|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 12:08:08 PM
|
|
|
Embedded
Posts: 50
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
ORIGINAL: Embedded
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
If the conclusions derived from an observable science are in contrast to doctrines of the Bible, which do you trust, and why?
PL, have you read St. Augusting on Science and Scripture ? That was written about 1600 years ago.
So I suppose then that you (along with Augustine) are asking me to question the validity of the first sentence of Genesis?
I think that is up to you. I think what Augustine is saying that what you take on faith to be valid may not actually be valid. I think he is also saying that what you take on faith to be valid is no reason for someone else who does not share your faith to also take the same thing(s) to be valid.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 12:54:32 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think that is up to you. I think what Augustine is saying that what you take on faith to be valid may not actually be valid. I think he is also saying that what you take on faith to be valid is no reason for someone else who does not share your faith to also take the same thing(s) to be valid.
Well, the point you make has been echoed by dissenters throughout the ages and reflects the thought that "what's true for you is true to you because it's your truth, though my truth may be different, it's true too because it's true to me..."
I suppose that statement would carry some validity if in fact there were no ultimate truth. But in fact there is an ultimate truth. God has told us that He has written His law upon our hearts - there are things that can happen that most certainly turn our stomachs that we instinctively know are wrong even if there is no law forbidding it. Well, how can we make a distinction between evil and good if there is no standard to base it from? If we say then that there is a standard - a law - then there must be a law giver. If there is no law giver, then there is no law, if there is no law, then there is no good or evil.
The Bible also tells us that "He hangs the earth upon nothing..." Reflecting on the times when they thought that the earth was supported by various objects, the author affirms that the earth is without pillars of support. The earth is also referred to as a "globe" in a time when the earth was not thought of as spherical in shape... Are we to discount these scientific facts because they are in the Bible? What about the rules that God put into place regarding hygene? About how the latrine is to be placed outside of the camp, and how a man is unclean if he so much as touches a corpse? The way that God urges His people to clean themselves is some of the earliest documentation of germ warfare in a time when they didn't even know about such things. Are we to throw this out too? Why then should we automatically throw out the stories of creation when the Bible has been proven accurate time and time again?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 1:30:23 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1012
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
The earth is also referred to as a "globe" in a time when the earth was not thought of as spherical in shape...
The word globe doesn't occur in the KJV.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 1:42:23 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
The earth is also referred to as a "globe" in a time when the earth was not thought of as spherical in shape...
The word globe doesn't occur in the KJV.
Excuse me: "circle"
I apparently hadn't committed that one to memory as precisely as I thought, but the meaning is the same.
Isaiah 40:22
22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
I must also add that the Hebrew word used here for "circle" is transliterated to be "chuwg." This means "circle, sphere." (Strong's number H2329)
< Message edited by PromiseLander -- 7/22/2008 1:50:57 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 4:47:40 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
The Bible is 66 books written by 40 different authors over a period of about 1500 years...
(drj11) Exactly! One work built right off of the other.
Care to tell us how the book of "Job" "works off of" Genesis, or Exodus, or any other Book? Care to tell us how the book of "Ruth" "works off of" Genesis, or Exodus, or any other book?
quote:
(drj11) If people a few hundred years in the future thought Batman was a real human being, how would they pick and choose what comic books and/or movies accurately tell you about his life? They would pick the most self-consistent versions, and throw out the rest. That is exactly what happened with the gospels.
(theo) so now you equate inspiration with persperation. How sad.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 4:56:40 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7371
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
If people a few hundred years in the future thought Batman was a real human being, how would they pick and choose what comic books and/or movies accurately tell you about his life? They would pick the most self-consistent versions, and throw out the rest. That is exactly what happened with the gospels.
I cannot believe the Gospels are being compared to a comic book.
Look, the Gospels, whatever you think of Jesus, occurred in real places at discernible points in time identifiable by events known to have happened.
The writing of those accounts can be fairly certainly placed within a few decades after the events themselves took place - it wasn't as if a few centuries past before people began to see the accounts as true, they did so immediately, when the accounts were readily disprovable.
And institutions exist now that are known to be directly related to events that occurred then, so it's not as if we have nothing and then a few hundred years later the church sprang into existence out of a comic book narrative.
And to my knowledge, no writer of a Batman comic was put to death for claiming it was true.
So as much as it appeals to the geeky comic book crowd that so typifies athestica these days, its nonsense.
< Message edited by Jhud -- 7/22/2008 5:09:47 PM >
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 5:02:23 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Gluadys:
I think we're pretty close in the methods listed in interpretation - the challenge lies with the separation of allegory from historical narrative.
I maintain that a passage should be considered historical narrative unless otherwise noted
And you maintain this because it is what you have been taught. But what is the reasoning behind this teaching? That is what I want to know. Did you never raise the question of why a passage should be considered historical unless otherwise noted? I sure would. And if I didn't get a satisfactory answer, I would not consider this a sound hermeneutical prnciple. It is more like a creedal statement. "We believe that in the absence of (unspecified) indications, a passage should be considered historical."
OK, that's your belief. But in that case the historicity of the passage is a matter of faith, not something inherent in the text. Your dogma excludes other possibilities a priori.
I would not exclude any possibility a priori.
quote:
or reflected in other passages - as in the case of Jonah where no indication in Scripture is given for allegory.
I am not sure how you understand "allegory". Perhaps you are using broadly to refer to anything not literally historical. Perhaps you are using it more narrowly in the technical literary meaning. Without knowing how you define "allegory" I can't say whether you are right or wrong in saying that Jonah has no indication of allegory. Certainly in the technical sense it is not an allegory.
That does not mean it cannot be interpreted allegorically. In fact, Jesus so interpreted it when he spoke of his death, burial and resurrection as being "the sign of Jonah".
I would agree that the author did not write it as an allegory. However, there is no indication that he wrote it to record history either.
So what do you have other than a dogmatic presumption that it must be history?
quote:
If you disagree with the above statement, then where and why? Most apologists that I am aware of use this method: people like Adrian Rogers, R.C. Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, David Jeremiah, Paul Washer, James Dobson, John MacArthur, Greg Laurie, D. James Kennedy, James McDonald...
As I said, I disagree with an automatic a priori exclusion of non-historical interpretations. I know of no sound theological reason for this exclusion. If any of the people you have named can provide a sound theological reason, I am open to hearing it. If all they provide is assertions, spare me.
If "most apologists" you are familiar with use this method, I would suggest you become familiar with other apologists from other theological backgrounds. You might look for example to the interesting literary commentaries of Robert Alter, or to the classic discussion of the anatomy of biblical literature by Northrop Frye. Umberto Cassuto has an interesting Jewish perspective. You might even read Richard Friedman, though I suspect he is too far removed from your theology for you to take seriously. Two of my favorite commentators are Ched Myers and Marcus Borg.
It would also be a good idea to explore the interpretive traditions that existed prior to the Reformation. Very different from the modernist approaches whether conservative or liberal.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/23/2008 7:37:38 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
Batman was a comic book?
_____________________________
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/23/2008 8:06:44 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
And you maintain this because it is what you have been taught. But what is the reasoning behind this teaching? That is what I want to know.
Because without taking the Bible literally unless otherwise indicated by text, then you risk saying that nothing in the Bible actually happened, and they are all just stories told to promote a lesson...
quote:
OK, that's your belief. But in that case the historicity of the passage is a matter of faith, not something inherent in the text. Your dogma excludes other possibilities a priori.
The historicity of texts have been proven through the shovels of archeologists and in observations throughout society. For instance, I mentioned earlier that in Armenia, they still celebrate the coming of Jonah to preach to them... Names of places and people mentioned throughout the Bible have been found etched on the walls of buildings and written in manuscripts... Reading the Bible as an account, not just stories cannot be done unless it is the assumption of the reader that the history of the Bible is true. Scholars have told us that there is no book on the face of the earth that is as historically accurate as the texts of the Bible.
quote:
I am not sure how you understand "allegory". Perhaps you are using broadly to refer to anything not literally historical. Perhaps you are using it more narrowly in the technical literary meaning. Without knowing how you define "allegory" I can't say whether you are right or wrong in saying that Jonah has no indication of allegory. Certainly in the technical sense it is not an allegory.That does not mean it cannot be interpreted allegorically. In fact, Jesus so interpreted it when he spoke of his death, burial and resurrection as being "the sign of Jonah".
I generally like to use the dictionary when defining words, but you can use whatever you like... I meant that the story was not an allegory in the sense that it DID happen and wasn't just a story told to teach a lesson on God's forgiveness; this doesn't exclude the fact that Jonah's life and his life story has deeper meaning in the greater scheme of things. By that same reasoning, the story of Joseph, although the story itself is historical narrative, is an allegory as well in that it foreshadows the life of Christ. The same with Abraham and Isaac.
quote:
So what do you have other than a dogmatic presumption that it must be history?
A headache. And if truth is dogmatic, then yes, I'm dogmatic.
quote:
If "most apologists" you are familiar with use this method, I would suggest you become familiar with other apologists from other theological backgrounds. You might look for example to the interesting literary commentaries of Robert Alter, or to the classic discussion of the anatomy of biblical literature by Northrop Frye. Umberto Cassuto has an interesting Jewish perspective. You might even read Richard Friedman, though I suspect he is too far removed from your theology for you to take seriously. Two of my favorite commentators are Ched Myers and Marcus Borg.
Ummm, you do realize that Marcus Borg is a member of the "Jesus Seminar" who uses a voting system to determine by popular vote what is true or false about what the Bible says about Jesus??? That's not exactly aggreeing with "Every word of Scripture is God breathed..." He also doesn't believe that Jesus died as a substitute for sinners or rose from the dead... I certainly would not call that man a Christian. "By their fruits you shall know them." Are you sitting under the instruction of false teachers?
quote:
It would also be a good idea to explore the interpretive traditions that existed prior to the Reformation. Very different from the modernist approaches whether conservative or liberal.
So... Because they're different, that means they're automatically right? Why then was there a reformation?
_____________________________
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/23/2008 8:59:19 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(gluadys) And you maintain this because it is what you have been taught. But what is the reasoning behind this teaching? That is what I want to know. Did you never raise the question of why a passage should be considered historical unless otherwise noted? I sure would. And if I didn't get a satisfactory answer, I would not consider this a sound hermeneutical principle.
It would also be a good idea to explore the interpretive traditions that existed prior to the Reformation. Very different from the modernist approaches whether conservative or liberal.
I think "sound hermeneutical principles" are almost a thing of the past. It seems, in many circles, the appeal is to "what do the scholars say" or "What do our elders say" as the authority behind whatever doctrine or dogma is being defended.
In fact, I know of NO church that offers even rudimentary"hermeneutical principles" to young minds that are just beginning to develope into teachers and leaders. It seems to be left to colleges and universities to fill that void.
But it needs to be remembered, the gospel was not spread through "scholars and learned men," but through "ignorant and unlearned" men.
Hermeneutics and homiletics both can be taught in a local church setting, by humble men who can still set "humility a priori" and still teach depths of scriptural understanding beyond what the colleges and universities can even understand.
"Christianity" is neither a scholarly discipline, nor an intellectual exercise. It is a way of life. It should be "lived" not discovered on a worldly campus between classes.
Hermeneutics; the branch of theology that deals with the principles of biblical exegesis. (I know you know this, bear wiith me for a moment)
Exegesis; critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text.
I propose that the key word in the above is neither "hermeneutics" nor" Exegesis," but rather is "critical."
Proper "criticism" is an ESSENTIAL part of exegesis, whether for hermeneutical purposes or homiletical. Far too often, a simple appeal to "tradition" takes the place of proper critical analysis. It is a fault. It is a weakness. It is a shame.
"I am not qualified" should be the STARTING POINT of analytical critiqueing, not the end of it.
I do hope this does not sound like "just ramblin.'
< Message edited by theo_book -- 7/23/2008 9:06:20 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/23/2008 9:29:00 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
(gluadys) And you maintain this because it is what you have been taught. But what is the reasoning behind this teaching? That is what I want to know. Did you never raise the question of why a passage should be considered historical unless otherwise noted? I sure would. And if I didn't get a satisfactory answer, I would not consider this a sound hermeneutical principle.
It would also be a good idea to explore the interpretive traditions that existed prior to the Reformation. Very different from the modernist approaches whether conservative or liberal.
I think "sound hermeneutical principles" are almost a thing of the past. It seems, in many circles, the appeal is to "what do the scholars say" or "What do our elders say" as the authority behind whatever doctrine or dogma is being defended.
In fact, I know of NO church that offers even rudimentary"hermeneutical principles" to young minds that are just beginning to develope into teachers and leaders. It seems to be left to colleges and universities to fill that void.
But it needs to be remembered, the gospel was not spread through "scholars and learned men," but through "ignorant and unlearned" men.
Hermeneutics and homiletics both can be taught in a local church setting, by humble men who can still set "humility a priori" and still teach depths of scriptural understanding beyond what the colleges and universities can even understand.
"Christianity" is neither a scholarly discipline, nor an intellectual exercise. It is a way of life. It should be "lived" not discovered on a worldly campus between classes.
Hermeneutics; the branch of theology that deals with the principles of biblical exegesis. (I know you know this, bear wiith me for a moment)
Exegesis; critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text.
I propose that the key word in the above is neither "hermeneutics" nor" Exegesis," but rather is "critical."
Proper "criticism" is an ESSENTIAL part of exegesis, whether for hermeneutical purposes or homiletical. Far too often, a simple appeal to "tradition" takes the place of proper critical analysis. It is a fault. It is a weakness. It is a shame.
"I am not qualified" should be the STARTING POINT of analytical critiqueing, not the end of it.
I do hope this does not sound like "just ramblin.'
Amen and Amen. I agree with you entirely. Especially the importance of critical examination. And the ability of ordinary people to be able to learn and apply exegesis.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/23/2008 10:06:52 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Because without taking the Bible literally unless otherwise indicated by text, then you risk saying that nothing in the Bible actually happened, and they are all just stories told to promote a lesson...
No we don't, since there are parts of the biblical story that have been verified as history. And all stories in the bible are told to promote a lesson--even the ones that are history.
quote:
The historicity of texts have been proven through the shovels of archeologists and in observations throughout society.
Some have, but not to the extent that we can assume historicity a priori for everything in scripture. Archeology can tell us a lot about the way of life of nomadic pastoralists, villagers, city folk at various times that concords well with biblical descriptions of life in ancient Israel. It can tell us about the legal systems and social customs of the ANE which often closely parallel the Mosaic law and descriptions of family life in the Torah. It can confirm the existence of particular places at particular times.
But by and large it does not confirm the existence of specific people or the specific events of their lives. There are a few exceptions when it comes to kings and other people of importance. But even many of these cannot be verified. There is no archeological evidence, for instance, of Moses or the Exodus.
Of course, lack of evidence is not evidence that any story is not historical. I am just saying one has to recognize the limitations of what can be known through archeology.
quote:
For instance, I mentioned earlier that in Armenia, they still celebrate the coming of Jonah to preach to them...
I don't know why they would since he never went to Armenia.
quote:
Names of places and people mentioned throughout the Bible have been found etched on the walls of buildings and written in manuscripts..Scholars have told us that there is no book on the face of the earth that is as historically accurate as the texts of the Bible.
Within the limits named above, that may be true, but there are still those limits.
quote:
Reading the Bible as an account, not just stories cannot be done unless it is the assumption of the reader that the history of the Bible is true.
Sorry, I don't understand this statement. Every story is an account. Why does one have to presume it is history to read it? Are you speaking of "the willing suspension of disbelief" that is practiced when one reads fiction?
quote:
I meant that the story was not an allegory in the sense that it DID happen and wasn't just a story told to teach a lesson on God's forgiveness;
OK, that is a very broad meaning which does not refer to the literary characteristics of the story at all. And again, it is simply a statement of faith that has nothing to do with exegesis.
What interests me is why you find this creed important. Why does it bother you to contemplate that the story may indeed be just a story? Isn't a lesson on God's forgiveness a very important lesson and reason enough to tell a story about it? (And that may not be the most important lesson in the story anyway. Many scholars believe Jonah was written as a protest against the ethnic exclusivity of the policies of Ezra and Nehemiah. So God's love for the Ninevites could be the most important lesson here.)
quote:
quote:
So what do you have other than a dogmatic presumption that it must be history?
A headache. And if truth is dogmatic, then yes, I'm dogmatic.
I like to be dogmatic about truth, too. But I also want some assurance that it is truth. I am not convinced that an a priori assumption of the historicity of all biblical stories is truth.
quote:
Ummm, you do realize that Marcus Borg is a member of the "Jesus Seminar" who uses a voting system to determine by popular vote what is true or false about what the Bible says about Jesus??? That's not exactly aggreeing with "Every word of Scripture is God breathed..." He also doesn't believe that Jesus died as a substitute for sinners or rose from the dead... I certainly would not call that man a Christian. "By their fruits you shall know them." Are you sitting under the instruction of false teachers?
Sounds to me like you are speaking from ignorance. Does your information about Borg's beliefs come from actually reading what he himself has written or from second (third, fourth) hand garbled reports about him. Don't be judgmental before giving him the opportunity to speak for himself.
I find him very insightful and not at all unChristian. In fact, I would credit him with strengthening the Christian faith of many people. I suggest reading Meeting Jesus again for the first time as a good introduction to him. Though my favorite is The Heart of Christianity which is a wonderfully inspiring devotional book. I could not say of anyone who wrote this gem that he is not a Christian.
quote:
So... Because they're different, that means they're automatically right?
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say. Of course they are not automatically right. But neither are you. And neither you nor they are automatically wrong either.
quote:
Why then was there a reformation?
The reformation was not focused primarily on the interpretation of scripture, but on the extra-biblical dogmas introduced by the church such as that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and on the way the bible and the sacraments were kept away from the people to be the private preserve of the Roman magisterium whose authority was not to be questioned.
It was not until the 18th century that Common Sense interpretation got a big promotion, especially in Scotland. And that doesn't make it automatically right (or wrong) either.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/23/2008 10:58:37 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Ummm, you do realize that Marcus Borg is a member of the "Jesus Seminar" who uses a voting system to determine by popular vote what is true or false about what the Bible says about Jesus??? That's not exactly aggreeing with "Every word of Scripture is God breathed..." He also doesn't believe that Jesus died as a substitute for sinners or rose from the dead... I certainly would not call that man a Christian. "By their fruits you shall know them." Are you sitting under the instruction of false teachers?
quote:
Sounds to me like you are speaking from ignorance. Does your information about Borg's beliefs come from actually reading what he himself has written or from second (third, fourth) hand garbled reports about him. Don't be judgmental before giving him the opportunity to speak for himself.
I find him very insightful and not at all unChristian. In fact, I would credit him with strengthening the Christian faith of many people. I suggest reading Meeting Jesus again for the first time as a good introduction to him. Though my favorite is The Heart of Christianity which is a wonderfully inspiring devotional book. I could not say of anyone who wrote this gem that he is not a Christian.
Is Marcus Borg a member of the "Jesus Seminar" or not? Does he believe that Jesus died a substitutionary death for sinners and rose from the dead? If he doesn't, then he is not a Christian.
If you sit under the teachings of a non-Christian, believing that what he says is "insightful" and then attempt to make remarks about a Christian believe, then pretty much anything you say on the subject is null.
_____________________________
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/23/2008 11:58:29 AM
|
|
|
FreddieD
Posts: 117
Joined: 7/23/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
The historicity of texts have been proven through the shovels of archeologists and in observations throughout society.
Actually just the opposite, especially the Torah. They couldn't verify anything written in the Torah and was forced to discard it as the narrative of human history. Instead a new and different story of the ancient Israelites emerged.
FreddieD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/23/2008 12:46:50 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreddieD
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
The historicity of texts have been proven through the shovels of archeologists and in observations throughout society.
Actually just the opposite, especially the Torah. They couldn't verify anything written in the Torah and was forced to discard it as the narrative of human history. Instead a new and different story of the ancient Israelites emerged.
FreddieD
Well, then you'd have a very hard time defending that notion... Jesus Himself quoted from the Torah... To say that the the Bible, "especially the Torah" isn't a historically accurate manuscript, is to say that Jesus either made up much of what He said, or that He was knowingly utilizing false prophetic books to justify Himself... Either of these notions would suggest that Jesus wasn't God.
_____________________________
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/23/2008 1:18:13 PM
|
|
|
FreddieD
Posts: 117
Joined: 7/23/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Well, then you'd have a very hard time defending that notion...
No problem: The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Jesus Himself quoted from the Torah... To say that the the Bible, "especially the Torah" isn't a historically accurate manuscript, is to say that Jesus either made up much of what He said, or that He was knowingly utilizing false prophetic books to justify Himself...
Jesus wasn't an archaeologists. Wasn't that your original assertion?
"The historicity of texts have been proven through the shovels of archeologists...
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Either of these notions would suggest that Jesus wasn't God.
That is a matter of faith.
FreddieD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/23/2008 1:37:44 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreddieD
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Well, then you'd have a very hard time defending that notion...
No problem: The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Jesus Himself quoted from the Torah... To say that the the Bible, "especially the Torah" isn't a historically accurate manuscript, is to say that Jesus either made up much of what He said, or that He was knowingly utilizing false prophetic books to justify Himself...
Jesus wasn't an archaeologists. Wasn't that your original assertion?
"The historicity of texts have been proven through the shovels of archeologists...
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Either of these notions would suggest that Jesus wasn't God.
That is a matter of faith.
FreddieD
quote:
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
That book, amongst other dissenters, is basically stating the fallacy that absence of proof is proof of absence... No, not everything in the texts can be found in archeology - yet... But the shovels keep digging. Until 1993 there was no proof of the existence of King David or even of Israel as a nation prior to Solomon. At an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the north of Israel, words carved into a chunk of basalt were translated as "House of David" and "King of Israel" proving that he was more than just a legend. In 1990 Frank Yurco, an Egyptologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, used hieroglyphic clues from a monolith known as the Merneptah Stele to identify figures in a Luxor wall relief as ancient Israelites. The stele itself, dated to 1207 B.C. celebrates a military victory by the Pharaoh Merneptah. “Israel is laid waste” it reads. This lets us know the Israelites were a separate people more than 3,000 years ago.
And I could go on, but for brevity, I won't. If one is to say that there is little or no actual evidence for many of the occurances and people in the Bible, one would have to do a LOT of sweeping under the rug of YEARS of well documented evidence.
Sorry friend, but one or even a handful of dissenting books is not going to convince anyone but those wanting to stir up bad emotion...
_____________________________
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/23/2008 1:52:28 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Is Marcus Borg a member of the "Jesus Seminar" or not? Does he believe that Jesus died a substitutionary death for sinners and rose from the dead? If he doesn't, then he is not a Christian.
I am not going to interpret Borg for you. That would be unfair both to you and to him. If you want to know what he believes, read his books for yourself. Or go straight to the horse's mouth and e-mail him directly.
But don't come to any conclusions about him until you do. Don't rely on hearsay as a basis for judgment.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/23/2008 2:18:34 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Is Marcus Borg a member of the "Jesus Seminar" or not? Does he believe that Jesus died a substitutionary death for sinners and rose from the dead? If he doesn't, then he is not a Christian.
I am not going to interpret Borg for you. That would be unfair both to you and to him. If you want to know what he believes, read his books for yourself. Or go straight to the horse's mouth and e-mail him directly.
But don't come to any conclusions about him until you do. Don't rely on hearsay as a basis for judgment.
You dodge questions better than John Kerry... Do you two know each other?
_____________________________
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/23/2008 3:28:53 PM
|
|
|
FreddieD
Posts: 117
Joined: 7/23/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
That book, amongst other dissenters, is basically stating the fallacy that absence of proof is proof of absence...
They have absence of proof and proof of absence. The Isealites were in Iseal. Not in Egyp as slaves.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
No, not everything in the texts can be found in archeology - yet... But the shovels keep digging.
They been digging for fifteen hundred years.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Until 1993 there was no proof of the existence of King David or even of Israel as a nation prior to Solomon. At an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the north of Israel, words carved into a chunk of basalt were translated as "House of David" and "King of Israel"...
David and Solomon are not mention in the Torah and they were only lords not kings.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
In 1990 Frank Yurco, an Egyptologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, used hieroglyphic clues from a monolith known as the Merneptah Stele to identify figures in a Luxor wall relief as ancient Israelites. The stele itself, dated to 1207 B.C. celebrates a military victory by the Pharaoh Merneptah. “Israel is laid waste” it reads. This lets us know the Israelites were a separate people more than 3,000 years ago.
Yes, Egypt did conquered Israel but the Israelites were never in Egypt as slaves.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
And I could go on, but for brevity, I won't. If one is to say that there is little or no actual evidence for many of the occurances and people in the Bible, one would have to do a LOT of sweeping under the rug of YEARS of well documented evidence.
I haven't seen the well documented evidence.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Sorry friend, but one or even a handful of dissenting books is not going to convince anyone but those wanting to stir up bad emotion...
That's ok. I know how you feel. Just letting you know that the stories in the Torah is considered a religion that relies on faith. Most archaeologists accept this.
FreddieD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/23/2008 4:40:30 PM
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
