Wild biblical stories that demand answers - Whoppers, what say ye? (disciples, church)
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.
Wait, is that Eusebius??? If that is the case, Whoppers, feel free to drop the silent treatment of you so desire. I failed to mention in my plea to you to be patient was that a fundy, I was NEVER rude to anyone or gave off that smug attitude. When that happens, well, let the chips fall where they may.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zymer
The Euse alias seems to have a better grasp of English and how to use it. Omega, not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude
I don't think they're the same person.
They just suffer from the same condition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
Ok, my bad. Funny enough, I have not had much back and forth with Eusebius in recent years. I've forgotten his writing style.
Yes, this Omega's entire approach is to assume that a) God wrote the Bible, b) everything in it is teaching us something from God and c) Christianity is needed to understand the apparently poorly-written "Old" Testment. Unfortunately, these are 3 very large assumptions grind against what most of us know of the very human authorship of the Bible and thus colors and harms all rhetoric that comes afterwards. Eusebius is a bit more capable in at least understanding the objections put forth to his own arguments, even if he vehemently disagrees with them. There is also a hint in Omega's reasoning that there exists no such thing as human experts on the Bible, and adopts Martin Luther's view that all believers are able to interpret the Scriptures. Of course, Luther saw how dangerous this practice rather quickly and vehemently argued against uninformed interpretations.
If you know of anything in the Bible that is not accurate, feel free to post it.
Certainly Edgar. I have given them to you before in your other life.
No Genesis creation.
No need to dwell on the fact that the Earth is more than 6000 years old becaus we know that humanity is much more than 6000 years old (old cave paintings and suchlike), and we evolved with (other) apes, being closely related to chimpanzees (hominid fossil record, DNA, endogenous retroviruses.
No Noachian Flood.
The survival of Egypt's "Old Kingdom", and the total lack of all the massive geological evidence that a recent worldwide inundation would inevitably leave behind (massive run-off channels, massive water erosion, total disruption of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet layers, and so forth).
No Tower of Babel (no change in written records after the "confusion of languages").
Pretty self-explanatory, this. No sign of any pre-Babel "common language" in written records, no sign of any post-Babel "confusion of languages" towards the end of the second millennium BCE (the time of Babel).
No Exodus.
No trace of the movement of several million people through the Sinai desert, no trace of their supposed encampment at Kadesh Barnea for many years. Where are the latrines, the corpses of those who must have died during that time, and so forth?
No Conquest of Caanan.
The Hebrews are Caananites. Their language evolved from Caananite (after the supposed Exodus), and their religion evolved from Caananite polytheism. We know this from Caananite records (notably the Ugaritic texts).
No "Golden Age" of Solomon.
This "great empire" was never mentioned in the records of other surrounding civilizations, who barely noticed the existence of Israel and Judah.
Failure of Ezekiel's "Tyre Prophecy".
Ezekiel falsely predicted that Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon would take and permanently destroy Tyre. But Tyre survived Nebby's 13-year siege. Apologists have sought to cut this prophecy into 2 parts and have Alexander fulfil the second part centuries later (as he DID take Tyre), but this merely creates two failures where there was previously one: Nebby failed to take Tyre as prophesied, Alex failed to permanently destroy Tyre as prophesied.
Failure of Ezekiel's "Egypt Prophecy".
After the failure of the Tyre prophecy, Ezekiel promised Egypt to Nebby as compensation. Nebby was to ransack Egypt so thoroughly that it would be uninhabited for 40 years. Historical records show that this did not happen.
Failure of the "Babylon Prophecy" (Isaiah and Jeremiah).
Both of these prophesied that the Medes would take and permanently destroy Babylon. But the Medes were conquered by the Persians, who then went on to peacefully take (and not destroy) Babylon.
Numerous historical inaccuracies in Daniel.
While Daniel was supposedly written in the 6th century BC, it was actually written four centuries later and gets many details wrong.
Herod/Quirinius issue (Luke's Jesus born a decade after Matthew's Jesus).
Matthew's Jesus was born in Herod's time: Luke's Jesus was born at least a decade later, when Quirinius was governor of the region (as confirmed by various historical sources).
No "Massacre of the Innocents".
We have accounts from Herod's enemies, describing his various "crimes". The Massacre is not among them. It was invented by Matthew to draw a parallel between Jesus and Moses (who also supposedly survived an infant massacre, by Pharaoh).
No "zombie invasion of Jerusalem" or "supernatural darkness" (easily-noticed large-scale miracles).
Again, pretty self-explanatory. The dead supposedly rose from their graves and wandered about in Jerusalem, and there was supposedly a supernatural darkness for several hours: numerous historians in the vicinity failed to notice these, as did all the gospel authors except one: obviously invented.
Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai.
Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 BCE, which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. In other words, there was no Canaanite city there for Joshua to conquer. The walls of Jericho did not come tumbling down at the sound of Joshua's trumpets. They came tumbling down at about the same time as Ai. c2300BCE..a thousand years before Joshua.
Yes, this Omega's entire approach is to assume that a) God wrote the Bible, b) everything in it is teaching us something from God and c) Christianity is needed to understand the apparently poorly-written "Old" Testment. Unfortunately, these are 3 very large assumptions grind against what most of us know of the very human authorship of the Bible and thus colors and harms all rhetoric that comes afterwards. Eusebius is a bit more capable in at least understanding the objections put forth to his own arguments, even if he vehemently disagrees with them. There is also a hint in Omega's reasoning that there exists no such thing as human experts on the Bible, and adopts Martin Luther's view that all believers are able to interpret the Scriptures. Of course, Luther saw how dangerous this practice rather quickly and vehemently argued against uninformed interpretations.
Ahh...I see. Well, Omega reminds me of a Seventh Day Adventist co-bulletin board member I used to debate with. He, of course, read the bible in a very devotional style, complete with the "interpretations" of Ellen White.
AS you already know, the bigger problem with the Omega's and Vizio's of the world is that they read back much later Christian theology into those Hebrew scriptures. The concept of the trinity, for example, is NOWHERE in the Old Testament. It is strictly a Christian doctrine, perhaps influenced, in part, by earlier Greek philosophical ideas. So when they run into passages like Genesis 1:27 that, at face value, implies some sort of polytheism, they cannot accept this (not realizing that polytheism and henotheism were the order of the day in the ancient world, even among the Israelites) and have to come up with clever "way outs" to get around the obvious.
What is interesting is that monotheism grew out of, shall we say, necessity. Christians have this totally misunderstood notion that when they read about calls from prophets to "return to the the LORD" (YWH), this was a call to return to the ONLY god in the universe. What the holymen (according to the writers) were doing was pleading for a return to THE god Israel was sworn to and to stop being led away to serve other people's gods that were believed to also exist. From this henotheistic stance, Israelite religion moved toward monolatry (as it has been called) which was, the concept that THEIR god ruled over the other gods, though many see it as just another word for henotheism (the belief that a people is sworn to ONE god without denying the existence of other gods). Monolatry, in my estimation, is going that next bold step beyond in claiming YOUR god as the head honcho up in that divine council. From there, having YOUR god discount the other gods, reducing them to mere mortals and taking away their divinity then that path to monotheism is set. Now you can tell your history from THAT vantage point and try to sanitize the past as best you could.
As I said, the Jews, out of necessity for their survival as a people, stumbled into the monotheistic concept while in captivity and refining it under the near 200 year rule of the somewhat monotheistic Persians with their deavas, vivid after-life and balancing scales of justice. Those Persian Parsi/Farsi/Pharsi men (their holymen) may have also given the Jews the "gift" of the Pharisees with their radical notion of a post death resurrection; a concept once foreign to Jews.
The theology in the bible is one that evolved. Unfortunately, many Christians cannot see this and hold a static view of the Old Testament which leads them to mercilessly butcher the Hebrew scriptures finding Jesus on every page.
Ahh...I see. Well, Omega reminds me of a Seventh Day Adventist co-bulletin board member I used to debate with. He, of course, read the bible in a very devotional style, complete with the "interpretations" of Ellen White.
AS you already know, the bigger problem with the Omega's and Vizio's of the world is that they read back much later Christian theology into those Hebrew scriptures. The concept of the trinity, for example, is NOWHERE in the Old Testament. It is strictly a Christian doctrine, perhaps influenced, in part, by earlier Greek philosophical ideas. So when they run into passages like Genesis 1:27 that, at face value, implies some sort of polytheism, they cannot accept this (not realizing that polytheism and henotheism were the order of the day in the ancient world, even among the Israelites) and have to come up with clever "way outs" to get around the obvious.
What is interesting is that monotheism grew out of, shall we say, necessity. Christians have this totally misunderstood notion that when they read about calls from prophets to "return to the the LORD" (YWH), this was a call to return to the ONLY god in the universe. What the holymen (according to the writers) were doing was pleading for a return to THE god Israel was sworn to and to stop being led away to serve other people's gods that were believed to also exist. From this henotheistic stance, Israelite religion moved toward monolatry (as it has been called) which was, the concept that THEIR god ruled over the other gods, though many see it as just another word for henotheism (the belief that a people is sworn to ONE god without denying the existence of other gods). Monolatry, in my estimation, is going that next bold step beyond in claiming YOUR god as the head honcho up in that divine council. From there, having YOUR god discount the other gods, reducing them to mere mortals and taking away their divinity then that path to monotheism is set. Now you can tell your history from THAT vantage point and try to sanitize the past as best you could.
As I said, the Jews, out of necessity for their survival as a people, stumbled into the monotheistic concept while in captivity and refining it under the near 200 year rule of the somewhat monotheistic Persians with their deavas, vivid after-life and balancing scales of justice. Those Persian Parsi/Farsi/Pharsi men (their holymen) may have also given the Jews the "gift" of the Pharisees with their radical notion of a post death resurrection; a concept once foreign to Jews.
The theology in the bible is one that evolved. Unfortunately, many Christians cannot see this and hold a static view of the Old Testament which leads them to mercilessly butcher the Hebrew scriptures finding Jesus on every page.
That is a very good way of summing it up.
A lot of people - even some scholars such as William Dever - make the false assumption that the Biblical text is an essentially monotheistic text attempting to whitewash away or obscure any references to polytheism. On the contrary, the Biblical text clearly states time and again that the pre-Exillic Israelites were polytheists. Sure, they give them crap for it - but it's there. In fact, the Biblical authors are extremely adamant in painting the worst possible picture of pre-Exillic Israelites!
There are 2 major theological ideals that the Biblical authors tell us were present from the earliest stages of Israel as a nation at Sinai: a) monolatry (whether it's a strictly "monotheistic" monolatry or a polytheistic monolatry), and b) aniconism (the refusal to depict the deity artistically).
The above is merely the Biblical evidence we have. The archaeological evidence confirms the very polytheistic nature of the ancient Israelites as very normative ini contrast to the scathing condemnation of the Biblical authors. Aniconism is a much later innovation than the Biblical text would have us believe. Keel and Uehlinger's Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (English Edition 1998, Fortress Press) is a fascinating look with many illustrations. I think you would enjoy this work. I'd offer you a digital copy, but I don't have one. Just the hardcover. But it's worth the money. You could write entire theses out of some of the footnotes or passing remarks in the volume!
P.S. As an example, from the above volume in my reading today I have learned about the presence of the Syrian goddess Shagar and the Canaanite goddess Astarte in Deuteronomy 7:13; 28:4, 18, 51 in the blessing and curse formulas, in the context of fertility - somehow their presence has survived the transmission process, if not a little shakily. I have to do a little research to see if I can confirm that, but it's certainly intriguing. At first glance, the evidence Keel and Uehilnger (with reference to Winter as well) is compelling. If I think it's substantial enough, I may write something on it here or there, if you or anyone else is interested.
A lot of people - even some scholars such as William Dever - make the false assumption that the Biblical text is an essentially monotheistic text attempting to whitewash away or obscure any references to polytheism. On the contrary, the Biblical text clearly states time and again that the pre-Exillic Israelites were polytheists. Sure, they give them crap for it - but it's there. In fact, the Biblical authors are extremely adamant in painting the worst possible picture of pre-Exillic Israelites!
There are 2 major theological ideals that the Biblical authors tell us were present from the earliest stages of Israel as a nation at Sinai: a) monolatry (whether it's a strictly "monotheistic" monolatry or a polytheistic monolatry), and b) aniconism (the refusal to depict the deity artistically).
The above is merely the Biblical evidence we have. The archaeological evidence confirms the very polytheistic nature of the ancient Israelites as very normative ini contrast to the scathing condemnation of the Biblical authors. Aniconism is a much later innovation than the Biblical text would have us believe. Keel and Uehlinger's Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (English Edition 1998, Fortress Press) is a fascinating look with many illustrations. I think you would enjoy this work. I'd offer you a digital copy, but I don't have one. Just the hardcover. But it's worth the money. You could write entire theses out of some of the footnotes or passing remarks in the volume!
P.S. As an example, from the above volume in my reading today I have learned about the presence of the Syrian goddess Shagar and the Canaanite goddess Astarte in Deuteronomy 7:13; 28:4, 18, 51 in the blessing and curse formulas, in the context of fertility - somehow their presence has survived the transmission process, if not a little shakily. I have to do a little research to see if I can confirm that, but it's certainly intriguing. At first glance, the evidence Keel and Uehilnger (with reference to Winter as well) is compelling. If I think it's substantial enough, I may write something on it here or there, if you or anyone else is interested.
Now back to the Elohim debate...if anyone even cares.
It gets interesting once we get past the basic facts of 1:26-27.
Ignoring a strict definition of Elohim at the moment, to put the grammatical basics concisely, since I don't have much time today (I apologize if the language is difficult):
Grammatically, God introduces himself using the first person plural pronoun and this is repeated several times.
The grammatical features of the construction guarantee that the referent of the 1p pronoun is not singular ("God" alone), but consists of multiple entities.
Further grammatical details in the surrounding language strongly suggest that the referents of the plural pronoun are equally involved in the decision-making process to institute the creation of humanity (even though it is God singularly who creates them).
The Priestly Author has deliberately used these grammatical markers of 1st person plurality.
Since, as H. Gunkel wrote over a hundred years ago, "the earlier interpretation, that an allusion to the Trinity occurs here, can no longer be considered" (Genesis p. 112), we are then left with the conclusion that seems to be reached upon using both biblical and extra-biblical evidence: God is consulting other members of the Divine Council: other gods, whatever their status may be.
The Divine Council angle is interesting as it is, but the passage reaches full-blown perplexity when one realizes that since the Priestly Author used the 1p pronouns deliberately, it creates an enormous puzzle: it subverts and undermines P's belief in a type of strict monotheism as expressed elsewhere in the Priestly Source.
It is at this point where it becomes truly puzzling for me, and very interesting.
It gets interesting once we get past the basic facts of 1:26-27.
Ignoring a strict definition of Elohim at the moment, to put the grammatical basics concisely, since I don't have much time today (I apologize if the language is difficult):
Grammatically, God introduces himself using the first person plural pronoun and this is repeated several times.
The grammatical features of the construction guarantee that the referent of the 1p pronoun is not singular ("God" alone), but consists of multiple entities.
Further grammatical details in the surrounding language strongly suggest that the referents of the plural pronoun are equally involved in the decision-making process to institute the creation of humanity (even though it is God singularly who creates them).
The Priestly Author has deliberately used these grammatical markers of 1st person plurality.
Since, as H. Gunkel wrote over a hundred years ago, "the earlier interpretation, that an allusion to the Trinity occurs here, can no longer be considered" (Genesis p. 112), we are then left with the conclusion that seems to be reached upon using both biblical and extra-biblical evidence: God is consulting other members of the Divine Council: other gods, whatever their status may be.
The Divine Council angle is interesting as it is, but the passage reaches full-blown perplexity when one realizes that since the Priestly Author used the 1p pronouns deliberately, it creates an enormous puzzle: it subverts and undermines P's belief in a type of strict monotheism as expressed elsewhere in the Priestly Source.
It is at this point where it becomes truly puzzling for me, and very interesting.
And this is why Ehrman points out that Christians, reading the bible as a SINGLE thread as if all the authors were "inspired" by the same agent (God) to write a single, unified theme from Genesis to Revelation is, well, a farce. The reality is, while on much of the basics there are hits, fact is, there were theological differences and at times, they bleed through the texts. What you point out here is an example.
As I've pointed out, the theology of the gods/God evolves in the bible and as it evolved, so came the introduction of a nemesis to remove full responsibility from God for the evils in the world and that is, of course, another subject.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
I find it interesting the lack of participation in this thread by many of the usual fundevangelicals suspects. Perhaps the discussion and parsing of the bible is beyond their cognitive abilities? Whoppers and Insaneindamembrane in particular, I love your contributions here. It goes so beyond the normal discourse. (Many others are making great contributions, the two listed are just making a lot of them. I did not mean to leave anyone out)
Cuppers, I started another thread to highlight that silence/absence. Threading through the bible academically is often foreign to them. In doing so, no one is necessarily stating the bible is not the word of god, nor is there this imagined "attack on the bible." Instead, passages are looked at and given practical, historical, social and contextual nods in place of wild, fanciful interpretations that require verbal and mental gymnastics that create more questions than sensible answers. If in doing so the bible is proven to be less "divine" than they think, it is just the natural course.
It reminds me of science. Scientists are not going into work each day saying, "hmmm...how can I disprove the bible today?" They do their jobs and at times, their researched conclusions conflict with the shaky, glass based faith based castle some Christians live in.
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.
