a plane crash, one says "God protected me" and the other says, "Thank God, I got out of that!" Two very different messages and the first is more about someone seeing with eyes of faith than the second where someone is just happy to be alive.
There is an old story about a gambler who had bet $10,000 on a slouch horse to win it all. As the horse rounded the first pole he prayed, "God just let my horse win and I'll start going to church." Down into the backstretch his horse was pulling forward and running third, and the man prayed more, "God, let my horse win and I promise to tithe all my earnings!" Coming around the last pole and heading toward the finish line his horse was neck and neck with one other. He prayed, "Oh, God, almighty, if my horse wins I'll quit beating my girlfriend and pay my ex-wife all the child support I owe her!"
As his horse nosed across the finish line, the man said, "Oh, thank you, Lord. Forget everything I said, I can handle it all from here."
The eyes of faith see God working in most parts of their lives and in the scripture however flawed. Those without it have faith until everything has worked out okay and then, "I can handle it all from here."
In a recent bible study, my pastor made this statement. I was totally shocked because I was thinking what does he mean? I need some clarification. Aren't I reading God's word in my New King James version, NIV, NASB or etc., so how couldn't those versions be God's inspired word? Well what my pastor meant was that the original tongue that the bible was written, Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic are God's inspired word. The various translations, are simply translations, but not God's inspired Word. This is why we can't even trust one particular translation over another because of bias which has been clearly evident in some translations, like the New World Translation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker5in1
THe New World "Translation" denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is God. I give that deceptive counterfeit an F-. You might as well read the Koran. The King James is a reliable English translation. Avoid those infected by modern textual criticism and that use the Gnostic influenced Alexandrian texts. If the English of the 1760s is difficult for you, I recommend Jay Green Sr's excellent "King James in Modern English" if you can find it. The KJ3 by the same translator is also excellent. Any that deny that God's only begotten Son came in the flesh is a false prophet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin.spin
That's a good question ... I don't know if one could put it in those terms (KJV and the NIV for example) ... unlike that we know the JW's translation \ has been altered that goes against the early transcripts. What we do know is that KJV when compared to the early transcripts available is that we are assured that God's Word is still inspired.
Yet despite the centuries that have come and gone, the tumult that surrounded copying, translating and even possessing the Bible it remains remarkably well preserved. One example, the ancient Dead Sea scrolls which testify to the faithful reproduction of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) we have today.
As far as bias in translation, that could be said of "mainstream" translations, some tweaking here and there, to support doctrines that appeared later in the Christian Church (after the apostles died).
There's plenty of controversy regarding how to translate from the original Koine Greek in which the New Testament was written. That's why it's interesting to read about the Sahidic Coptic Christian manuscripts written sometime between 185 A.D. to before the third century. These translators would have been thoroughly familiar with Koine Greek (likely at least if not better than any scholar today) for the following reasons: 1) Greek culture had been in Egypt for about 500 years when these translations were written;2) Koine Greek was a "living" language at the time so the translators were not ignorant of the grammer and meaning that Koine Greek conveyed and; 3) Sahidic Coptic had both indefinite and definite articles unlike Koine Greek. Apparently these translators knew how to translate John 1:1 , 1 Timothy 3:16 etc.
Maybe the New World Translation is not so unreliable?
God didn't write the bible, men did. And my faith in man bears out more proof than your faith in eyewitnesses that didn't exist. It's not even about finding proof, it's that the proof that is found contradicts what the bible says. And that's not to say the bible is not accurate. Once you get into kings, you can cross references a lot of events with other sources. For example the assassinations of Jehoram and Ahaziah , the rebellion in Moab, invasions by Sennacherib. The only difference is they tell different versions of how the events played out. But before that court history, the evidence for biblical proof just isn't there.
I have seen no evidence to support your claim. in fact all i have ever seen shows the bible is right and man is just slow and discovering it. With each passing day it's proven correct and the so called facts against it always fall.
I have seen no evidence to support your claim. in fact all i have ever seen shows the bible is right and man is just slow and discovering it. With each passing day it's proven correct and the so called facts against it always fall.
The Bible is a faith book written by fallible men trying to point to an infallible God.
When Mark says that Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover meal was eaten (Mark 14:12, 15:25) and John says he died the day before it was eaten (John 19:14)--was that was a genuine difference that each of the authors knew about, or a mistake made by scribes copying copies of copies of copies of copies of the original?
Or when Luke indicates in his account of Jesus's birth that Mary and Joseph returned to Nazareth just over a month after they had come to Bethlehem (and performed the rites of purification; Luke 2:39), whereas Matthew states they instead fled to Egypt (Matt 2:19-22)--was it in the originals or in the copies?
Or when Paul says that after he converted on the way to Damascus he did not go to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before him (Gal. 1:16-17), whereas the book of Acts says that was the first thing he did after leaving Damascus (Acts 9:26), who was incorrect? The original authors or the copyists?
Pointing out that the original autographs are inerrant is something of a moot point if we don't even HAVE the original. And in may cases the earliest copies are decades after what is considered the original date of writing. Further complicating this is those copies all differ from on another in thousands of places.
In order to make this easier to understand, there are more differences in the existing NT manuscripts than there are WORDS in the NT. And scholars of those texts, whether liberal or conservative agree there are mountains of differences.
Now people who are without faith, must have a Bible that is a "sure" thing. It is not faith that drives their perspective, but a solid object, like the golden calf in the Sinai desert. That isn't faith at all, because faith is in things not seen, in things hoped for.
But across all the threads of Christianity we have Christians, including myself, engaged in interpreting what the Scripture means when we don't even know what the words of the original manuscripts are!!
So get out the magnifying glass of faith and begin to trace the Spirit of God through fallible men. If God could accomplish His work through Moses, Sampson, David, and a reluctant Jonah, then He can accomplish His work in spite of the multitude of errors within Scripture. Our failure continues as humans, however, when we become dogmatic about what they mean.
To really worship God in spirit and in truth, requires a really BIG faith, and some servanthood thrown in.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 08-22-2013 at 06:49 PM..
Reason: spelling
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
.
?
Which men were correct?
