Do you agree that the Bible is error-free? (Abraham, Jewish, pastor)

[DSS94]

Here's a good one: who killed Goliath? 1 Samuel 17:49-50 says David. 2 Samuel 21:19 says it was Elhanan. Many English translations say that Elhanan killed "the brother of" Goliath, but the fact is the translators added that in to avoid the obvious conflict. There is no mention of Goliath's brother in the original Hebrew.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by DSS94

Here's a good one: who killed Goliath? 1 Samuel 17:49-50 says David. 2 Samuel 21:19 says it was Elhanan. Many English translations say that Elhanan killed "the brother of" Goliath, but the fact is the translators added that in to avoid the obvious conflict. There is no mention of Goliath's brother in the original Hebrew.

There is some question about this. It could be the brother of Goliath, as you said. The Masoretic text supports that.

Otheres suggest that "David" is Elhanan's throne name and "Elhanan son of Jaare" is a scribal error for "Elhanan son of Jesse". That would suggest that the scribe doing the copying just messed up....and it got attributed to the wrong one.

As we have said...the original texts are error-free. The copies of the texts are not.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by Vizio

There is some question about this. It could be the brother of Goliath, as you said. The Masoretic text supports that.

The only text that supports that is the very, very late 1 Chr 20:5. The Hebrew is only slightly altered from the Samuel texts to arrive at the new reading, meaning the original version was obviously tweaked in just a few letters to give us the secondary reading. We know the Chronicles reading is the secondary one for several reasons. First, the name given to Goliath's putative brother, Lahmi, is a Semitic name, but Philistines did not have Semitic names, they had Philistine names, which have their root in the western Mediterranean. That early in Philistine history, there is simply no reason to believe a Philistine family gave their child a name based on the language of their new and mortal enemies. Next, the name would mean "My Bread," which is an entirely unattested name in the ancient Near East. It just has nothing to do with ancient naming conventions. It would be little different from meeting someone today with the name "My Bread." It makes no sense. Lastly, "Bethlehemite" is most likely original in light of the fact that Elhanan was indeed the son of a Bethlehemite, whose name is recorded in 2 Sam 23:24 as Dodo. There is textual insecurity, for sure, but the issues can be resolved quite easily, and none of them complicate the identity of Goliath's killer. 2 Samuel attests to a tradition that has Elhanan kill Goliath. 1 Samuel insists David did it. The author/redactor of Chronicles obviously saw the conflict and manipulated the text in order to try to mitigate the contradiction. Make no mistake, however, the contradiction is quite clearly there.

Originally Posted by Vizio

Otheres suggest that "David" is Elhanan's throne name

Throne name? Got any evidence for such a thing? And how do you account for Elhanan being named in 2 Sam 23 as one of David's royal guards?

Originally Posted by Vizio

and "Elhanan son of Jaare" is a scribal error for "Elhanan son of Jesse". That would suggest that the scribe doing the copying just messed up....and it got attributed to the wrong one.

There's not really a similarity in the names "Jaare" and "Jesse." The shin is not confused with the ayin and the resh together. There is just no reason to suggest that scribal error or emendation.

Originally Posted by Vizio

As we have said...the original texts are error-free. The copies of the texts are not.

No, you're still miles away from ameliorating the problem there, and the issue with Acts 15:15 is still unsolved, according to your worldview. The text is clearly in error in promoting a mistranslated testimonia as the words of the very prophets themselves, notwithstanding all your naked assertions to the contrary.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by TWD39

Again, you have proven nothing. It's still one guy's opinion, and he could be full of crap. Even Denver thinks so. Lack of evidence does not equal 100% proof that it never happened. Furthermore, my points were completely ignored earlier:


1. The Israelities probably left Egypt with few material possessions.

Millions of people will leave behind mountains of remains. We have discovered dozens and dozens of camp sites that contained less than twenty people in them in the Sinai desert. There is simply no way on earth that a million people crossed the Sinai during the second millennium BCE. Physically impossible given the state of the material remains.

Originally Posted by TWD39

2. They were nomads. No cities built. Why would I expect there to be physical evidence? Are you expecting footprint in the sand or what?

We have material remains from dozens of nomadic camps in the Sinai desert dating from before the time of Moses to well after. Yes, there would be remains in spades. In fact, if anywhere near a million people, or ever a tenth of that, ever crossed the Sinai it would have left more material remains that we would know what to do with.

Originally Posted by TWD39

3. The Egyptians were not known to record accounts that were embarrassing defeats.

This isn't true at all. Of course they were known to record the events, they would just lie about what happened. If an entire race of slaves suddenly up and took off from Egypt, it would be in the record. Of that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Suggestions to the contrary betray an absolutely stunning ignorance of archaeology, Egyptology, and history in general.

Originally Posted by TWD39

I can see Pharoh demanding that no record ever mention any contact with the cursed Hebrews.

No one with any real acquaintance with Egyptology would ever say something like that.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

The only text that supports that is the very, very late 1 Chr 20:5. The Hebrew is only slightly altered from the Samuel texts to arrive at the new reading, meaning the original version was obviously tweaked in just a few letters to give us the secondary reading. We know the Chronicles reading is the secondary one for several reasons. First, the name given to Goliath's putative brother, Lahmi, is a Semitic name, but Philistines did not have Semitic names, they had Philistine names, which have their root in the western Mediterranean. That early in Philistine history, there is simply no reason to believe a Philistine family gave their child a name based on the language of their new and mortal enemies. Next, the name would mean "My Bread," which is an entirely unattested name in the ancient Near East. It just has nothing to do with ancient naming conventions. It would be little different from meeting someone today with the name "My Bread." It makes no sense. Lastly, "Bethlehemite" is most likely original in light of the fact that Elhanan was indeed the son of a Bethlehemite, whose name is recorded in 2 Sam 23:24 as Dodo. There is textual insecurity, for sure, but the issues can be resolved quite easily, and none of them complicate the identity of Goliath's killer. 2 Samuel attests to a tradition that has Elhanan kill Goliath. 1 Samuel insists David did it. The author/redactor of Chronicles obviously saw the conflict and manipulated the text in order to try to mitigate the contradiction. Make no mistake, however, the contradiction is quite clearly there.



Throne name? Got any evidence for such a thing? And how do you account for Elhanan being named in 2 Sam 23 as one of David's royal guards?



There's not really a similarity in the names "Jaare" and "Jesse." The shin is not confused with the ayin and the resh together. There is just no reason to suggest that scribal error or emendation.



No, you're still miles away from ameliorating the problem there, and the issue with Acts 15:15 is still unsolved, according to your worldview. The text is clearly in error in promoting a mistranslated testimonia as the words of the very prophets themselves, notwithstanding all your naked assertions to the contrary.

Actually, I dealt with the Acts 15 question, and now I've dealt with this issue. Give me something real, please.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by Vizio

Actually, I dealt with the Acts 15 question, and now I've dealt with this issue. Give me something real, please.

No, you just said "Nu-uh!" to the Acts question, and you've very clearly not had a word to say in response to my corrections of your assumptions regarding Elhanan.

[TWD39]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

Millions of people will leave behind mountains of remains. We have discovered dozens and dozens of camp sites that contained less than twenty people in them in the Sinai desert. There is simply no way on earth that a million people crossed the Sinai during the second millennium BCE. Physically impossible given the state of the material remains.

Really, so you have lived for thousands of years to personally witness the mountains of remains that the Israelites supposedly left behind? No? Then you can not claim with absolute certainty that they left camp sites in a clutter. The Mosaic law shows a strict law of order such as specific instructions on how to depose of fecal matter in a manner to prevent spread of diseases.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

This isn't true at all. Of course they were known to record the events, they would just lie about what happened. If an entire race of slaves suddenly up and took off from Egypt, it would be in the record. Of that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Suggestions to the contrary betray an absolutely stunning ignorance of archaeology, Egyptology, and history in general.

So you are suggesting, without any proof shown here that the great Pharaoh, regarded as a god, would be completely honest in a historical record and show an embarrassing defeat? I've read plenty of sources that say otherwise. But hey, I'm no expert in the field, nor claim to be. I do find it interesting though if the Bible is simply myth, why so many accurate details? We see Joseph being sold for 20 pieces of silver which was the price of a slave, Joseph sleeping on a bed which was Egyptian, not Hebrew custom. Then you have even more detailed Egyptian customs like Joseph being shaved, a collar placed on his neck, and a ring.
How come an author hundreds of years later know such facts?

Also, and do excuse my archaeological ignorance here, but isn't the Sinai desert a pretty big place with shifting sands? Even with a large group of people, I would still think you could dig dozens and dozens of holes and still miss buried artifacts. How deep would you dig? Could the artifacts be buried much deeper than the digs and they were missed? Did the archaeologists set up a grid pattern and cover the entire desert? I doubt it.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by TWD39

Really, so you have lived for thousands of years to personally witness the mountains of remains that the Israelites supposedly left behind? No? Then you can not claim with absolute certainty that they left camp sites in a clutter.

Do you honestly believe that material remains don't appear where ancient nomads happen to have been more tidy? Tell me, how much formal archaeological training do you have?

Originally Posted by TWD39

The Mosaic law shows a strict law of order such as specific instructions on how to depose of fecal matter in a manner to prevent spread of diseases.

And that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm talking about. Food remains, burials, rock formations, petroglyphs, and dozens of other dynamics contribute to material remains attesting to nomadic camp sites. These were not boy scouts, and you do not have camp sites of anywhere near even 10,000 people up and vanishing in the desert. I suggest you go learn something about archaeology and the history of this area before you start speaking authoritatively from your own imagination.

Originally Posted by TWD39

So you are suggesting, without any proof shown here that the great Pharaoh, regarded as a god, would be completely honest in a historical record and show an embarrassing defeat?

Did I not just state that they would lie about the outcome? That's what happened with the battle of Kadesh. Everything was described in great detail, only they claimed to have won where the material remains and histories show they lost. You are just making up a factoid. You don't know if it's true or false, it just makes it easier for you to wave your hand and dismiss the evidence.

Originally Posted by TWD39

I've read plenty of sources that say otherwise.

Really? Name two.

Originally Posted by TWD39

But hey, I'm no expert in the field, nor claim to be.

You are trying to tell me what I am doing wrong, and this happens to be my field, so if you're no expert, stop pretending to be one.

Originally Posted by TWD39

I do find it interesting though if the Bible is simply myth, why so many accurate details?

There are far more inaccurate details than accurate details, and there are accurate historical details in a Spider-man comic book. That doesn't mean anything.

Originally Posted by TWD39

We see Joseph being sold for 20 pieces of silver which was the price of a slave,

Please cite your source for this.

Originally Posted by TWD39

Joseph sleeping on a bed which was Egyptian, not Hebrew custom.

Again, source.

Originally Posted by TWD39

Then you have even more detailed Egyptian customs like Joseph being shaved, a collar placed on his neck, and a ring.

Source, please.

Originally Posted by TWD39

How come an author hundreds of years later know such facts?

How come there are two demonstrably contradictory accounts of Joseph's sale into Egypt woven into the biblical account?

Originally Posted by TWD39

Also, and do excuse my archaeological ignorance here, but isn't the Sinai desert a pretty big place with shifting sands? Even with a large group of people, I would still think you could dig dozens and dozens of holes and still miss buried artifacts.

The Sinai is not a thousand miles of sand dunes. There are places with plenty of sand, but that's not generally where people camp. On the other hand, with a few people, sure. With hundreds, not very likely. With a million, absolutely impossible.

Originally Posted by TWD39

How deep would you dig? Could the artifacts be buried much deeper than the digs and they were missed?

Not with anywhere near a million people.

Originally Posted by TWD39

Did the archaeologists set up a grid pattern and cover the entire desert? I doubt it.

They don't need to when the text names several places they stopped at. Those places don't show any indication of anywhere near a fraction of the number of people the texts say, and the remains that are there conflict with the accounts. You're obviously not very well read at all in Near Eastern archaeology, so if you're going to be basing all of this on your own a priori assumptions, you're not going to get very far.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

No, you just said "Nu-uh!" to the Acts question, and you've very clearly not had a word to say in response to my corrections of your assumptions regarding Elhanan.

And you are just "yah--huh!!!" to them. And are you telling me you've made NO assumptions?

Seriously? Everyone knows David killed Goliath. Are you THAT naive to suggest that someone would actually make that mistake? Really?

[Fillmont]

Originally Posted by Vizio

And you are just "yah--huh!!!" to them. And are you telling me you've made NO assumptions?

Daniel really hasn't made any assumptions - he has provided textual evidence for every claim he has made. So far you've just said "nah."