Is Biblical Archaeology

[Yog^sothoth]

:shy: trying to find a way for non-believers to belive? I had a little discussion with Patroclus last night about what I think Biblical Archaeology was all about and I came to the realization that maybe I am a little naive. I think that the purpose, though there are those who are totally against it, is that it is attempting to prove truth to the word of god. What this means is that, for all those non-believers out there, is that there cannot be anymore reason to doubt anything.

On the other hand, there are those out there who are seeking to prove that the bible is totally false by trying to dig up the antithesis of what the bible says. Yet, all these people prove is that although it may have minor errors, errors proven to be simply the work of the hundreds, if not thousands of years it took to actually get some of the bible stuff down on paper has somewhat degraded thanks to years of oral history.

So in the end what does it matter? To those who have unbending faith, biblical archaeology seems like a waste of time. Coins minted during pilate's reign? big deal. a stone box which might have held the bones of the brother of Jeshua? So, as though I had any doubt. Yet to a non-believer, reading about this stuff might just prove to be a point of belief. Really? They found coins from pilates reign? Cool! The ossary that may have held the bones of James? Well, i'd have to see more on it but i'd say that maybe I should rethink my thoughts on my faith.

Like it or not, believe it or not, I think that biblical archaeology in the long run, despite the seemingly overwhelming problem of the super-ego in anthropology. I'd love to hear what the rest of you think. Am I naive? Is my belief in the power of archaeology misplaced? Am I just misguided?

Nick

[Dr.GH]

Well, one problem with counting on archaeology "to find a way for non-believers to belive? " is that archaeology is about trying to assertain physical/marterial events, and to test those aginst anthropological theories, and historical documents. It is not about winning converts to a faith tradition.

So, I guess that I would have to reject "attempting to prove truth to the word of god. " as a goal of archaeology.

What if the archaeological evidence flatly contradicted what you personally think "the word of god" says? Would you want to change what you had thought was "the word of god" or would you want to reject the archaeological data?

Archaeology, like other sciences, does not care abstractly, or existentially, whether a supposition is true or false. This includes those based on biblical interpretations. And. if you would rest your belief in God on the results of archaeology, you will be disappointed to say the least.

Some of my students this year thought that we should have renamed the course "The Flood, and then some more Flood." We read, and discussed the way the flood narrative had been presented and used for the last 5 or 6 thousand years. They were the most surprised (and amused) when we read "The Miller's Tale" (Chaucer) and found the Flood even there in a rather rude sex joke. Of the 6 versions of the "flood" that we read, only the earliest Summarian version had the most empirical support. Does the geological, and archaeological fact that there never was a global flood mean that the Bible is worthless?

I trust, and hope that you know better.

[Butters]

Well, I don't know about that. The Bible claims that God freed the Hebrews from egyptian slavery through miracles, led them through the desert, where he gave his commandments to Moses.
Since it has been proved beyond any REASONABLE doubt that this never occured, then where is the foundation of Judaism, and Christianity? The Christians in particular have gone around claiming that their religion is supported by actual events in history, I think it's only fair now to point out, that scince that is not the case, their entire belief system relies on myth alone, like evey other religion.

[Dr.GH]

I recommend reading

Finkelstein, Israel, Neil Silberman
2001 “The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts” New York: The Free Press

and,

Friedman, Richarrd Elliott
1987 “Who Wrote the Bible” New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition)

You can order them through Amazon.com and probably through you college book store.

You see, I have lived some years amoung people who believed in the supernatural just as we believe in the ordinary. They were people who lacked written language, and were quite ignorant of many things that we in the industrial, and literate world take for granted. Their certainty in their beliefs were no less profound than ours. Nor any less mistaken.

That is to say, the miracles of the staff of Moses are quite specific, aren't they? Each of the creatures destroyed by the his staff represetnted egyptian gods. The litteral events such as perhaps you or I would want to see on film (at 11, lol) didn't occur. Nor did subsequent events in the Sinai. Finkelstein and Silberman, offer persuasive data that these events can not be substantiated archaeologically. Does this alter their interpretive significance? I don't think that this is a necessary conclusion.

The issue devolves to one group of bible readers who insist that their reading is somehow pure and perfect, and that any contradiction of their interpretiation is a violent attack on God. These peope allow for no deviation from their idiocentric Biblical interpretations and most incredibly they deny that they are "interpreting" at all!

[Yog^sothoth]

Dr. GH said:

Well, one problem with counting on archaeology "to find a way for non-believers to belive? " is that archaeology is about trying to assertain physical/marterial events, and to test those aginst anthropological theories, and historical documents. It is not about winning converts to a faith tradition.

I know this and as an anthropology major trying to decide what field of anthropology he wishes to enter into, also understands that while this is the most perfect mode of study, it rarely happens as those who discover just about anything will stand by it as absolute truth long after what they find is proven to be false in their interpetation.

My point is not converting anthropologists. As I believe it, anthropologists as a rule must try and keep their own morals and beliefs as far from their studies as possible. I don't think that an anthropologist, lo, any scientist in general should try and view anything in a theological light as it will simply taint their view of a wider scope. I am talking of what the data, the end result of research means to those who do not have doubt. It isn't the goal of anthropologists to find or reach people to convert them but it is the goal of various church, temple, synagogues out there. Can they use this research to attain a more logical sense of faith?



So, I guess that I would have to reject "attempting to prove truth to the word of god. " as a goal of archaeology.


I suppose I worded what I said somewhat incorrectly. I don't think it is the goal of archaeology to prove anything larger than a small hypothesis or a reworking of various historical events.



What if the archaeological evidence flatly contradicted what you personally think "the word of god" says? Would you want to change what you had thought was "the word of god" or would you want to reject the archaeological data?


If it flatly rejected it? I am not that well versed a man in the inner workings of the bible. But, these things will happen. All historical books are typically going to have errors. Mayhap the error lie on the side of the faith? mayhap the bible translators made a mistake? mayhap the interpetation is wrong? Wrong like my spelling....:bonk:



Some of my students this year thought that we should have renamed the course "The Flood, and then some more Flood." We read, and discussed the way the flood narrative had been presented and used for the last 5 or 6 thousand years. They were the most surprised (and amused) when we read "The Miller's Tale" (Chaucer) and found the Flood even there in a rather rude sex joke. Of the 6 versions of the "flood" that we read, only the earliest Summarian version had the most empirical support. Does the geological, and archaeological fact that there never was a global flood mean that the Bible is worthless?

didn't Wolley...Sir Leonard Woolley? prove that the world as the bible knew it had been flooded? I didn't get a chance to finish it but I have been reading Excavations at UR and I remember other works (Charles Pellegrino comes to mind Return to Soddom and Gommorah) that seemed to back the statement that the biblical flood was a combination of fact, the fertile crescent and the areas around it flooded (as the Tigris and Euphrates often do), and legend (moses, ummm...Sumerian guy who found the plant who bestowed immortality. can't remember his name no time to look it up).


I trust, and hope that you know better.

Oh, I do. I'm a wonderer though. So I theorize and philosophize often times about random things like this. I think it's healthy. Thanks for your insights! I hope mine have answered your questions?

Onto Butters!

Butters...which is an awesome name...says:


Well, I don't know about that. The Bible claims that God freed the Hebrews from egyptian slavery through miracles, led them through the desert, where he gave his commandments to Moses.
Since it has been proved beyond any REASONABLE doubt that this never occured, then where is the foundation of Judaism, and Christianity? The Christians in particular have gone around claiming that their religion is supported by actual events in history, I think it's only fair now to point out, that scince that is not the case, their entire belief system relies on myth alone, like evey other religion.


Someone, my insane ex-girlfriend, who holds a B.A. in middle eastern archaeology (which may or may not state any sort of reliability) told me that a recent discovery in fact mentions the Jews in Egypt. Give me a while and I might be able to tell you if she was lying or not...she tended to do that.

Women...i tell ya. :bonk:

Before you go off declaring everything false. there are events in history which do corrolate or telescope into biblical mythology. King Nimrod has been proven to be the combination of several kings (hammurabbi, Herod to name a few) and if you go by the creative theory of Charles Pellegrino (i'm sorry, this book is good Return to Soddom and Gommorah) we would see the 7 plagues of Egypt coming true by way of the explosion of the Minoan peoples homeland.

It is my opinion to not make judgement, either way, until the entire truth is revealed. This probably means i'll live and die and my children's children's children might live and die too before i'd be willing to make a judgement but this is what I feel to be the proper course of action. Lest we simply gather more and more and more data, interpreting and reevaluating our data with nothing in the way of attatchement to the old data, we will probably never reach a single peaceful conclusion.

I Hope that made sense.

Thanks Butters!

Dr. GH says a little later before I had a chance to read the 1st thing he posted:


I recommend reading

Finkelstein, Israel, Neil Silberman
2001 “The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts” New York: The Free Press


Finkelstein had one of the most heated debates a couple of issues ago in Biblical Archaeology Review. I kinda felt sorry for him because they seemed to attack him but he made a lot of good points. I've been meaning to pick up his book and the somewhat counterpoint book which caused him to respond via interview in BAR.



Friedman, Richarrd Elliott
1987 “Who Wrote the Bible” New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition)
I actually am going to go watch a TV series called this on Monday for a paper I am writing on this very subject.

[quote]
You can order them through Amazon.com and probably through you college book store.



Good reccomendations!



You see, I have lived some years amoung people who believed in the supernatural just as we believe in the ordinary. They were people who lacked written language, and were quite ignorant of many things that we in the industrial, and literate world take for granted. Their certainty in their beliefs were no less profound than ours. Nor any less mistaken.

That is to say, the miracles of the staff of Moses are quite specific, aren't they? Each of the creatures destroyed by the his staff represetnted egyptian gods. The litteral events such as perhaps you or I would want to see on film (at 11, lol) didn't occur. Nor did subsequent events in the Sinai. Finkelstein and Silberman, offer persuasive data that these events can not be substantiated archaeologically. Does this alter their interpretive significance? I don't think that this is a necessary conclusion.


As I have read neither books I cannot make a statement at this time. I would say that while their intepetations are very well educated it would seem that a personal vendetta might be hidden in the ferocity of their work...but I cannot say for sure untill I read their respected works.

I very much appreciate the illiterate comparison. It would be interesting to think that if events had happened in egypt to an illiterate people, would these stories become so much more the fantastic as to morph into what we read in the bible?



The issue devolves to one group of bible readers who insist that their reading is somehow pure and perfect, and that any contradiction of their interpretiation is a violent attack on God. These peope allow for no deviation from their idiocentric Biblical interpretations and most incredibly they deny that they are "interpreting" at all!


I would venture to say that nothing is pure. Because nothing is pure and if we are indeed heading toward eventual deconstruction of all forms of ancient language structure that this will only get worse as time progresses.

Interesting stuff all around! Thanks guys!

Nick

:bonk:

[Butters]

Yog^sothoth, Your girlfriend is at least partially right. There is evidence that Hebrews were present in Egypt, of course there were no Jews at this time. However there is no evidence of a large population of Hebrews living in Egypt as slaves anywhere near the proposed time of the biblical exodus. There's no evidence at any time that all the firstborn children of Egypt suddenly died. That a million to a million and half Hebrews fled Egypt. There is no evidence of these people wandering the desert for 40 years. There is no evidence of anyone invading Canaan at this time. In fact it appears that the Jews were the Canaanites. of course this type of heresy is sure to be dismissed by many on this board, after all this is just physical evidence.

[Socrates]

Butterball has no idea of what he spruiks. The reason he wrongly thinks there is no evidence is because he's looking in the wrong place. He presupposes that the traditional Egyptian chronology is sacrosanct. However, it is based on second-hand accounts by the Egyptian priest Manetho (Fl. 3rd Century BC). However, it is likely that the standard Egyptian chronology is expanded by many centuries, because dynasties that were really ruling concurrently in different parts of Egypt were mistaken as consecutive.

After all, according to Manetho, Menes, king of Upper Egyp (i.e. upstream from the Nile) conquered the kink of Lower Egypt (in the Delta), and unified the two lands. But suppose later down the track, one Pharaoh has his capital in Upper Egypt, and au usurper sets up shop in the Delta. Is the first Pharaoh going to admit that he's no longer Ruler of the Two Lands. Meanwhile there is a rival dynasty. Manetho, in his desire to potrary Egypt as the most venerable civilization, a thousand years later recorded these two dynasties as consecutive when the were concurrent. Even secular Egyptologists have recognised this phenomenon during the Intermediate Periods where there was weakness.

Sir Flinders Petrie found some intriguing evidence consistent with the slavery, including "Asiatic" presence, tombs of babies, and a sudden departure, but he applied it to the wrong period in history (from Rosalie David, The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt: A Modern Investigation of Pharaoh’s Workforce, Guild Publishing, London, 1996):


It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt … . Their exact homeland in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined … . The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear.

Larger wooden boxes, probably used originally to store clothing and other possessions, were discovered underneath the floors of many houses at Kahun. They contained babies, sometimes buried two or three to a box, and aged only a few months at death.

It is apparent that the completion of the king’s pyramid was not the reason why Kahun’s inhabitants eventually deserted the town, abandoning their tools and other possessions in the shops and houses.

There are different opinions of how this first period of occupation at Kahun drew to a close ... . The quantity, range and type of articles of everyday use which were left behind in the houses may indeed suggest that the departure was sudden and unpremeditated.

Also, the Ipuwer Papyrus now in the Leiden Museum, Netherlands, has an intriguing Egyptian description of what seem to be the Plagues. Once again, it is mis-dated.


Nay, but the heart is violent. Plague stalks through the land and blood is everywhere … . Nay, but the river is blood. Does a man drink from it? As a human he rejects it. He thirsts for water … . Nay, but gates, columns and walls are consumed with fire … . Nay but men are few. He that lays his brother in the ground is everywhere … . Nay but the son of the high-born man is no longer to be recognized … . The stranger people from outside are come into Egypt … . Nay, but corn has perished everywhere. People are stripped of clothing, perfume and oil. Everyone says "there is no more". The storehouse is bare … . It has come to this. The king has been taken away by poor men.

But a simple shaving off of a few centuries would bring both these into line with Biblical history. Not only that, but as James and Rohl have shown, many other time lines start to make more sense if Egyptian chronology is shortened. E.g., as James put it, there would be no need to posit mysterious "Centuries of Darkness".

[Socrates]

Dr GH:Does the geological, and archaeological fact that there never was a global flood mean that the Bible is worthless?Does this incredible example of ipse dixit mean that all of Dr GH's arguments are worthless?

[Socrates]

Dr.GH:

I recommend reading

Finkelstein, Israel, Neil Silberman
2001 “The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts” New York: The Free Press

and,

Friedman, Richarrd Elliott
1987 “Who Wrote the Bible” New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition)I recommend reading critiques of these books, e.g. www.tektonics.org/bibleunrvw2.html and www.tektonics.org/REF.WWB_0060630353.htm. Just more boring anti-supernaturalistic dogma and blind acceptance of JEDP.

[Vorkosigan]

As I believe it, anthropologists as a rule must try and keep their own morals and beliefs as far from their studies as possible.

How do you mean this? For example, I would argue that your belief in the supernatural might give you a mode of empathy with others who believe in the supernatural that a metaphysical naturalist and atheist since 11 like myself might not have. I mean, I simply do not know what goes on in the heads of people who think that we didn't have rain today because they prayed for good weather (actually said at my son's Christian school today). I've never what it was like to be a believer. The whole of my cognizant life, I have been an unbeliever.

I think, very strongly in fact, that one's values can be a rich source of analytical and empathic understanding, properly handled, with alertness toward where your views color your experience, and where you might be reporting what you want to hear instead of what the locals are saying.

Vorkosigan

[Yog^sothoth]

The first rule of communication is, Don't be Ugly and don't let anyone else be ugly to you.

The Second rule of communication is DO NOT BE UGLY AND DO NOT LET ANYONE ELSE BE UGLY TO YOU.

Remember that and you'll excel in all walks of life. Now, onto page 2: the rest of the story.

That is a friggin awesome name: Butters says:


Yog^sothoth, Your girlfriend is at least partially right. There is evidence that Hebrews were present in Egypt, of course there were no Jews at this time. However there is no evidence of a large population of Hebrews living in Egypt as slaves anywhere near the proposed time of the biblical exodus. There's no evidence at any time that all the firstborn children of Egypt suddenly died. That a million to a million and half Hebrews fled Egypt. There is no evidence of these people wandering the desert for 40 years. There is no evidence of anyone invading Canaan at this time. In fact it appears that the Jews were the Canaanites. of course this type of heresy is sure to be dismissed by many on this board, after all this is just physical evidence.

There is no evidence does not mean that it would not have happened. There is just no evidence to support either way. As for 1.5 mil people....there weren't even that many people in Egypt, armies at that time were in the 1000s of men. Yet, throughout history we see numbers fudged in nearly all old text (josephus, thucydides, herodotus, et al). As to the canaanite thing, I can buy that. I've heard other theories as to random identities as to the caananite peoples as well as the phoenecians and the philistines. Study of history and archaeology show that there are many theories for the many thousands of years civilization has flourished.

and now, Socrates (I wonder if the real socrates was this tactless? I mean that in a nice way) says (in multiple posts even):



Butterball has no idea of what he spruiks. The reason he wrongly thinks there is no evidence is because he's looking in the wrong place. He presupposes that the traditional Egyptian chronology is sacrosanct. However, it is based on second-hand accounts by the Egyptian priest Manetho (Fl. 3rd Century BC). However, it is likely that the standard Egyptian chronology is expanded by many centuries, because dynasties that were really ruling concurrently in different parts of Egypt were mistaken as consecutive.


First, see above 2 rules, play nice. Second, I know very well that at any given time all we know about a cultures history could very well change in the blink of an eye. One discovery, one random find, one dig's results could change everything. This is true for every history out there. To suppose that something is wrong simply because it does not mesh properly with the bible is an admirable trait but, what if an unerring dating technique would date something differently?



After all, according to Manetho, Menes, king of Upper Egyp (i.e. upstream from the Nile) conquered the kink of Lower Egypt (in the Delta), and unified the two lands. But suppose later down the track, one Pharaoh has his capital in Upper Egypt, and au usurper sets up shop in the Delta. Is the first Pharaoh going to admit that he's no longer Ruler of the Two Lands. Meanwhile there is a rival dynasty. Manetho, in his desire to potrary Egypt as the most venerable civilization, a thousand years later recorded these two dynasties as consecutive when the were concurrent. Even secular Egyptologists have recognised this phenomenon during the Intermediate Periods where there was weakness.


That is very interesting. Really there is no way to figure out what really happened way back when. Unless you are H.G. Wells, the only real way to know is to have been there. Once we master the concept of energy mayhap we master time travel as well. Think of it! Historian takes on a much more exciting connotation! :yipee:

I have found my calling.



Sir Flinders Petrie found some intriguing evidence consistent with the slavery, including "Asiatic" presence, tombs of babies, and a sudden departure, but he applied it to the wrong period in history (from Rosalie David, The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt: A Modern Investigation of Pharaoh’s Workforce, Guild Publishing, London, 1996):


Asians are everywhere. They're like the Elvis of history. I saw a book...can't recall the name right now...about how an emperor sent an evoy of ships to america 100 years before columbus got there. Interesting stuff indeed! If they had simply stopped trying to entertain their emperor and went about exploring the world would be a very different place! Greetings from New China!



Also, the Ipuwer Papyrus now in the Leiden Museum, Netherlands, has an intriguing Egyptian description of what seem to be the Plagues. Once again, it is mis-dated.


Ipuwer...oh yeah. Socrates, do you happen to know the name of the papyrus...or was it a stone tablet, found recently? I think it was from the Sumerian culture. Just thought i'd ask. Thanks for the info!



But a simple shaving off of a few centuries would bring both these into line with Biblical history. Not only that, but as James and Rohl have shown, many other time lines start to make more sense if Egyptian chronology is shortened. E.g., as James put it, there would be no need to posit mysterious "Centuries of Darkness".

My favorite timeline right now puts Tuthmosis on the throne during the exodus sometime around 1628 B.C.

and after some very rude comments from socrates, he gets back to being somewhat nice and says:


I recommend reading critiques of these books, e.g. www.tektonics.org/bibleunrvw2.html and www.tektonics.org/REF.WWB_0060630353.htm. Just more boring anti-supernaturalistic dogma and blind acceptance of JEDP.

While I agree that mayhap these two-three authors have somewhat legendary ego's, I have to disagree with the context of your statement meaning that you seem to think that science should only deal with the supernatural. I think that this would lead to some very bitter, very angry, very confused individuals trying to figure out the secrets of life. For this reason and that reason alone I think that scientists should remain totally and wholly secular. Like the chinese versions of the lowest form of citizen, those who handled the dead, except somewhat higher ranked in society and exempt from the trials and tribulations of church and religion while at work. Mayhap that might be too much.

Vorkosigan, which stands for something...i think, or at least should. Names that begin with V that sound cool are hard to come by.


How do you mean this? For example, I would argue that your belief in the supernatural might give you a mode of empathy with others who believe in the supernatural that a metaphysical naturalist and atheist since 11 like myself might not have. I mean, I simply do not know what goes on in the heads of people who think that we didn't have rain today because they prayed for good weather (actually said at my son's Christian school today). I've never what it was like to be a believer. The whole of my cognizant life, I have been an unbeliever.


the goal of any anthropological study is that of complete and total detatctchment from the society or people or organisims you are studying. There was a..I believe Harvard student who was allowed to go into China and study their culture. While he was there his moral character came into play as he saw the government basically killing or forcing abortion on families who already had their allotment of children. He broke his code and sent american newspapers a story on this. He lost his career and any possible respect he might have had in his field. It might be cold to say but this is the goal of anthropology. Study organisims in their natural habitat. It is neigh impossible to have complete objectivity but the learned effort is nessecary in that regard.

and he goes on

I think, very strongly in fact, that one's values can be a rich source of analytical and empathic understanding, properly handled, with alertness toward where your views color your experience, and where you might be reporting what you want to hear instead of what the locals are saying.

The goal is not empathy. The goal is simple unnerving, objective unaltered natural environmental study. I'm not denying that in some cases, though i fail to think of a case right this second, this would make sense. But for the most part, it does not.

I hope that all makes sense! Thanks again! Thanks everyone!

:cheers:

Nick

[Vorkosigan]

Vorkosigan, which stands for something...i think, or at least should. Names that begin with V that sound cool are hard to come by.

I agree. Are you familiar with Lois McMaster Bujold? I took my name from her Vorkosigan Saga (http://www.dendarii.com/) of more than a dozen books, including 4 Hugo award winners. Well worth the time spent.

the goal of any anthropological study is that of complete and total detatctchment from the society or people or organisims you are studying.

I think the vast majority of cultural anthropologists would disagree with you. As a human you have empathy, sympathy, sexual desire, disgust....detachment from other humans, unless you are a sociopath, is impossible. You can't understand what is going on around you unless you engage with and in the culture, using your dual perspective of insider/outside to come to some understanding of what is going on, and explaining it from several angles.

Further, speaking as someone who has lived overseas his whole life, you cannot understand why others think and behave the way they do unless you can empathize with them, unless you live with them on their terms, learning their language, paying bills, dating, raising kids, cursing the traffic, and kicking back over the local brain-cell killer.

allotment of children. He broke his code and sent american newspapers a story on this. He lost his career and any possible respect he might have had in his field.

Naw. He didn't destroy his career over that. All over the world concerned anthrolopologists intervene against ethical outrages against original peoples. Such sympathies are the normal and inevitable result of close association, and no one regards them as any less scientists for it. Do you think that Napoleon Chagnon became unable to do fieldwork when he married a Yanamamo woman? Or did he in fact access some parts of life -- sex, children, women's gossip, menstrual taboos -- that he might not be able to access any other way? Chagnon is considered one of the top and most influential fieldworkers in the world, you know.

It might be cold to say but this is the goal of anthropology. Study organisims in their natural habitat. It is neigh impossible to have complete objectivity but the learned effort is nessecary in that regard.

I can't agree. I suggest you run this past a cultural anthropologist in her department and see what he or she thinks. You might be surprised at the answer.

Vorkosigan

[Yog^sothoth]

who do you think taught me this?

[Butters]

Well what a surprise! Socrates considers an authorless, dateless, piece of paper more reliable evidence than the physical evidence. So tell me, what date do you ascribe to the Papyrus Ipuwer? And how'd you arrived at that date? What date do you ascribe to the exodus? And how do you arrive at that date?

Of course I don't know why I'm wasting my time with someone who would cite J P Holding as a source. I don't pick the rantings of an ex librarian as a reliable source over educated and experienced archeologists that have actually worked in the field.

[Yog^sothoth]

If you are referring to the bible as a dateless piece of paper...don't they typically date the bible to somewhere around 7-9th century B.C.? Really though butters, you should follow my rule of communication!:whip:

[Butters]

Yesterday @ 01:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50182#post50182)
Yog^sothoth:

If you are referring to the bible as a dateless piece of paper...don't they typically date the bible to somewhere around 7-9th century B.C.? Really though butters, you should follow my rule of communication!:whip:

Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the Papyri Ipwur , however this does also apply to the Bible. I personally feel the evidence that theO.T. was written somewhere between the sixth and eighth century. The simple fact that this conclusion will be challenged and considering the fact that various scholars propose various dates for the ridings of the various books only proves that no one is sure of the dates at all. No one is sure to the authors are, but is generally assumed today that they were not written by the authors whose names are assigned to the various books. This is a big problem for me. Almost 2000 years in the Christian church has claimed authorship and date for both theO.T. and theN.T. that have since been shown untrue. We are told that these books are revelations given directly to men by God. But the only evidence we have for this is the word of these men, to be liars. We know that the Catholic Church, the Protestant church, and really every other church, has lied about their books, their history, their miracles, and their relics. So why should we believe them now? most Christians will point to the Bible, to show that yes, maybe some men had lied, but there are good excuses, all the while failing to miss the point that the Bible there reading out of, and their very idea of God, has come from these very same liars.

And yes, I should follow your rule of communication,
"Why do I do these things? Why can't I just be good?" -The original Butters

[Dr.GH]

Today @ 05:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50931#post50931)
Butters:

Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the Papyri Ipwur (as a dateless piece of paper. gh), however this does also apply to the Bible.


And, as regard to the Papyri Ipwur I might add this a good reason to be very hesitant to over interpretation its significance.


I personally feel the evidence that theO.T. was written somewhere between the sixth and eighth century. The simple fact that this conclusion will be challenged and considering the fact that various scholars propose various dates for the ridings of the various books only proves that no one is sure of the dates at all. No one is sure to the authors are, but is generally assumed today that they were not written by the authors whose names are assigned to the various books.

There is a gap between the archaeological studies of the mideast, and the textual scholarship conserning biblical chronologies, geneologies etc... that is seemingly narrowing. I personally lean toward the work published in :

Finkelstein, Israel, Neil Silberman
2001 “The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts” New York: The Free Press

Friedman, Richarrd Elliott
1987 “Who Wrote the Bible” New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition)

I am sure that there will be much new to learn, and that these are far from the final say (if there can ever be a final say in this matter). Further, a better understanding of the authors, and their situations also leads to a better understanding of the text.




This is a big problem for me. Almost 2000 years in the Christian church has claimed authorship and date for both theO.T. and theN.T. that have since been shown untrue. We are told that these books are revelations given directly to men by God. But the only evidence we have for this is the word of these men, to be liars.

Consider reading the Bible without regard to when, or by whom it is written. Are there portions that seem to speak wisdom? Then, there doesn't need to be "a big problem," but rather, a place to start reading. I read the Tao te Ching the same way. We don't know if "Lao Tzu" was a real person living in a short span of time, or a collective across many years. I don't see that this invalidates meaning of the text. It does tell us that we must be rather careful about demanding obedience to our edicts "based in Biblical perfection." Doesn't it?

[Blake Reas]

Does scripture have to be right?
Answer: yes

If not what are the implications?

Simple the Bible is not a trust worthy guide to anything. If it can err in history it can err in a lot of things: teachings about Christ, Salvation, Morals, etc. the list can go on and on. I would allow for a minor discrepancy here and there though I have never seen any good arguments. If the Bible is worthless like Lemche, Finkelston (to a lesser extent) and other say then Christianity should be abandoned. Archeology is a discpline where everything is interpreted by bias. Rocks do not talk you must give them interpretation that is why one person can see one thing and another something totally different. Dr. GH if you are an expert in Litereary Criticism and the OT I would like to see you Debat Gray Pilgrim over the JEDP theory since that is what the book you mentioned discusses. It would definetly be interesting.

By His Grace For HIs Glory,
Blake

[Blake Reas]

Consider reading the Bible without regard to when, or by whom it is written. Are there portions that seem to speak wisdom? Then, there doesn't need to be "a big problem," but rather, a place to start reading. I read the Tao te Ching the same way. We don't know if "Lao Tzu" was a real person living in a short span of time, or a collective across many years. I don't see that this invalidates meaning of the text. It does tell us that we must be rather careful about demanding obedience to our edicts "based in Biblical perfection." Doesn't it? [/QUOTE]
Hmm.....Doctor GH are you suffering from cognitive dissonance?

You want us to come to the conclusion that the Bible is no better than Lao Tzu and yet it speaks wisdom?

That leads to other questions that I doubt you can answer with out any satisfaction. What is wisdom?

What text should we be "careful" of that demand our obedience?

what justification do you have for drawing these lines?

Would you agree that Rocks do not speak that is is just our interpretation?

If so how do you know the two books you suggested are correct?

I could recommend two conservative scholars who come to very different conclusions what would you say to that?(kenneth Kitchen, James Hoffemeir, Gordon Wenham, Kenneth Kitchen: please do not just brush them off with a stupid comment either.)

Have you read any of these authors?

If not then how do you know you are right and they are wrong about Israel's history and the text of scripture?

I am really disillusioned from finding wisdom from a bunch ancient books if they do not have some divine mandate to them. I would rather read something more modern like Nietzsche (He wa a wise one!:duh: ).

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[Woman]

This is a good discussion on the whole. I would have to say that my own thoughts align most closely with Dr. GH's. I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. When I became disillusioned about Christianity at about 12 or 13 I went through the same stage that many young people do. I was angry that the church had lied to me. (RC) I became a raging atheist.

It's only as I matured into a person seeking truth without a lot of preconceptions, reading scripture and associated texts from many wisdom traditions that I have been able to return to the Bible with new appreciation. I know that the idea will be like fingernails on a blackboard to Biblical literalists, but it was after studying Eastern thought that I found some of the most profound meanings in Christ's words.

I think that in general Biblical archeology does have an agenda. And I also think there are atheist archeologists who would just be tickled to death to find Christ's tomb with a body intact. But I think they represent the minority. Most good archeolgists and anthropologists are just so fascinated with our human history that everything they learn is a joy.

It's sometimes hard for me to understand how seemingly hard-headed and stubborn people are who hold a view that they refuse to be challenged. But I have finally found a way to empathize. I have a natural positive outlook and believe on a very deep level that my fellow humans beings are decent. Given optimal circumstances I believe they can rise to goodness and even greatness...working to benefit all of mankind, consciously seeking to manifest love, producing creative works of art, literature, music, etc. that leave us all enriched. Thus, if someone came along and tried with every discussion to prove to me that man was evil, I would fight back. I image that is something like how some people feel when their religious beliefs are challenged.

Anyway, great thread.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 09:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65916#post65916)
Woman:

This is a good discussion on the whole. I would have to say that my own thoughts align most closely with Dr. GH's. I see no reason to through the baby out with the bath water. When I became disillusioned about Christianity at about 12 or 13 I went through the same stage that many young people do. I was angry that the church had lied to me. (RC) I became a raging atheist.
Actually you fail to see what I have said. I believe in inerrancy but I also could get by on a inerrancy that Donald Bloesch argues for which is very complicated but to make it short it can account for some minor errors.
I do not believe that if there are major errors you can hold your faith with any intellectual integrity. For instance if the Exodus did nto happen then the teachings about God there are not true because it was made up. Worse yet if the stories of Abraham are not true then there was not promise of Abraham.

[quote]It's only as I matured into a person seeking truth without a lot of preconceptions, reading scripture and associated texts from many wisdom traditions that I have been able to return to the Bible with new appreciation. I know that the idea will be like fingernails on a blackboard to Biblical literalists, but it was after studying Eastern thought that I found some of the most profound meanings in Christ's words.
Hmmm..... fingernails to biblical literalist I like that. What do you mean by literalist? someone who takes scripture for what it really says? That is nice if I read something contradictory it would enlighten me also.


I think that in general Biblical archeology does have an agenda. And I also think there are atheist archeologists who would just be tickled to death to find Christ's tomb with a body intact. But I think they represent the minority. Most good archeolgists and anthropologists are just so fascinated with our human history that everything they learn is a joy.

A minority? They need not be Atheist to have an agenda. Finkelston and his cohorts are not ATheist that I know of. Also There are political motivations.


It's sometimes hard for me to understand how seemingly hard-headed and stubborn people are who hold a view that they refuse to be challenged. But I have finally found a way to empathize. I have a natural positive outlook and believe on a very deep level that my fellow humans beings are decent. Given optimal circumstances I believe they can rise to goodness and even greatness...working to benefit all of mankind, consciously seeking to manifest love, producing creative works of art, literature, music, etc. that leave us all enriched. Thus, if someone came along and tried with every discussion to prove to me that man was evil, I would fight back. I image that is something like how some people feel when their religious beliefs are challenged.

I see anyone who has studied and come to the conclusion that the scriptures are the very word of God and that they just do not like to be challenged. But others who have come to the other conclusion are not motivated by other non christian motivations? This is absolutely ridicoulous. Also if you are pointing this at me just say so. I believe in Total Depravity which does say that man is evil but not as evil as he could be. We are capable of these things that you mention because we are imago dei!


Anyway, great thread.

Yeah I agree

Blake

[Woman]

Blake (by the way, cool new icon)

I did not have you in mind when I said that. I didn't know that you subscribe to something called Total Depravity. But it doesn't sound like something I would cotton to. :smile:

Here's the thing. I stated my honest thoughts and feelings and even the evolution of some of them. That you find my conclusions radically different than yours is fine by me. I'm sorry you can't feel the same way.

Blake:

I see anyone who has studied and come to the conclusion that the scriptures are the very word of God and that they just do not like to be challenged. But others who have come to the other conclusion are not motivated by other non christian motivations? This is absolutely ridicoulous.

I would try to rspond to this but I'm not sure what you mean. Could you state it another way or use an example?

[Yog^sothoth]

:bow:Blake, you totally rule, first of all. Now, to explain my feelings on things. :bunny:

The bible is the bible and will always be the bible no matter what anyone or anything has to say about it. It is a symbol of faith for those who believe, and maybe a symbol of pain and anger for those angered by what they think god did to them.

Exploration of the bible's meanings happens daily, hourly, like right this very second someone is challenging it and someone is loving the results and embracing Jesus and another is hating life even more.

In science, everything is questioned, everything is tested, retested, then tested again for good measure. Anthropology wants to be a science so bad it can taste it, but it suffers from this thing called interpretation. In science, you don't typically interpret anything, you exsist in a world of numbers and knowns that, although change, are relatively constant. Anthropology changes as often as the wind, each has his or her own opinion and each will defend it untill the death.

But there is nothing wrong with this.

Is there anything wrong with data which might, even with unbiased interpretation, prove the historical accuracy of the bible wrong? No, there is not.

The story of the bible doesn't change, the accuracy of the people doesn't change, the christian views and myths do not change. The bible withstands all tests. It's like....captain america's shield, it just can't break. It is our own interpretation of the bible which changes and it can do so on a whim, we could look at a verse and think about it and it can mean 1000000000 different things to us.



I see anyone who has studied and come to the conclusion that the scriptures are the very word of God and that they just do not like to be challenged. But others who have come to the other conclusion are not motivated by other non christian motivations? This is absolutely ridicoulous.


The aim of biblical archaeology is merely to recreate the time periods which exsist in the bible. In the completely objective mode, this is all it seeks. With people like Finkelstein (et al), we see an arguement of a different nature. His book is about when the bible was written according to the rhetoric and style of hebrew used in the oldest records we have found. Nothing ground breaking, but he aims to literally change the foundation on when we think the bible was written, and the times when we think David and/or Solomon ruled and what they ruled.

But yet, the bible does not change.

now for a piece of gasoline soaked wood to throw on the fire

It is my opinion that Anthropology is more objective than most think. It is through the unfortunate nature of evolution and biblical archaeology that the media comes in and takes certain liberties to fill in gaps found in journals published after major finds. By distorting the picture of what was actually found it cheapens the "liberal art" by adding it's own interpretations. If we would ditch the media, mayhap anthropology would find a science niche afterall...

That's my take on it anyway.

I'm glad my thread turned out so well! Thanks everyone!

Woman you rule.

Nick

[Woman]

Yog,

*blushing*

ummm, thank-you!

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 12:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65979#post65979)
Yog^sothoth:

[quote]:bow:Blake, you totally rule, first of all. Now, to explain my feelings on things. :bunny:


The bible is the bible and will always be the bible no matter what anyone or anything has to say about it. It is a symbol of faith for those who believe, and maybe a symbol of pain and anger for those angered by what they think god did to them.
Did Christ take it as just a symbol? No he quotes from it freely as if it where truly accurate. I am trying to be obedient to my Lord. He is also your Lord and I would like to know how you deal with Jesus being wrong on something. How can God be wrong about something? This may fit if you are an Open Theist but......well you know!:smile:


Exploration of the bible's meanings happens daily, hourly, like right this very second someone is challenging it and someone is loving the results and embracing Jesus and another is hating life even more.
Do I sense a tinge of Decontructionism or maybe relativism? Is there any meaning in the text what so ever?


In science, everything is questioned, everything is tested, retested, then tested again for good measure. Anthropology wants to be a science so bad it can taste it, but it suffers from this thing called interpretation. In science, you don't typically interpret anything, you exsist in a world of numbers and knowns that, although change, are relatively constant. Anthropology changes as often as the wind, each has his or her own opinion and each will defend it untill the death.

1) I disagree all knowledge is done with the presuppositions of the researcher. You would learn nothing if you did not have a foundation. Everyone has an interpretation but there is a right in
interpretation. Just some clarification here I agree with you, correct me if I am wrong.
2)I defineteley agree for the whole of what you said.


But there is nothing wrong with this.

I never said there was :smile: I was making the point that if Scripture is not true in any meaningful sense then our faith is worthless. The bible at least must be historical reliable. If it is historically worthless then what meaning does the Bible have since it was just interpeting myths?


Is there anything wrong with data which might, even with unbiased interpretation, prove the historical accuracy of the bible wrong? No, there is not.

Again I never said that and I think you misunderstood. I am making the point that if the Bible is false to a huge extent as Finkelston and the Copenhagen school want us to beleive then it is extremeley foolish to beleive in scripture. But after that if you are familiar with the TAG argument as for God then we are thrown into another world altogether. With out the God of Biblical revelation nothing makes sense.


The story of the bible doesn't change, the accuracy of the people doesn't change, the christian views and myths do not change. The bible withstands all tests. It's like....captain america's shield, it just can't break. It is our own interpretation of the bible which changes and it can do so on a whim, we could look at a verse and think about it and it can mean 1000000000 different things to us.

As much as I want to agree with you here I cannot. I think you are trying to give the Bible an existenial interpretaion. How are the Myths accurate? If they did not happen then what in reference are they accurate to? Is the Bible fiction? If it is fictional then what distinguishes it from the writings of the Greeks and their pagan gods? Faith? Total irrationality?




The aim of biblical archaeology is merely to recreate the time periods which exsist in the bible. In the completely objective mode, this is all it seeks. With people like Finkelstein (et al), we see an arguement of a different nature. His book is about when the bible was written according to the rhetoric and style of hebrew used in the oldest records we have found. Nothing ground breaking, but he aims to literally change the foundation on when we think the bible was written, and the times when we think David and/or Solomon ruled and what they ruled.

Completely Objective? I am sorry there is no such animal. You are stuck in the age of modernity, if postmodernism has taught us anything it is that everyone does interpret the evidence through there own grid. For instance William Dever admits he is an atheist or non theist I should say in his book about the Biblical writers. He has a naturalistic assumption therefore the Bible had to have been written just like anyother document. He is by no means objective and neither is the Christian who interpets the Bible. But there is a truth there we just have to work hard to find it.


But yet, the bible does not change.

Correct if it was once a piece of crap it will always be a piece of crap. Sorry for the stron language but it is very true. Here is a example if Jesus of Nazereth never existed then is Christianity still true? No, the same goes for the rest of scripture.


now for a piece of gasoline soaked wood to throw on the fire

Here is some kerosene.


It is my opinion that Anthropology is more objective than most think. It is through the unfortunate nature of evolution and biblical archaeology that the media comes in and takes certain liberties to fill in gaps found in journals published after major finds. By distorting the picture of what was actually found it cheapens the "liberal art" by adding it's own interpretations. If we would ditch the media, mayhap anthropology would find a science niche afterall...

You lost me Yog. Anthropology is still subjective I am not saying there is no objectivity but it takes a lot of hard work to get it. And the example of the Copenhagen school carries this out. They assume the Bible is worthless and then carry right on through with their deconstruction.


That's my take on it anyway.

It is appreciated.



:yipee:

[quote]Woman you rule.

Nick

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 09:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65929#post65929)
Woman:

Blake (by the way, cool new icon)

[quote]I did not have you in mind when I said that. I didn't know that you subscribe to something called Total Depravity. But it doesn't sound like something I would cotton to. :smile:

um....It is biblical but then again if you do not view scripture as a binding authority then I guess we would talk past each other wouldn't we?:smile: Anyway I want you to answer this for me if men are so good then why do things like the Holocaust, The kiling fields of Cambodia, Sept 11, etc the list goes on why do they happen if man is good deep down? Human evil far out ways the good we have done.



Here's the thing. I stated my honest thoughts and feelings and even the evolution of some of them. That you find my conclusions radically different than yours is fine by me. I'm sorry you can't feel the same way.

I have also, I questioned the faith for 2 years and it sent me on a journey of studying and soul destroyind doubt if you are familiar with Glenn Miller of Christian Think Tank I am kind of like him. I deal with doubt all of the time. I went on a two year ride of hell and I read a lot in the mean time but that is enough about that.
I came to the conclusion that scripture is the word of God and totally reliable in some sense and I will hold to inerrancy until someone shows me I am dead wrong. I have sympathies for a small Bloesch like interpretation of Inerrancy but I need to read more one it as I indicated in the above post scripture must be very reliable. I prefer inerrant but I could live with the other.

By His Grace For His GLory
Blake

[Blake Reas]

Blake:
[/quote]“ I see anyone who has studied and come to the conclusion that the scriptures are the very word of God and that they just do not like to be challenged. But others who have come to the other conclusion are not motivated by other non christian motivations? This is absolutely ridicoulous. ”



I would try to rspond to this but I'm not sure what you mean. Could you state it another way or use an example?[/quote]

Here is what I meant very plainly. When someone who comes to the conclusion that the Bible is inerrant like Kenenth Kitchen, D.A. Carson etc they are labeled fundamentalist and morons. But when and unbeleiver who comes to the scriptures with naturalistic monistic assumptions comes to a conclusion that says the Bible is not even close to what it claims to be they are hailed as scholars. This is what is ridicoulous. It is the fact that liberals just brush conservatives off to the side. I will give a few examples for years now evangelicals have made strong arguments for the authenticity of 1 and 2nd timothy but if you open up a non Christian commentary they do not even mention the evangelical arguments the same with the beloved Documentary Hypothesis. No one deals with the conservatives arguments they just ignore them and then revert to name calling like fundy or idiots etc. THis is unjust and shows that people do not want to believe the bible is true. That is what I have a problem with.

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[Socrates]

From Cambridge Encyclopaedia on Archaeology, page 424:


When the radiocarbon method was first tested, good agreement was found between radiocarbon dates and the historical dates for samples of known age (for example, from Ancient Egyptian contexts). As measurements became more precise, however, it gradually became apparent that there were systematic discrepancies between the dates that were being obtained and those that could be expected from historical evidence. These differences were most marked in the period before about the mid-first millennium BC, in which radiocarbon dates appeared too recent, by up to several hundred years, by comparison with historical dates. Dates for the earliest comparative material available, reeds used as bonding between mud-brick courses of tombs of the Egyptian Dynasty I, about 3,100 BC, appeared to be as much as 600 years, or about 12%, too young.

These differences were most pronounced in the period before about the mid-first millennium BC. This is where Dr Immanuel Velikovsky and Dr Donovan Courville claimed that centruies have been erroneously added to Egyptian chronology. They were followed by Peter James (Centuries of Darkness and David Rohl (Test of Time).

See also www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n1_moses.asp

[Woman]

Blake:

Anyway I want you to answer this for me if men are so good then why do things like the Holocaust, The kiling fields of Cambodia, Sept 11, etc the list goes on why do they happen if man is good deep down? Human evil far out ways the good we have done.

I don't think men are "so good." I just don't think they are "so bad." If I could give you a truly good explanation for how I feel about this, I'd write a book and get rich! Partly, it's a view I think I was born with and that is part of my personality. Partly it's because I see that man is capable of such empathy and compassion even under very bad conditions. I don't think men commit evil deeds because they are evil or because it gives them satisfaction. I think they are motivated by pain and fear. You might say I believe that fear is the absence of God or an error in thinking...that fear is the Satan part of the equation. In every situation that I can think of where I feel anger, envy, greed, etc. I can trace it to fear (error) in some way. I get mad when others disagree with me in ways I find rude or arrogant. Why? Because for a while I have forgotten that who I am does not depend on the good opinion of others. When I am envious of others for their accomplishments or what they have, it's because I have forgotten that someone's else's success does not prevent my own. There is not a limited amount of love and happiness in the world. Their joys only make me feel poor in comparison if I forget that my joy is my responsibility. I may for a time not feel like it's "fair" that the mean lady down the street has a new house and car and a rich husband, if I forget momentarily that those things do not bring happiness and that I don't know what's in her heart.

I know these are simplistic examples. But, there are human qualities that cut across all barriers sometimes. Iraqi men who put their own lives in danger to save a young American girl held captive. People who will give blood, bone marrow, time, money, love and compassion to complete strangers. Why? Have you ever caught the eye of a child or an old man on the street and felt a rush of love? Of course you have. Why?

If we were really evil we'd have destroyed ourselves centuries ago. Yes, horrors exist. Because pain and fear exist. But so does our desire to change it. And that's the holy part. That's the Godly part moving in us. I think that we're all full of faults. I think we hurt each other in great and small ways all the time. But we still keep trying. There are still things like Doctors without borders and humanitarian aid and angencies of all (and no) faiths that want to feed the hungry and save the children. We keep producing amazing people who dedicate their lives to finding cures, to teaching in the inner city, to risking their lives as policemen and firemen, to working hard everyday to deliver the mail, to make a living to provide for their families, to writing poetry that makes us go "ahhhhhhh" and symphonies that make us feel like God is singing a lullaby only for us. And while I'm on that subject, sure there are heros. But the man who goes to obeys the law, works year after year at a modest job, remains faithful to his wife and children, takes care of his parents...those are the real heros.

There are sunsets and the smell of alfalfa, soft breezes and trout streams and babies laughing and full moons and things too wonderful for words. And there are forums like this where sometimes for a moment a grouchy YEC from Australia and a smart mouthed skeptic like me can find something to laugh at and a reason to listen to each other with mutual respect.

There is a story for which I wish I could give credit but I forget the source. It was during the Holocaust, at Auschwitz, where every day for 2 weeks the guards had come to take more prisoners to be lined up and shot while forcing the others to watch. One of them who survived was relaying this terrible time and said, "every afternoon when more of my companions had been murdered before my eyes I returned to our horrible quarters and prayed with deep gratitude." The man who was hearing the story said softly, "yes, you must have been so grateful you had been spared." The Jewish man looked at him and said, "no, I was so filled with gratitude that I had not been hurt so badly by life that I was capable of such cruelty."

I figure if he could find something to be grateful for in that awful place, a way to feel compassion for his persecutors, then who am I to complain about my lot in life?

I do understand when you say you struggle with doubt. I am suspicious of people who claim they never do. But despite our doubts and fears and faults and sins and errors of understanding - we all want to love and be loved. That is not a small thing.

I can remember growing up when I'd be mad because I couldn't go somewhere or have something or hurt because I'd fought with my best friend or got a bad grade or any one of a hundred things that kids think are important because they haven't learned what really is. My Dad would grin at me and say, "Oh go find something to love." I knew what he meant. He meant, go read one of my favorite stories or call my friend and apologize or make my little brother his favorite peanut butter and jelly sandwich or play Brahams Lullaby on the piano. He knew it would make me stop feeling sorry for myself and open my heart up. When I was especially stubborn and pouted, he'd go to the barn and come back with a kitten or a baby chick and plop it in my lap. It's awfully hard to stay mad at the world when soft fur or feathers are under your fingers.

Bah! I've rambled and gotten sentimental - but that's okay I guess. The point is, there's too much that's good to make me believe that evil outweighs it. At our best, God manifests in our hearts and minds and causes us to love one another. At our worst, we've forgotten how to or are afraid to risk being hurt.

[Yog^sothoth]

Did Christ take it as just a symbol? No he quotes from it freely as if it where truly accurate. I am trying to be obedient to my Lord. He is also your Lord and I would like to know how you deal with Jesus being wrong on something. How can God be wrong about something? This may fit if you are an Open Theist but......well you know!:smile:


Ok, I can't resist. Why would christ take it as a symbol when he was the one who wrote it? I would argue that the bible Jesus knew and the bible we know today probably has a couple differences, contextually and historically. Again, this doesn't matter to those of faith. To have complete faith one must be non-objective. If something someone else finds makes you question anything in regard to your own faith you originally had a doubt anyway, so the bible has failed in this respect to that person. This does not decrease it's potency, merely it's probability and problamatic exsistence in that person's eyes.



The bible at least must be historical reliable. If it is historically worthless then what meaning does the Bible have since it was just interpeting myths?


I don't do this a lot but I have a semantical arguement here. Historically reliable and Historically accurate are two different things. Is the Bible Historically reliable? Definetly....errr.....spelling error...but it is not accurate, not totally. Herodotus, Thucydides, Josephus, Philo, all of these authors have also written accounts of historical importance which happened during their lives, and all of them contain a bit of exagerration and biasness for their respective nations. Army sizes, softened results of losses, pure and utter hatred of various enemies of the states, all of this stuff doesn't make a text totally inaccurate, just not a complete and total account of every aspect of everything that happened. That doesn't even happen today (CNN is a good example of late).

I hope that makes my point more clear.

Although, my point still remains that Woman rules. I wish I had more time to respond to things here but she usually holds and agress with points as I see them, so I guess I don't really need to be here!:yipee:

Thanks!

Nick

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 03:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67516#post67516)
Yog^sothoth:




Ok, I can't resist. Why would christ take it as a symbol when he was the one who wrote it? I would argue that the bible Jesus knew and the bible we know today probably has a couple differences, contextually and historically. Again, this doesn't matter to those of faith. To have complete faith one must be non-objective. If something someone else finds makes you question anything in regard to your own faith you originally had a doubt anyway, so the bible has failed in this respect to that person. This does not decrease it's potency, merely it's probability and problamatic exsistence in that person's eyes.

Thanks for replying Yog but all I can say to your comment about Jesus's Bible being different when Jesus had it is BULL! Textual criticism has recovered 99% of the original text of the NT and 90% of the Old these percentages are mostly grammatical and spelling errors. So your claim does not really hold up under any kind scrutinity what so ever. Like I said before everything some one does breaks down at some point to faith. Whether you deny it or not it is true.




I don't do this a lot but I have a semantical arguement here. Historically reliable and Historically accurate are two different things. Is the Bible Historically reliable? Definetly....errr.....spelling error...but it is not accurate, not totally. Herodotus, Thucydides, Josephus, Philo, all of these authors have also written accounts of historical importance which happened during their lives, and all of them contain a bit of exagerration and biasness for their respective nations. Army sizes, softened results of losses, pure and utter hatred of various enemies of the states, all of this stuff doesn't make a text totally inaccurate, just not a complete and total account of every aspect of everything that happened. That doesn't even happen today (CNN is a good example of late).

I would distinguish the Bible from other histories on many grounds manly because it deals with YHWH's actions through history and I fully agree that the Bible can be "biased" but reliable since Bias is not always wrong. Where I disagree to an extent is your claim of inflated numbers. Most of the numbers that have been said to be inflated can be shown through Text criticism to be slips of the pen by scribes. Also as to the Numbers for the Exodus it is very possible that they refer to units not literal people. I will have to get more on that though.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

I hope that makes my point more clear.

Although, my point still remains that Woman rules. I wish I had more time to respond to things here but she usually holds and agress with points as I see them, so I guess I don't really need to be here!:yipee:

Thanks!

Nick

[djdavo]

03-30-2003 @ 11:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48810#post48810)
Dr.GH:
Does the geological, and archaeological fact that there never was a global flood mean that the Bible is worthless?

I trust, and hope that you know better.


...funny.....i didn't know that was PROVEN fact.......


to answer your question, i think archaeology is what it is.....and people do it....good ones, evil ones, impartial and partial....

of course the bible is the single best reference book for the ancient world, so i suppose you HAVE to do 'biblical' archaeology in some context.

[Vorkosigan]

of course the bible is the single best reference book for the ancient world, so i suppose you HAVE to do 'biblical' archaeology in some context.

Hmm....where does the Bible mention the Incas, the Mayas, the Liao Dynasty, the Han, Chin, and Shang? Jomon culture and the Vedic hymns...? Perhaps you're a tad too geographically optimistic here, eh?

Vorkosigan