Are the first 7 books of the Bible really just folklore?

[JeeperZ]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

There it is, late, but better late than never....My laugh of the day

Psalm 14: 1

Psalm 53: 1

[Heavenese]

Again, did Finkelstein examine Mt. Jabal al-Lawz?

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Heavenese

Again, did Finkelstein examine Mt. Jabal al-Lawz?

You should pick up the book. It's very good.

He has an appendix on pp. 326-328 entitled "Seaching for Sinai" in which he briefly discusses various traditions that have accrued as to the location of Sinai and speaks of at least one site that has been purported to be Sinai: Jebel Musha ("The Mountain of Moses" in Arabic). However, in conclusion to this brief survey he writes

The power of the biblical story of Mount Sinai has always encouraged attempts to identify particular localities. Yet these remain in the realm of folklore and geographical speculation - not archaeology.
(p. 328)

I hope that helps. Since the book was writen in 2001, and the sources that Wikipedia lists for the very scant entry on Jabal al-Lawz comprise only three - all written after 2001, that might account for its omission. It appears that the theory concerning Jabal al-Lawz has not picked up much support anyways, so I wouldn't expect too much on it.

[Griffis]

Originally Posted by whoppers

...Christians have always had no problem with claiming that the Old Testament really doesn't matter. Jesus did away with any obligations due to it - in their eyes.

So they often say (when it suits their purposes) but this isn't true at all if they believe Jesus' words are actually contained in the New Testament. For therein he clearly states:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19)

and

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

and

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

and

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

elsewhere he allegedly says:

“Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven…”

Yet - Christians still use the OT to their purposes, which to me doesn't make any moral or ethical sense.

Indeed. I have often argued with Christians who claim that Jesus superceded the Old Testament laws, and yet they hold to those OT laws which seem to speak out against homosexuality.

But if you bring to their attention the fact that these same laws from these same books discuss killing people for picking up sticks on the sabbath, forbid the eating of shellfish and the wearing of robes containing more than one type of fabric, etc. they exclaim that they don't need to follow those laws because Jesus made them immaterial (of course not one word is recorded from Jesus--an observant Jew-- on the subject of homosexuality.) All of those other laws they feel free to eschew, but not the apparent edict against homosexuality.

This is because the believers who espouse such nonsense are hypocritcal bigots.