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.
You forget to mention that wild story in the book of Matthew where zombies rose up out of their graves upon Jesus' death OR resurrection (the writer seemed confused) and walked into Jerusalem and were seen "by MANY." Nary a word in the other Gospels or any other ancient literature about this alleged unprecedented event.
God, I'm glad you said that. I was dead concerned about Matthew's Sinking Simon, the descending angel, Shekel -eating fish and mobile star...that's all spiritual. And the Bethlehem massacre, the Jews accepting Jesus' blood guilt, the Tomb guard (and the claim that people were still talking about in his day) and I suppose the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to the women (nobody else records it) the death of Judas and I suppose his Virgin birth story...all spiritual? That removes all my concerns.
[quote=Rafius;45033403]Certainly Edgar. I have given them to you before in your other life.
Silly is as silly does. I reread this post because I thought you may have actually offered things you thought were evidence.
Quote:
No Genesis creation.
Quote:
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.
Pontificating and no evidence. How do you know the earth is more than 6000 years old? The fossil record has no intermediate fossils so you have no evidence to support man evolving from apes and that is verified by DNA
Quote:
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).
More pontification and no evidence.
Quote:
No Tower of Babel (no change in written records after the "confusion of languages").
Quote:
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).
It is not self explanatory by your usual pontificating. WE have not only a record, we have a written one---the Bible, which you cannot prove inaccurate. You just don't accept the evidence. Even if the fairy tale of evolution was right, when man first arrived, they would have had only one language.
Quote:
No Exodus.
Quote:
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?
Still no evidence. Do you really think all records from that period of time are still available? Archaeologist have dug up the bones of many ancient people. If they keep digging they will find the bone you say are missing and you will still not believe. Again we have written, historical record and you reject it. Not on the basis of real evidence but on you preconceived ideas.
Quote:
No Conquest of Caanan.
Quote:
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).
This is really amusing. You accept the Ugaritic text but reject the Biblical text. Why?
Quote:
No "Golden Age" of Solomon.
Quote:
This "great empire" was never mentioned in the records of other surrounding civilizations, who barely noticed the existence of Israel and Judah.
Pontificating with no evidence. Again you reject the one record available and you reject it by faith alone. Again, do you really think all records from tht time ware still available?
Quote:
Failure of Ezekiel's "Tyre Prophecy".
Quote:
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.
The prophecy does not say Tyre will be permanently destroyed. Not only was old city of Tyre destroyed, Ezk prophesied that many nations would come against it(Ezk 26:3-4). You just mentioned 2 of them. When the king of Tyre saw he could not hold out from the Chaldeans, the people took their valuable possessions to their island fortress. Nebuchadnezzar Did destroy the original city, but his navy w snot strong enough to defeat the island fortress. Later Alexander had a better navy and he defeated the island fortress. Also this prophecy said in v12 tht they will destroy their wall and houses and throw them into the sea. Alexander did just that and built a ramp to the island and the destroyed it. That island fortress is no longer around.
Quote:
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.
What historical records? Nebby did conquer Egypt and it remained under their control until approximately 332 BC
Quote:
Failure of the "Babylon Prophecy" (Isaiah and Jeremiah).
Quote:
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.
Again you have not offered any evidence. You keep just saying it hap;ned. Wh is your source for this statement?
Quote:
Numerous historical inaccuracies in Daniel.
Quote:
While Daniel was supposedly written in the 6th century BC, it was actually written four centuries later and gets many details wrong.
More pontificating with no evidence. I am going to stop here. If you ever post evidence and its source we can continue.
Thanks for the pdf file...Do you have access to the complete book?...I see right from the beginning of chapter 10 that he assumes a hierarchy in the Israelite religion:
When the Israelite religion and its hierarchy didn't exist until Mt. Sinai...But, it still looks like an interesting read, so, thank you again...
You're very welcome. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the full book of essays - only the essay by Rendsburg that he has made available online. Even my usual site for books, Library Genesis, doesn't appear to have this volume sadly. Here's the reference for it, if you wanted to hunt it down: RAMBI - ????? ????? ????, and it's on sale here: https://www.eisenbrauns.com/ECOM/_4PL0LIP3F.HTM.
Yes, he mentions exactly that issue further in the article with an interesting observation:
Thus, Moses the prophet par excellence is elevated to god, and consequently Aaron the priest par excellence is elevated to prophet (the latter notwithstanding the fact that the priesthood of Aaron is an element not stated until much later in the book of Exodus [28:1-3, etc.]; however, this may serve to explain the presence of the word הלוי (הַלֵּוִי ) “the Levite†in Exodus 4:14).
(Gary Rendsburg, "Moses as Equal to Pharaoh", Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion, Brown University, 2006, p. 203)
You might also enjoy his interesting lecture on the above as well as Moses' fight against the Egyptian magicians here:
...snip... If you ever post evidence and its source we can continue.
Maybe if you had the ability to recognize evidence when it smacks you upside the head umpteen times, more people would be inclined to discuss matters with you.
But you are married to your ignorance and only death will do you part.
Pontificating and no evidence. How do you know the earth is more than 6000 years old?
Because we have accurate methods of dating Edgar. Ironically, they are the same methods accepted by people like you to date Bible archaeology.
Quote:
The fossil record has no intermediate fossils so you have no evidence to support man evolving from apes and that is verified by DNA
You're quite Edgar. I do not have any evidence of man evolving from apes...and that's because man didn't evolve from apes.
Quote:
More pontification and no evidence.
More fact that you can't dispute.
Quote:
It is not self explanatory by your usual pontificating. WE have not only a record, we have a written one---the Bible, which you cannot prove inaccurate.
It's is proven to be inaccurate by the fact I have already given you.
Quote:
You just don't accept the evidence. Even if the fairy tale of evolution was right, when man first arrived, they would have had only one language.
You are simply showing your ignorance ..as usual. We are talking about the tower of Babel which was allegedly around 2000BCE. There is no record of a single language at that time'
Quote:
Still no evidence. Do you really think all records from that period of time are still available?
Archaeological evidence exist far before that time.
Quote:
Archaeologist have dug up the bones of many ancient people. If they keep digging they will find the bone you say are missing and you will still not believe.
Come back when they do.
Quote:
Again we have written, historical record and you reject it.
I reject it because is has been proven to be unreliable.
Quote:
Pontificating with no evidence. Again you reject the one record available and you reject it by faith alone. Again, do you really think all records from tht time ware still available?
There is no record anywhere or in any other civilisation of the time that notes Solomon's 'great empire'. That's because it didn't exist
Quote:
The prophecy does not say Tyre will be permanently destroyed.
Yes it does. Read it again...
14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God.
Quote:
Not only was old city of Tyre destroyed,
Tyre has NEVER been destroyed. Apologist attempts to place the city of Tyre on the mainland are destroyed by the Bible itself - 5 It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.
Quote:
Ezk prophesied that many nations would come against it(Ezk 26:3-4). You just mentioned 2 of them.
Ezk prophecised that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre. He didn't. After a long siege he gave up. Ezk even admitted that Nebby failed. Here is where it specifically says that it is Nebuchadnezzar that will carry out the destruction of Tyre...
Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people. He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee. And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers. By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach. With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground. And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.
Please note that it specifically names Nebby and says what HE will do. It didn't happen.
Quote:
Nebuchadnezzar Did destroy the original city, but his navy w snot strong enough to defeat the island fortress.
The island fortress WAS tyre. The mainland settlement/suburb was nothing more than a residential area called USHU not Tyre. The city of Tyre proper was on the island.
The name 'Tyre' means ROCK and that's why the island city was called Tyre...because it was a rock in the middle of the sea. It is even described in your bible as being 'in the midst of the sea'. The mainland settlement was a suburb whaich was not even called Tyre, it was called Ushu.
Later Alexander had a better navy and he defeated the island fortress. Also this prophecy said in v12 tht they will destroy their wall and houses and throw them into the sea. Alexander did just that and built a ramp to the island and the destroyed it. That island fortress is no longer around.
The Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would completely destroy Tyre and it would never be rebuilt. Nebby did not destroy Tyre as the prophecy claimed he would...he didn’t even capture it. As for Tyre never being rebuilt, it is today, the second most populated city in Lebanon. Giving the honour for the destruction of Tyre to Alexander nerely gives you two problems when you only had one...because Alexander did not permanently destroy Tyre as the prophecy predicted. He rebuilt it for it's importance as a naval and trading base.
Furthermore. Ezekiel prophesised that your god would give Egypt to Nebby as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but this prophecy also failed. The prophecy was that Egypt would be a land of "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol in the north to the border of Ethiopia in the south. So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians would be scattered among the nations. At the end of the 40 years, your bible says that your god would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms".
Quote:
What historical records? Nebby did conquer Egypt and it remained under their control until approximately 332 BC
The prophecy was that Egypt would be a desolate wasteland, devoid of man and beast for 40 years. Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then re-gathered to its homeland. Its political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the "lowliest of kingdoms.". Egypt has never been a desolate wasteland devoid of man and beast for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.
Quote:
Again you have not offered any evidence. You keep just saying it hap;ned. Wh is your source for this statement?
That you are ignorant of ancient history is your problem not mine. It is a matter of FACT that the Medes were conquered by the Persians, who then went on to peacefully take (and not destroy) Babylon.
Quote:
More pontificating with no evidence. I am going to stop here.
Good decision. You have embarrassed yourself enough already Edgar.
Whoppers, why do you think the Onan story was told thevway it was, with God [allegedly] striking down the man?
I think my comments earlier on the matter are still pertinent. They mirror what you initially said: it was meant to reinforce a particular cultural practice of the people - Levirate Marriage. Without repeating my earlier post, there may be remnants of tribal history contained. Issues such as Cultural Memory (a natural evolution of Gunkel's Form Criticism) is especially illustrative, especially as espoused by Ron Hendel recently.
If you wanted to summarize why Biblical narratives are told, I suppose an easy summation has been provided by Eric Seibert (see reference below) as
To Explain National Failures and and Disasters
To Support the Ruling Elite and to Promote Their Policies
To Encourage Certain Behaviors and Beliefs
This is missing some key other reasons, but those are probably the basics. I think the Onan story falls under the category of "Encouraging certain behaviors and beliefs" - but as I mentioned above, and in my previous post: there may be a lot more going on there. The rest of the story probably bears that out.
Some interesting issues are raised, however, concerning the character of God in all this. He plays the role of what Eric Seibert calls "Instant Executioner" (Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God, Fortress Press, 2009, p. 18) with a zero tolerance policy towards certain actions (Er's unspecified "wickedness" and Onan's practice of coitus interruptus to avoid fulfilling his Levirate duty). There are 5 instances of this in the Hebrew Bible:
God as "Instant Executioner"
Er (Genesis 38:7)
Onan (Gen 38:10)
Nadab, and
Abihu (Lev 10:1-2), who offered the wrong type of ritual sacrifice
Uzzah (2 Sam 6:1-8), the unfortunate soul who tried to save the Ark of the Covenant from falling and was struck dead.
For a modern believer, this role of God as "Instant Executioner" of offenses raises the question of why God is seemingly arbitrary in meting this justice out. We have seen many evil individuals who have not been struck down for their crimes (the example of Hitler caused a massive shift in the faith of many Jews).
God, I'm glad you said that. I was dead concerned about Matthew's Sinking Simon, the descending angel, Shekel -eating fish and mobile star...that's all spiritual. And the Bethlehem massacre, the Jews accepting Jesus' blood guilt, the Tomb guard (and the claim that people were still talking about in his day) and I suppose the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to the women (nobody else records it) the death of Judas and I suppose his Virgin birth story...all spiritual? That removes all my concerns.
Now, let's talk about Luke....
Wait...Judas had a Virgin Birth?...
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.
I was dead concerned about Matthew's Sinking Simon, the descending angel, Shekel -eating fish and mobile star...that's all spiritual. And the Bethlehem massacre, the Jews accepting Jesus' blood guilt, the Tomb guard (and the claim that people were still talking about in his day) and I suppose the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to the women (nobody else records it) the death of Judas and I suppose his Virgin birth story...all spiritual? That removes all my concerns. 
