mmm.. thanks to those of you who addressed my question about Egyptian history.
as for the other stuff, I've heard it all before.
as for the other stuff, I've heard it all before.
Originally posted by: Inside me
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Does anyone else find this disturbing? A God of love kills every first born in an entire country, something is very wrong with that account. Same applies to the account about Noah and the ark except for in that situation every human on the planet with the exception of Noah his family were killed. Then you have Job, Satan convinced God that he could make Job break his faith. In the end God allowed Satan to kill all of Job's children (I think he had 10 kids).
I was raised in a christian household so I'm very familiar with the bible, yet it makes no sense to me why a supposed God of love would cause or allow events like that to take place.
Anyone else every think about stuff like that?
It is made very clear in the Old Testament that if you didn't do as God told, you would be punished. If that meant being struck down by lightning then so be it. In the New Testament God is not vengeful at all. He understands the flaws of humans and gives them more freedome in choosing his way or Satans way.
Originally posted by: TuxDave
I think that it's possible that some stories in the Bible are based on historical events, but I think it's equally possible that it may not be described accurately. Take the slaying of the Egyptian first sons. What if their deaths were caused by disease or even worse, killed by men of God to punish them for not converting. Then when the stories were documented, it wrote that the sons were killed in the name of God or that they were representing God's hands. You never know exactly what were the circumstances to why those stories were written.
Originally posted by: Greyd
Originally posted by: zener
Totally forgot to address the Egypt thing. If you study the dates and pharoahs, you will find that the story of Moses is placed in the wrong time, but is loosely woven with actual natural events. The story was fabricated to possibly hide the truth and was not intended to be taken literally. I beleive that the same rabbi speaks to this as well. Also my brother is an amateur Egyptologist and has studied their history enough to put a lot of bullet holes in the Biblical story. It just does not fit into any time frame nor fits with the events. HOwever, the natural events described happend but not in the manner described. The events were meant to be allegorical which seems to be quite a lot of the type of literary type used. I do not know a lot as I would like but I know enough to determine that one needs to be extremely doubtful of bible authors and their initial bias. Truth matters more to me than blind faith.
Actually, more and more historians are arguing not so much about the actual existence of Moses, rather the question exists of exactly WHEN and during what reign he existed. Rather that seems to be what the consensus is leaning towards. Of course, there still needs to be much more excavation to determine exactly what happens - but everything seems to point in that direction.
The following excerpts are from a program that the BBC did on Moses and the Hebrews in Egypt.
Hebrews in Egypt: Text
Interview with David Rohl (egyptologist): Text
Interesting point concerning the name "Moses" pointing towards verification of existence of Moses in Egypt.
Text
If you read alot of these articles , especially from this section
evidence
- there is much evidence that supports the historical existence of Moses. It seems that there is enough that even the secular scholars in this program tend to argue time not so much existence.
Faith need not always be blind. And I find that skepticism suffers from blindness as much as faith does.
Originally posted by: Greyd
Originally posted by: zener
1) Concerning Biblical history: The Bible is not an historical book but a book of philosophy
Any historical names that coincide with archaeological evidence does not prove historicity but merely that those names were used in translation
2) Please read the book written on the old Testament by a rabbi, I am sorry I forget his name but he is considered the best on Old Testament translations; one particular thing of note from his reasearch and study is that the translations were edited and rewritten according to the writer's bias e.g. one translator elected to leave out the facts of sacrifice being done by anybody to sacrifice only being done by a Levite priest. Anywho, this book really puts to test the idea of biblical inerrancy
3) Buddist philosophy was quite widespread and accepted and highly regarded before, during and after Jesus' life. Therefore, you will find several passages that Jesus or Paul will quote that are Buddist
4) Skeptic.com has a lot of articles and resources to challenge your thinking and open the blinders
5) I was raised christian and I still am deprogramming my thinking becasue it was drummed into my head but it doesn't mean I can't believe but I don't have to believe in someone elses translation!! I am intelligent enough to look at the facts and sort things out annd always leave room for doubt.
6) And for those creationists, please go to talk origins for a refreshing open minded view of the origins of the earth
Hope this is understandable and helps.
3) There is very little evidence that Buddhist philosophy was widespread and accepted. Where is your evidence. To believe a jewish society that was so rigid upon their morals would welcomingly include foreign philosophies and teachings is absurd. The majority of what Jesus and Paul speak of is reflected in the Old Testament theology and doctrine - it was not just "made up at the time." In addition, there are some truths that tend to be universal. To find them widespread among cultures is not suprising.
Originally posted by: Attrox
Originally posted by: TuxDave
I think that it's possible that some stories in the Bible are based on historical events, but I think it's equally possible that it may not be described accurately. Take the slaying of the Egyptian first sons. What if their deaths were caused by disease or even worse, killed by men of God to punish them for not converting. Then when the stories were documented, it wrote that the sons were killed in the name of God or that they were representing God's hands. You never know exactly what were the circumstances to why those stories were written.
This is where Faith is needed.
If something miraculous happened today, it will not have to take hundreds/thousand of years for us to question the validity of the event. Probably take only a day for some of us to call it as shens or to ask for pics
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Greyd
Originally posted by: zener
1) Concerning Biblical history: The Bible is not an historical book but a book of philosophy
Any historical names that coincide with archaeological evidence does not prove historicity but merely that those names were used in translation
2) Please read the book written on the old Testament by a rabbi, I am sorry I forget his name but he is considered the best on Old Testament translations; one particular thing of note from his reasearch and study is that the translations were edited and rewritten according to the writer's bias e.g. one translator elected to leave out the facts of sacrifice being done by anybody to sacrifice only being done by a Levite priest. Anywho, this book really puts to test the idea of biblical inerrancy
3) Buddist philosophy was quite widespread and accepted and highly regarded before, during and after Jesus' life. Therefore, you will find several passages that Jesus or Paul will quote that are Buddist
4) Skeptic.com has a lot of articles and resources to challenge your thinking and open the blinders
5) I was raised christian and I still am deprogramming my thinking becasue it was drummed into my head but it doesn't mean I can't believe but I don't have to believe in someone elses translation!! I am intelligent enough to look at the facts and sort things out annd always leave room for doubt.
6) And for those creationists, please go to talk origins for a refreshing open minded view of the origins of the earth
Hope this is understandable and helps.
3) There is very little evidence that Buddhist philosophy was widespread and accepted. Where is your evidence. To believe a jewish society that was so rigid upon their morals would welcomingly include foreign philosophies and teachings is absurd. The majority of what Jesus and Paul speak of is reflected in the Old Testament theology and doctrine - it was not just "made up at the time." In addition, there are some truths that tend to be universal. To find them widespread among cultures is not suprising.
Ummm are you kidding? You need to study history and anthropology. The Hebrews were the earths equivalent of the Pakleds (sorry, obscure Star Trek reference). Seriously though, they took bits and pieces of every culture they came into contact with. A HUGE portion of the old testament is taken entirely from other cultures, mostly verbatim, specifically Sumerian, Babylonian, and Egyptian. Remember that most of the Torah wasn't recorded until between 1000 and 400 bce, long after exposure to all of these other established cultures.
As for Buddhism, there's some common confusion there. Buddhism in it's general form wasn't around until about 530bce. Before that there were a number of beliefs and practices in India that were Buddhist-like. The Dravidians and Aryans of the area did sometimes migrate west, carrying many traditions and stories with them. Since cultures had existing around the Indus river since 8000bce, and some exchange of philosophy is almost unavoidable. After Buddhism was founded it experienced immediate widespread acceptance, especially among artisans and merchants, which guaranteed it's rapid travel to peoples from africa, to europe, almost to the korean penninsula.
Originally posted by: zener
Thank you Prince of Wands for your ready answer and comment. I believe the most difficult idea for people to grasp is to leave a bit of doubt and to be comfortable with the unknown. I am sorry if the comments I made seemed to be that concrete but I do know from what I have read from very honored sources that the Bible was written and reewritten and transscribed many times and unfortunately, many times the rewritings were done with bias and poor translation in some cases. The available manuscripts today are too few and if we all could translate and read Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek ,Latin and many more I think we would find that the canon structure is severly and grossly mistranslated. As I stated before, there is not a problem of Moses' existance but of the Exodus story as written. My brother has done extensive research going back to the Coptic faith and further back. He has found and agrees with today's evidence that the story as written in Exodus does not coincide with the time it was written nor the plagues as stated but rather those plagues happened but not at the time specified in the Bible. The story was supposedly written to disguise the Hebrews distaste of the pharoahs and other people and was evidently not intended to be taken as literal. The flood story is also difficult to believe as well. I have sat in on many lectures from creationists and have read many articles on the flood and the problem I have is that most of the calculations are erroneously based. Also the logic of Isaac as a sacrifice does not compute. If God knew Jacob would be faithful then why test him in that manner?? And then there is the matter of sacrifice. Why do the Levites have to give the sacrifices when it was always the common people who coul doffer a sacrifice whenever. That inconsistancy is traceable to a Biblical writer who inserted that bit to alter the context. Also, what do most commentaries say about the relationship between Miriam and Moses and why did Moses make such a blunder so that he couldn't see the Promised Land? The Latin translation as read uses certain sentence structure to place importance or emphasis and in todays translation, that Latin form is mistranslated and so our understandign is that Miriam was not important to Moses when in reality by the Latin translation, she was so close and dear to Moses that he mourned her death and was so disstraught that he blundered athe way he did. And why woul dthis mistranslation exist? Again the writer is biased evidently towards Aaron and this translation makes Aaron look much more favorable than Moses.
I cannot help but at least be honest that the truth cannot be based on what we read today. We have to not only understand the writers intent but their bias. Also, we have to be able to put the writing in context and who of us can do that accurately without knowing the time the text was written. Our best guess and best scientific work is what we have and until we can know for sure, the only thin gwe know is that the T. Rex had sharp teeth. And havign sharp teeth doesn't mean the T/ Rex ate meat, just that they had sharp teeth. We know Moses existed but exactly who he was and if he indeed led the Hebrews out of Egypt is still in debate.
As far as being a skeptic, I will use this definition to provide clarity for a generally misunderstood term.
What does it mean to be a skeptic? Some people believe that skepticism is rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse ?skeptic? with ?cynic? and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas?no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are ?skeptical,? we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. Skeptics are from Missouri?the ?show me? state. When we hear a fantastic claim we say, ?that?s nice, prove it.?
I apologize for the length of this epistle!!! But I had to get this off my chest!! LOL
Originally posted by: TuxDave
Originally posted by: Attrox
Originally posted by: TuxDave
I think that it's possible that some stories in the Bible are based on historical events, but I think it's equally possible that it may not be described accurately. Take the slaying of the Egyptian first sons. What if their deaths were caused by disease or even worse, killed by men of God to punish them for not converting. Then when the stories were documented, it wrote that the sons were killed in the name of God or that they were representing God's hands. You never know exactly what were the circumstances to why those stories were written.
This is where Faith is needed.
If something miraculous happened today, it will not have to take hundreds/thousand of years for us to question the validity of the event. Probably take only a day for some of us to call it as shens or to ask for pics
Having faith is alright. It's when people say start using any possible evidence to prove the historical validity of the Bible that gets me upset.
"Look! There was evidence that there was water here a long time ago. That must be the great flood!" or "Look, this person in the Bible walked by a large mountain and there's a mountain right there on my map. It MUST be the truth!"
Originally posted by: Greyd
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Greyd
Originally posted by: zener
1) Concerning Biblical history: The Bible is not an historical book but a book of philosophy
Any historical names that coincide with archaeological evidence does not prove historicity but merely that those names were used in translation
2) Please read the book written on the old Testament by a rabbi, I am sorry I forget his name but he is considered the best on Old Testament translations; one particular thing of note from his reasearch and study is that the translations were edited and rewritten according to the writer's bias e.g. one translator elected to leave out the facts of sacrifice being done by anybody to sacrifice only being done by a Levite priest. Anywho, this book really puts to test the idea of biblical inerrancy
3) Buddist philosophy was quite widespread and accepted and highly regarded before, during and after Jesus' life. Therefore, you will find several passages that Jesus or Paul will quote that are Buddist
4) Skeptic.com has a lot of articles and resources to challenge your thinking and open the blinders
5) I was raised christian and I still am deprogramming my thinking becasue it was drummed into my head but it doesn't mean I can't believe but I don't have to believe in someone elses translation!! I am intelligent enough to look at the facts and sort things out annd always leave room for doubt.
6) And for those creationists, please go to talk origins for a refreshing open minded view of the origins of the earth
Hope this is understandable and helps.
3) There is very little evidence that Buddhist philosophy was widespread and accepted. Where is your evidence. To believe a jewish society that was so rigid upon their morals would welcomingly include foreign philosophies and teachings is absurd. The majority of what Jesus and Paul speak of is reflected in the Old Testament theology and doctrine - it was not just "made up at the time." In addition, there are some truths that tend to be universal. To find them widespread among cultures is not suprising.
Ummm are you kidding? You need to study history and anthropology. The Hebrews were the earths equivalent of the Pakleds (sorry, obscure Star Trek reference). Seriously though, they took bits and pieces of every culture they came into contact with. A HUGE portion of the old testament is taken entirely from other cultures, mostly verbatim, specifically Sumerian, Babylonian, and Egyptian. Remember that most of the Torah wasn't recorded until between 1000 and 400 bce, long after exposure to all of these other established cultures.
As for Buddhism, there's some common confusion there. Buddhism in it's general form wasn't around until about 530bce. Before that there were a number of beliefs and practices in India that were Buddhist-like. The Dravidians and Aryans of the area did sometimes migrate west, carrying many traditions and stories with them. Since cultures had existing around the Indus river since 8000bce, and some exchange of philosophy is almost unavoidable. After Buddhism was founded it experienced immediate widespread acceptance, especially among artisans and merchants, which guaranteed it's rapid travel to peoples from africa, to europe, almost to the korean penninsula.
Wow...your assertion that a HUGE part of the OT was taken verbatim from other cultures is a pretty daring statement. I have heard very little to nothing from even secular historians that affirms such a statement. There is speculation that small parts of the OT was INFLUENCED from other cultures but not taken verbatim. Understanding Hebrew culture during this time would point to the fact that alot of what was taught was remembered through oral history AND written history at an earlier time than you indicate.
Written manuscripts existed in much more abundance and much earlier than you indicate.
For example the Sumerian and Akkadian epics. Scribal schools during the 3rd dynasty of UR (approx 2112-2095 B.C) Additionally, the forms in which the OT was written was done in a variety of ways that were memorable and easy to access and remember. (eg Genealogies, chiastics, convenant forms,etc) So actually, many parts of the OT existed in different parts earlier than you initially stated.
Additionally, my comments about Buddhism were not about the history of Buddhism in general but the assertion that was made that Buddhist teachings influenced the teachings of Paul and Jesus. This is an absurd statement for a couple of reasons. 1) The majority of the teachings of Paul and Jesus were taken and influenced by the OT writings. You can pretty much point of different verses that connect from the New Test. to the Old. If you delve into things such as prophecies, you can see a more blatant example of what I'm talking about. 2) The culture/time/methodologies and stances of Jesus and Paul indicate that their teachings while radical in some sense were in close following with the OT. To say they were directly influenced by these teachings would be a hard thing to prove. Cultures exchanging philosophies was definately present - but NOT to the extent that was asserted in the original post.
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Greyd
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Greyd
Originally posted by: zener
1) Concerning Biblical history: The Bible is not an historical book but a book of philosophy
Any historical names that coincide with archaeological evidence does not prove historicity but merely that those names were used in translation
2) Please read the book written on the old Testament by a rabbi, I am sorry I forget his name but he is considered the best on Old Testament translations; one particular thing of note from his reasearch and study is that the translations were edited and rewritten according to the writer's bias e.g. one translator elected to leave out the facts of sacrifice being done by anybody to sacrifice only being done by a Levite priest. Anywho, this book really puts to test the idea of biblical inerrancy
3) Buddist philosophy was quite widespread and accepted and highly regarded before, during and after Jesus' life. Therefore, you will find several passages that Jesus or Paul will quote that are Buddist
4) Skeptic.com has a lot of articles and resources to challenge your thinking and open the blinders
5) I was raised christian and I still am deprogramming my thinking becasue it was drummed into my head but it doesn't mean I can't believe but I don't have to believe in someone elses translation!! I am intelligent enough to look at the facts and sort things out annd always leave room for doubt.
6) And for those creationists, please go to talk origins for a refreshing open minded view of the origins of the earth
Hope this is understandable and helps.
3) There is very little evidence that Buddhist philosophy was widespread and accepted. Where is your evidence. To believe a jewish society that was so rigid upon their morals would welcomingly include foreign philosophies and teachings is absurd. The majority of what Jesus and Paul speak of is reflected in the Old Testament theology and doctrine - it was not just "made up at the time." In addition, there are some truths that tend to be universal. To find them widespread among cultures is not suprising.
Ummm are you kidding? You need to study history and anthropology. The Hebrews were the earths equivalent of the Pakleds (sorry, obscure Star Trek reference). Seriously though, they took bits and pieces of every culture they came into contact with. A HUGE portion of the old testament is taken entirely from other cultures, mostly verbatim, specifically Sumerian, Babylonian, and Egyptian. Remember that most of the Torah wasn't recorded until between 1000 and 400 bce, long after exposure to all of these other established cultures.
As for Buddhism, there's some common confusion there. Buddhism in it's general form wasn't around until about 530bce. Before that there were a number of beliefs and practices in India that were Buddhist-like. The Dravidians and Aryans of the area did sometimes migrate west, carrying many traditions and stories with them. Since cultures had existing around the Indus river since 8000bce, and some exchange of philosophy is almost unavoidable. After Buddhism was founded it experienced immediate widespread acceptance, especially among artisans and merchants, which guaranteed it's rapid travel to peoples from africa, to europe, almost to the korean penninsula.
Wow...your assertion that a HUGE part of the OT was taken verbatim from other cultures is a pretty daring statement. I have heard very little to nothing from even secular historians that affirms such a statement. There is speculation that small parts of the OT was INFLUENCED from other cultures but not taken verbatim. Understanding Hebrew culture during this time would point to the fact that alot of what was taught was remembered through oral history AND written history at an earlier time than you indicate.
Written manuscripts existed in much more abundance and much earlier than you indicate.
For example the Sumerian and Akkadian epics. Scribal schools during the 3rd dynasty of UR (approx 2112-2095 B.C) Additionally, the forms in which the OT was written was done in a variety of ways that were memorable and easy to access and remember. (eg Genealogies, chiastics, convenant forms,etc) So actually, many parts of the OT existed in different parts earlier than you initially stated.
Additionally, my comments about Buddhism were not about the history of Buddhism in general but the assertion that was made that Buddhist teachings influenced the teachings of Paul and Jesus. This is an absurd statement for a couple of reasons. 1) The majority of the teachings of Paul and Jesus were taken and influenced by the OT writings. You can pretty much point of different verses that connect from the New Test. to the Old. If you delve into things such as prophecies, you can see a more blatant example of what I'm talking about. 2) The culture/time/methodologies and stances of Jesus and Paul indicate that their teachings while radical in some sense were in close following with the OT. To say they were directly influenced by these teachings would be a hard thing to prove. Cultures exchanging philosophies was definately present - but NOT to the extent that was asserted in the original post.
Hell in my first world civ class we looked at a large number of primary sources that the OT was drawn from, as well as analyzed the Hebrew's history to understand it's creation. Did it again in comparative religion. Again in anthropology. Look at the flood myth, that's straight out of Sumerian script which eventually became the Epic of Gilgamesh. That's 3 classes in only 2 years at 2 different colleges that included a focus on it. The amount of known evidence is OVERWHELMING in this regard. The OT was created because of where the hebrews came from and what happened to them between 2400 and 1300 bce. Pretty much completely. Between 2000 and 1800 bce the Hebrews lost EVERYTHING (hundreds of miles and years of migration, nomadic living, enslavement, and forced march relocation). The had no writings, just oral tradition at that point. It was another 500 years before they managed to record any amount of writings, and much of that was obtained thru communication with Babylon. If you look at the Hebrew writings from Ur, and compare them with those after Egypt, you'll find something interesting. In Ur all their writings were influenced by Sumerian culture and mythology. After Egypt their concepts and writings changed to incorporate a large amount of Egyptian culture, mythology, symbolism, etc. Then again, after the Assyrian invasions the writing changed, and suddenly the stories told could be traced through Babylonian and Assyrian legend. In other words, the Hebrews took everyone elses cultures and religions and merged them into their own identity because of the severe psychological trauma they had endured for generations. At least, that's my take on it.
Originally posted by: zener
1) Concerning Biblical history: The Bible is not an historical book but a book of philosophy
Any historical names that coincide with archaeological evidence does not prove historicity but merely that those names were used in translation
2) Please read the book written on the old Testament by a rabbi, I am sorry I forget his name but he is considered the best on Old Testament translations; one particular thing of note from his reasearch and study is that the translations were edited and rewritten according to the writer's bias e.g. one translator elected to leave out the facts of sacrifice being done by anybody to sacrifice only being done by a Levite priest. Anywho, this book really puts to test the idea of biblical inerrancy
3) Buddist philosophy was quite widespread and accepted and highly regarded before, during and after Jesus' life. Therefore, you will find several passages that Jesus or Paul will quote that are Buddist
4) Skeptic.com has a lot of articles and resources to challenge your thinking and open the blinders
5) I was raised christian and I still am deprogramming my thinking becasue it was drummed into my head but it doesn't mean I can't believe but I don't have to believe in someone elses translation!! I am intelligent enough to look at the facts and sort things out annd always leave room for doubt.
6) And for those creationists, please go to talk origins for a refreshing open minded view of the origins of the earth
Hope this is understandable and helps.
Originally posted by: TuxDave
Originally posted by: Attrox
Originally posted by: TuxDave
I think that it's possible that some stories in the Bible are based on historical events, but I think it's equally possible that it may not be described accurately. Take the slaying of the Egyptian first sons. What if their deaths were caused by disease or even worse, killed by men of God to punish them for not converting. Then when the stories were documented, it wrote that the sons were killed in the name of God or that they were representing God's hands. You never know exactly what were the circumstances to why those stories were written.
This is where Faith is needed.
If something miraculous happened today, it will not have to take hundreds/thousand of years for us to question the validity of the event. Probably take only a day for some of us to call it as shens or to ask for pics
Having faith is alright. It's when people say start using any possible evidence to prove the historical validity of the Bible that gets me upset.
"Look! There was evidence that there was water here a long time ago. That must be the great flood!" or "Look, this person in the Bible walked by a large mountain and there's a mountain right there on my map. It MUST be the truth!"
Originally posted by: zener
Careful about theories, they are just theory !!! A lot of pseudo-scientific arguments are based on just theory like Plate techtonics.