Old Testiment and history

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: plastick
I am reading through the Bible starting with the old testiment and I am on Exodus 12. I am reading about how God killed all the firstborn sons in Eygpt. Pretty wild...

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?

When people think of a God of Love, the first image that comes to mind is this grandfatherly type of figure who shakes his head when you do wrong,etc. Unfortunately this is the wrong image of God. God is Love, but He is alos Holy. Holiness can be characterized as a total hatred and isolation from sin.

In the cases stated above, God had given people chance after chance to repent and turn from sins. Its not like he jumped them by surprise and said..."opps you done wrong..you die." The pharoah was given repeated warnings by Moses (the 7 plagues) and the people during Noah's time were given several hundred years to repent. (how long it took to build the ark) but they didn't.

It's like working with kids..when they do something bad, you give them a chance and let them know they are doing wrong. Sometimes you give them more than one chance. But you have to draw the line finally.
In some ways, I'm reminded of the many times ATOT members demand justice when an article is posted concerning soemthing some child abuser or murderer has done. There is a line and you don't cross it. You are given plenty of warning and chances.

In the same way, God showed his Holiness by demanding payment for sin (death) which Christ himself was willing to pay on behalf of those who could not make the payment. He didn't have to, but He made the ultimate sacrifice His own son - so that the debt would be paid. God IS Holy, but he is also LOVE.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: plastick

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: plastick
I am reading through the Bible starting with the old testiment and I am on Exodus 12. I am reading about how God killed all the firstborn sons in Eygpt. Pretty wild...

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).

Anyone else every think about stuff like that?

I think of stuff like that all the time. But I have to realize that the words of the bible have a ture deeper meaning than can be seen if read properly.

Anyway I figure God killed all those people mainly because they were already super deep in sin in that they worshiped false gods, the Pharo (speeling). God gives a lot of chances for people to repent, and he is very patient. But eventually something has to be done.

I don't see anything wrong with God punishing sinners, but in those examples I mentioned before innocent people were killed. I find it hard to believe that infants and young children should deserve death. And in the flood account an entire planet was wiped out, is it possible that everyone on Earth at that time was wicked or evil. And then to complicate matters even further a lot of the bad stuff that was going on at the time was due to the nephelim (sp?). (nephilim were the children of fallen angels and human females) So basically much of the problems right before the flood can be directly traced to rebellious angels but yet there is no mention of those angels being killed during the flood.

Its things like this that make me skeptical about the bible.

No one is innocent. I think we can all agree to that. All people have some degree of sinfulness (selfishness,etc) within them. This is being held to the standard of God's Holiness - which is a perfect standard. Meaning, for one to be totally innocent there must be absolutely no sin whatsoever. Not a single, thought, action,etc. This is impossible especially considering that all of mankind is born sinful.

Now this may to an extent be seen as wholy unfair - but God ALWAYS gave a way out. He ALWAYS accepted those who were genuinely repentent. (talked about in my statement above) He provided a way out from condemnation from sin (Jesus on the Cross) but not everyone seeks to accept that way out.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: Amused
That the bible has factual and proven hitorical events as a background for it's central story makes it no more a true story than the movie Forrest Gump.

I agree with the first part of your statement. Rarely is the Bible attacked on grounds of proof of the facts concerning historical events, places and people. In actuality, history and archaeology has shown that the Bible is one of the best documents out there.

Now, what you wanna do with that assertion/evidence is up to you. In the end, its a matter of Faith.

Why only the first part? Forrest Gump is historically accurate too in it's retelling of the background events for the central story. In 2000 years someone could make the assertion that the entire story is true based on that and be doing the very same thing people do with the bible.

Because, the amount of evidence that points to Forrest Gump as being fiction is overwhelming. This is not the case with the Bbile and its message. The more you study the Bible and its accuracy, you begin to see a uniformity in its message and support in the evidence. This has reminaed constant in the last several thousand years.

 

[plastick]

I don't see anything wrong with God punishing sinners, but in those examples I mentioned before innocent people were killed. I find it hard to believe that infants and young children should deserve death. And in the flood account an entire planet was wiped out, is it possible that everyone on Earth at that time was wicked or evil. And then to complicate matters even further a lot of the bad stuff that was going on at the time was due to the nephelim (sp?). (nephilim were the children of fallen angels and human females) So basically much of the problems right before the flood can be directly traced to rebellious angels but yet there is no mention of those angels being killed during the flood.

Its things like this that make me skeptical about the bible.

Me too man. But I really do just try to put all my faith in Jesus and do what is right. I feel he's leading me.
I am also developing a fear of God especially when I watch the news and see the horror mixed in with americas lavish comercialism (kinda represents the state of our country). I am waiting and being patient.

And in doing so, I have come to see a lot of things in the bible differently than I used to.

 

[ampdot]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

I don't see anything wrong with God punishing sinners, but in those examples I mentioned before innocent people were killed. I find it hard to believe that infants and young children should deserve death. And in the flood account an entire planet was wiped out, is it possible that everyone on Earth at that time was wicked or evil. And then to complicate matters even further a lot of the bad stuff that was going on at the time was due to the nephelim (sp?). (nephilim were the children of fallen angels and human females) So basically much of the problems right before the flood can be directly traced to rebellious angels but yet there is no mention of those angels being killed during the flood.

Its things like this that make me skeptical about the bible.

Correct me if I'm wrong... in Exodus 11-12, it talks about "every firstborn in Egypt will die" and I believe that includes the Israelites too. However, God instituted the Passover where the angel of death will not enter and kill the firstborn because it'll see the bloodmarking of the doorway. Granted that infants and toddlers can't paint for themselves, I see it's up to the parents to take care of this matter.

Hence I'm interpreting that God's love and even his judgment is for everyone, but it's up to the individual to heed his call.

As for the Nephilim causing pre-flood problems... what do you think of Romans 5:12-21 where it describes sin and its effects coming from the first sin of Adam?

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: plastick
looks a little anti-christian?

not really. it approaches it more from a journalistic POV. the writer was a borderline agnostic jew who decided to re-evaluate his faith by travelling to all the places in the penteteuch. It's more lay-academic than christian polemic, however.

His follow up, Abraham, was also good for understanding the links between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but becomes a little bit too cozy at the end.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: Amused
That the bible has factual and proven hitorical events as a background for it's central story makes it no more a true story than the movie Forrest Gump.

I agree with the first part of your statement. Rarely is the Bible attacked on grounds of proof of the facts concerning historical events, places and people. In actuality, history and archaeology has shown that the Bible is one of the best documents out there.

Now, what you wanna do with that assertion/evidence is up to you. In the end, its a matter of Faith.

Why only the first part? Forrest Gump is historically accurate too in it's retelling of the background events for the central story. In 2000 years someone could make the assertion that the entire story is true based on that and be doing the very same thing people do with the bible.

Because, the amount of evidence that points to Forrest Gump as being fiction is overwhelming. This is not the case with the Bbile and its message. The more you study the Bible and its accuracy, you begin to see a uniformity in its message and support in the evidence. This has reminaed constant in the last several thousand years.

Um, no. There is NO proof of the central characters or stories of the bible. Only the historical events and locations that serve as a background.

This is exactly what I was talking about.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: ampdot

Originally posted by: Arkitech

I don't see anything wrong with God punishing sinners, but in those examples I mentioned before innocent people were killed. I find it hard to believe that infants and young children should deserve death. And in the flood account an entire planet was wiped out, is it possible that everyone on Earth at that time was wicked or evil. And then to complicate matters even further a lot of the bad stuff that was going on at the time was due to the nephelim (sp?). (nephilim were the children of fallen angels and human females) So basically much of the problems right before the flood can be directly traced to rebellious angels but yet there is no mention of those angels being killed during the flood.

Its things like this that make me skeptical about the bible.

Correct me if I'm wrong... in Exodus 11-12, it talks about "every firstborn in Egypt will die" and I believe that includes the Israelites too. However, God instituted the Passover where the angel of death will not enter and kill the firstborn because it'll see the bloodmarking of the doorway. Granted that infants and toddlers can't paint for themselves, I see it's up to the parents to take care of this matter.

Hence I'm interpreting that God's love and even his judgment is for everyone, but it's up to the individual to heed his call.

As for the Nephilim causing pre-flood problems... what do you think of Romans 5:12-21 where it describes sin and its effects coming from the first sin of Adam?

In addition, the whole Nephilim thing is speculation - as to exactly who they were. If you DID believe that they were fallne angels - just because the Bible does not mention that the angels were killed doesn't mean they weren't

 

[plastick]

Correct me if I'm wrong... in Exodus 11-12, it talks about "every firstborn in Egypt will die" and I believe that includes the Israelites too. However, God instituted the Passover where the angel of death will not enter and kill the firstborn because it'll see the bloodmarking of the doorway. Granted that infants and toddlers can't paint for themselves, I see it's up to the parents to take care of this matter.

Hence I'm interpreting that God's love and even his judgment is for everyone, but it's up to the individual to heed his call.

As for the Nephilim causing pre-flood problems... what do you think of Romans 5:12-21 where it describes sin and its effects coming from the first sin of Adam?

Good point. And yes God was going to kill every firstborn in Egypt, even his own Isrealites. The blood on the doorways let God know to pass by.

 

[plastick]

About the Nephelium thing.. I heard two arguments: that they were either fallen angels, or just people totally against God.

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: Mith
Hmm... We did a segement in my World Literature class about Noah's Ark. The story is derived from the Epic of Gilgamesh and the story in there is from yet another story. Anyway, they did find a boat and some archaeological proof that some guy did survive a flood and brought some animals with him. Well, I must say that I found it all to be very interesting.

it also helps to understand where the flood stories comes from: mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization and birthplace of Abraham, where water for agriculture is key to survival (as well as the floods that come along with the tigris and euphrates rivers).

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: plastick
I am reading through the Bible starting with the old testiment and I am on Exodus 12. I am reading about how God killed all the firstborn sons in Eygpt. Pretty wild...

Anyway I was wondering if there are any other historical documents that mention this event in Egyptian history. I mean, it sounds like such a huge event that someone else must have recorded it...
So if anyone is good at history and knows of anything, let me know.

I searched google but only found a bunch of retarted websites. seems they are multiplying faster these days.

Take an archeology class that focuses on places and events from the Bible. I took this class in college (religious studies 105 at UIUC) and as a pretty anti-oranized religion type person found it facinating.

A lot of the Bible is revisionist history. A lot of the names and events happened but were distorted by the writers/editors throughout history. Maybe there was a great famine that is recorded in Egyptian history and that story was borrowed by the authors of the bible. It wouldn't be the first time that happened. Try reading the Enuma Elish (Babylonian creation story) and comparing it to what you read in the bible.

Originally posted by: plastick
looks a little anti-christian?

:roll:

You'll find a lot of very objective material out there that doesn't conform to official cannon. That doesn't make it untrue or anti-christian. You need to have an open mind about these things. If you are unwilling to examine theories or facts that may be contrary to what you have been taught or believe than you have no business saying that you are trying to learn.

I took the very same class (RELST 105) at UIUC and found it to be one of the worst scholarly classes. Not only is the majority of the religious studies department extremely liberal when it comes to Christian theology/history but it is extremely biased and one-sided. That department is notorious for being anti Christian when it comes to what is considered "normal" mainstream conservative evangelical Christianity.

I remember when they brought in speakers for different faiths. The "Christian" speaker spoke nothing about the tenets of Christianity, but went off on tangents and spoke about really weird issues. Even fellow classmates who weren't Christian thought he was really weird. This is the type of person that the department felt was appropriate for representing the Christian faith.

In response to the whole revisionist theory - this has long been seen to be a VERY weak argument. There is very little legitmacy or strength in that argument.

The class was primarily an archeology class, not a "preaching to the choir" class. The course description made it clear that you would be studying areceological sites that appear in the Bible, not the actual teachings of the Bible itself.

RLST 106
Archaeology and the Bible
Credit: 3 hours.

This course satisfies the General Education Criteria for a
Advanced Composition, and Hist&Philosoph Perspect course.

(RELST 106) Examination of archaeological evidence, especially from Syria-Palestine, and discussion of its use in the interpretation of Biblical literature.

When I took the class the prof was an archeologist who worked exclusively in the palistine area. We never had other speakers and he never preached to us. He taught archeology and he showed us where it could be found within the writings of the Bible. That is exactly what the course description said was going to happen.

If you wanted someone to tell you about God's love then go to church. If you want someone to tech you about archeology then take this class. BTW I had the number wrong. There is no RLST 105 in the course calalouge.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: Amused
That the bible has factual and proven hitorical events as a background for it's central story makes it no more a true story than the movie Forrest Gump.

I agree with the first part of your statement. Rarely is the Bible attacked on grounds of proof of the facts concerning historical events, places and people. In actuality, history and archaeology has shown that the Bible is one of the best documents out there.

Now, what you wanna do with that assertion/evidence is up to you. In the end, its a matter of Faith.

Why only the first part? Forrest Gump is historically accurate too in it's retelling of the background events for the central story. In 2000 years someone could make the assertion that the entire story is true based on that and be doing the very same thing people do with the bible.

Because, the amount of evidence that points to Forrest Gump as being fiction is overwhelming. This is not the case with the Bbile and its message. The more you study the Bible and its accuracy, you begin to see a uniformity in its message and support in the evidence. This has reminaed constant in the last several thousand years.

Um, no. There is NO proof of the central characters or stories of the bible. Only the historical events and locations that serve as a background.

This is exactly what I was talking about.

Who are you referring to? King David, Solomon, Queen of Sheba DID exist. No argument even from secular historians. Debate over the existence of Moses (but hard to really confirm) since most literature only referred to teh "most important",etc. Don't even go into the "Jesus didn't exist" crap that even secular scholars would laugh at.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: plastick
I am reading through the Bible starting with the old testiment and I am on Exodus 12. I am reading about how God killed all the firstborn sons in Eygpt. Pretty wild...

Anyway I was wondering if there are any other historical documents that mention this event in Egyptian history. I mean, it sounds like such a huge event that someone else must have recorded it...
So if anyone is good at history and knows of anything, let me know.

I searched google but only found a bunch of retarted websites. seems they are multiplying faster these days.

Take an archeology class that focuses on places and events from the Bible. I took this class in college (religious studies 105 at UIUC) and as a pretty anti-oranized religion type person found it facinating.

A lot of the Bible is revisionist history. A lot of the names and events happened but were distorted by the writers/editors throughout history. Maybe there was a great famine that is recorded in Egyptian history and that story was borrowed by the authors of the bible. It wouldn't be the first time that happened. Try reading the Enuma Elish (Babylonian creation story) and comparing it to what you read in the bible.

Originally posted by: plastick
looks a little anti-christian?

:roll:

You'll find a lot of very objective material out there that doesn't conform to official cannon. That doesn't make it untrue or anti-christian. You need to have an open mind about these things. If you are unwilling to examine theories or facts that may be contrary to what you have been taught or believe than you have no business saying that you are trying to learn.

I took the very same class (RELST 105) at UIUC and found it to be one of the worst scholarly classes. Not only is the majority of the religious studies department extremely liberal when it comes to Christian theology/history but it is extremely biased and one-sided. That department is notorious for being anti Christian when it comes to what is considered "normal" mainstream conservative evangelical Christianity.

I remember when they brought in speakers for different faiths. The "Christian" speaker spoke nothing about the tenets of Christianity, but went off on tangents and spoke about really weird issues. Even fellow classmates who weren't Christian thought he was really weird. This is the type of person that the department felt was appropriate for representing the Christian faith.

In response to the whole revisionist theory - this has long been seen to be a VERY weak argument. There is very little legitmacy or strength in that argument.

The class was primarily an archeology class, not a "preaching to the choir" class. The course description made it clear that you would be studying areceological sites that appear in the Bible, not the actual teachings of the Bible itself.

RLST 106
Archaeology and the Bible
Credit: 3 hours.

This course satisfies the General Education Criteria for a
Advanced Composition, and Hist&Philosoph Perspect course.

(RELST 106) Examination of archaeological evidence, especially from Syria-Palestine, and discussion of its use in the interpretation of Biblical literature.

When I took the class the prof was an archeologist who worked exclusively in the palistine area. We never had other speakers and he never preached to us. He taught archeology and he showed us where it could be found within the writings of the Bible. That is exactly what the course description said was going to happen.

If you wanted someone to tell you about God's love then go to church. If you want someone to tech you about archeology then take this class. BTW I had the number wrong. There is no RLST 105 in the course calalouge.

Ahh well, I never took the archaeology class. RELST 105 or was it 110? was world religions - which you semmed to refer to. The very same subjects came up that you brought up. Then again, I graduated in '98 - so things might be different now. As to God's love - that wasn't something I mentioned ?? or did I?

But again, I remain extremely skeptical of that department - as seeing how biased they were. Especailly considering how one sided they were.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: plastick
I am reading through the Bible starting with the old testiment and I am on Exodus 12. I am reading about how God killed all the firstborn sons in Eygpt. Pretty wild...

Anyway I was wondering if there are any other historical documents that mention this event in Egyptian history. I mean, it sounds like such a huge event that someone else must have recorded it...
So if anyone is good at history and knows of anything, let me know.

I searched google but only found a bunch of retarted websites. seems they are multiplying faster these days.

Take an archeology class that focuses on places and events from the Bible. I took this class in college (religious studies 105 at UIUC) and as a pretty anti-oranized religion type person found it facinating.

A lot of the Bible is revisionist history. A lot of the names and events happened but were distorted by the writers/editors throughout history. Maybe there was a great famine that is recorded in Egyptian history and that story was borrowed by the authors of the bible. It wouldn't be the first time that happened. Try reading the Enuma Elish (Babylonian creation story) and comparing it to what you read in the bible.

Originally posted by: plastick
looks a little anti-christian?

:roll:

You'll find a lot of very objective material out there that doesn't conform to official cannon. That doesn't make it untrue or anti-christian. You need to have an open mind about these things. If you are unwilling to examine theories or facts that may be contrary to what you have been taught or believe than you have no business saying that you are trying to learn.

I took the very same class (RELST 105) at UIUC and found it to be one of the worst scholarly classes. Not only is the majority of the religious studies department extremely liberal when it comes to Christian theology/history but it is extremely biased and one-sided. That department is notorious for being anti Christian when it comes to what is considered "normal" mainstream conservative evangelical Christianity.

I remember when they brought in speakers for different faiths. The "Christian" speaker spoke nothing about the tenets of Christianity, but went off on tangents and spoke about really weird issues. Even fellow classmates who weren't Christian thought he was really weird. This is the type of person that the department felt was appropriate for representing the Christian faith.

In response to the whole revisionist theory - this has long been seen to be a VERY weak argument. There is very little legitmacy or strength in that argument.

The class was primarily an archeology class, not a "preaching to the choir" class. The course description made it clear that you would be studying areceological sites that appear in the Bible, not the actual teachings of the Bible itself.

RLST 106
Archaeology and the Bible
Credit: 3 hours.

This course satisfies the General Education Criteria for a
Advanced Composition, and Hist&Philosoph Perspect course.

(RELST 106) Examination of archaeological evidence, especially from Syria-Palestine, and discussion of its use in the interpretation of Biblical literature.

When I took the class the prof was an archeologist who worked exclusively in the palistine area. We never had other speakers and he never preached to us. He taught archeology and he showed us where it could be found within the writings of the Bible. That is exactly what the course description said was going to happen.

If you wanted someone to tell you about God's love then go to church. If you want someone to tech you about archeology then take this class. BTW I had the number wrong. There is no RLST 105 in the course calalouge.

Anyways, my point wasn't as to what the class was but rather that the whoel revisionist theory is not the greatest argument when debating over the legitimacy of the historical accuracy of the Bible.

 

[slightlyhuman]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: plastick
I am reading through the Bible starting with the old testiment and I am on Exodus 12. I am reading about how God killed all the firstborn sons in Eygpt. Pretty wild...

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?

he is a God of love but also a God of judgement

i hate getting into reiligous flame wars

 

[shiner]

I believe every word of the Bible. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: GreydAnyways, my point wasn't as to what the class was but rather that the whoel revisionist theory is not the greatest argument when debating over the legitimacy of the historical accuracy of the Bible.

I guess we had our classes crossed.

RELST 106 is about the only "non-religious" Religious Studies classes UIUC offers.

As for the "God's Love" crack, I was just throwing this back at you

The "Christian" speaker spoke nothing about the tenets of Christianity

because I thought you were referring to the same class as I was. In the context of you class that quote makes sense. In the context of mine it doesn't. The subject matter of my class didn't concern the tenets of anything.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: DP

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: plastick
I am reading through the Bible starting with the old testiment and I am on Exodus 12. I am reading about how God killed all the firstborn sons in Eygpt. Pretty wild...

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?

he is a God of love but also a God of judgement

i hate getting into reiligous flame wars

:beer:
Theres a huge difference between flame wars and debates. Every now and then ATOT is able to have a civil, tho heated discussion about religion. (rare as it is) I enjoy these talks, until they degrade into flame fests.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: GreydAnyways, my point wasn't as to what the class was but rather that the whoel revisionist theory is not the greatest argument when debating over the legitimacy of the historical accuracy of the Bible.

I guess we had our classes crossed.

RELST 106 is about the only "non-religious" Religious Studies classes UIUC offers.

As for the "God's Love" crack, I was just throwing this back at you

The "Christian" speaker spoke nothing about the tenets of Christianity

because I thought you were referring to the same class as I was. In the context of you class that quote makes sense. In the context of mine it doesn't. The subject matter of my class didn't concern the tenets of anything.

Ahhh....got ya. :beer:

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I believe every word of the Bible. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

Alot of the contradictions I have read about are misunderstandings or a lack of understanding of the culture, literary style of writing,etc. There are some though that I have no idea what it is about.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: Greyd
Again, people who haven't really studied Biblical archaeology/history shouldn't say too much about its reliability when it comes to its historical accuracy. From the little I've studied, the Bible has never been shown to be wrong when it comes to historical integrity. In actuality, the Old Testament has shown to be extremely accurate historically. There were people, names and places, that were never mentioned in secular sources, later to have been found existing after archaelogical excavation.

For example, critics attacked the Bible, because the ruler Belshazzar never existed in secular records only in the Bible. Arcaheological excavation found an inscription in UR which confrimed his existence.

In the mid 1900's, a internationally known and famous Hebrew rabbi/scholar, Dr. Nelson Glueck, used the Bible to discover something close to 2000 arachaelogical discoveries. All of which had never been found prior. (e.g. arachaelogical remains of King Solomon's reign,etc)

It is the rare occassion that you find competent, recognized secular scholars that disagree with Biblical accuracy when it comes to history.

Again the majority of my reading and studies has been little to date - but enough to see an overwhelming pattern to the positive affirmation of the accuracy and reliability of Biblical history.

please tell me how accurate completely flooding the earth and one man with an ark with all the animals on it can be anything other than a fairy tale. maybe you should read a little more of it, then tell me how you feel about great things in the old testament like:

Dt 13:6-8
'If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him.' 'You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow.' 'Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death.'

or who can forget:

Dt 21:22
'If a man who commits a sin worthy of death is put to death, and you hang him from a tree...' '...his body must not remain on the tree overnight.' 'You must bury him on the same day, for a hanged man is accursed of God.'

or a favorite of mine:

Dt 23:1
'A man whose testicles have been crushed...' '...or whose penis has been cut off...' '...must not be admitted to the congregation of Yahweh.'

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

I feel that certain 'facts' are exaggerated to gain attention.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: plastick
I am reading through the Bible starting with the old testiment and I am on Exodus 12. I am reading about how God killed all the firstborn sons in Eygpt. Pretty wild...

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?

someone did

i was raised christian and had alot of the same thoughts, way before looking at the above site. i remember one day my preacher saying "but dont take my word for it, read it...read it yourself and see"

i read; i saw. i dont know what he was thinking....but ever since reading it, ive been ever more unsure about how i was raised :/

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: shinerburke
I believe every word of the Bible. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

Alot of the contradictions I have read about are misunderstandings or a lack of understanding of the culture, literary style of writing,etc. There are some though that I have no idea what it is about.

I was quoting Ned Flanders.