what do you say to the archeological innacuracies of the old testament?

[freethinker]

it seems to me a very strange that there can be new evidence that something didn't happen. Usually those things are established by a lack of evidence. However, if you have specific examples of this negative evidence it would be quite interesting to discuss it

I am a casual reader of ancient history, not an archaeologist so I am not qualified to discuss the topic. You are probably right about lack of evidence being used to establish what didn't happen.

An example of what digging in the sand has revealed is Jericho. It was found that Jericho was destroyed and deserted in about 1500 BC. This is relatively new evidence. It clashes with the story that Jericho was captured by Joshua in the 13th century BC.

[Pilgrim]

1400 to 1500, not such a big difference given the high, low, and middle dating differences for the period. Also, there are two sites for Jericho, are you sure you're reading or the person writing, is making a distinction?

[infide]

What do you think Living on this Earth is for? Pretty much every moment we live here is a 'second chance'.

I agree. Why suppose death is the final arbiter and not God?

Further, there is nothing, Biblically speaking or otherwise, the supposes that such divine mercy that exists in this life does not extend to the next.

Peace,
JD

[infide]

As Chaotic Void points out, we've already lived the chance. Should God give us a taste of Hell so that we know we shouldn't go there? Thats blackmail. What kind of freewill can we have if we're coerced to accept God because we're afraid of Hell rather than because we love our creator and those who love Him?

But in the eternal-punishment view, the fear of hell is often considered the number one reason to follow and have faith in God. Why isn't that the exact situation described here?

Perhaps when those who are separated from God find out what existence is like without God, they will understand their need for God, and be transformed in their hearts - we simply don't know. But the point remains - if the punishment is eternal there is no hope for correction for the better.

The type of people heading to Hell are the same type of people who make themselves their own god, and they're getting exactly what they ask for. An eternal existence outside of God and those who love him. I believe there are levels of separation (based on scripture) from God, but ultimately, that is what Hell is. If people don't want to be near God then that's their own choice.

I disagree. I think there are many, many reasons which would cause a person to reject God, including ignorance, hearing misrepresentations of God, being treated cruelly by religious people, etc. Thats not to say that such responses are inevitable or excused. But I think God still loves these people, and desires to be reconciled with them, before and after death.

Colossians 1:20 says all who are created, will be reconciled.

And since when does death have more power than the Grace of God?

Peace,
JD

[infide]

Perhaps to prevent them from become worse - more foolish, more dangerous, worse character.

Why would God do such a thing, if God intends only to continue punishing them? What does it matter if they get better or worse?

Further - since when was God content with the status quo?

Asserted, but not proven. At the very least, eternal punishment provides the opportunity to prevent a person from becoming worse than they would otherwise.

Huh? I said:

"unless they can become better - wiser, safer, better character.Eternal punishment provides no chance for such things."

Then you suggest that it could provide the chance to prevent them from becoming worse. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but the last time i checked, "not becoming worse" is not the same as "becoming better".

I don't believe God's plan is to keep God's Creation in a state of fallen-seperateness. At least, not according to Colossians 1:20, among other places.

Infide, you're going about this backwards. Yes, God is a loving Father. So the question you need to ask yourself is this: under what conditions might a loving father punish his/her children?

I am not questioning the idea of divine punishment, so this is moot.

I specifically am against eternal punishment.

Peace,
JD

[Chaotic Void]

I agree. Why suppose death is the final arbiter and not God?

Further, there is nothing, Biblically speaking or otherwise, the supposes that such divine mercy that exists in this life does not extend to the next.

Peace,
JD

Three things....

1) If God gives us so many chances now, why should he give us more in the next life?

2) Is there anything that DOES suppose that God's Divine Mercy extends to the next life?

3) If what you say is true, then why didn't God give The Devil a Second Chance in Heaven?

[Jezz]

Why would God do such a thing, if God intends only to continue punishing them? What does it matter if they get better or worse?

What does it matter???? If you love someone, then don't you want them to be the best that they can be, however weak that "best" is? See my example below.

Further - since when was God content with the status quo?

Whenever the status quo is the best result possible?

Huh? I said:

"unless they can become better - wiser, safer, better character.Eternal punishment provides no chance for such things."

Then you suggest that it could provide the chance to prevent them from becoming worse. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but the last time i checked, "not becoming worse" is not the same as "becoming better".

You are misunderstanding because you didn't read my entire sentence. I did not merely say "not becoming worse", I said (and I quote): "becoming worse than they would otherwise" (emphasis added).

For illustrative purposes, let us assume the existence of a "goodness scale" which goes from 0 to infinity. Zero is essentially when a person is completely destroyed by evil. God is at the infinity end of the scale. Any human being in existence is somewhere between these two extremes.

Now, suppose that there is a person who is currently a 5 on this scale, but through their own free-will actions are on their way to 0 (ie, complete self-destruction).

Suppose that, because this person is so hell-bent on self-destruction, there is nothing that God can do (without taking away their free will) that will not get them higher than a 5. In other words, there is nothing that God' can do to make the person better.

However, suppose that if God uses just the right punishment, then the lowest that this person can ever sink to is 1 rather than 0. In other words, although God's punishment will not make the person better than they are now, it will stop them from becoming worse than they would have become if God didn't punish them.

What should God do in this circumstance?

You stated that "unless the punishment makes the person better, then God ought not to do it". Well, in the scenario that I sketched above, God's punishment will not make the person better. Would your advice to Him be, then, that He not punish the person at all? If He took this advice, then that person would end up destroyed - is that really a better outcome?

Some people do actually hold to an annihilationist view, which argues that destruction is better than eternal torment. I disagree - I think that such arguments bear an uncanny resemblence to pro-euthanasia arguments. Human beings, being created by God, have intrinsic worth - to exist is always a higher good, no matter how tenuous their existence.

I don't believe God's plan is to keep God's Creation in a state of fallen-seperateness. At least, not according to Colossians 1:20, among other places.

I didn't say He would keep things in a state of separateness. But note that in Colossians 1:20, there is nothing that suggests everyone will enjoy the presence of God. For those who love to sin, the presence of God (which prevents sin) will seem like a punishment.

I am not questioning the idea of divine punishment, so this is moot.

I specifically am against eternal punishment.

But what you are failing to see is that the necessity of the former may lead to the necessity of the latter.

Punishment is what a loving parent does to a child who rebels, right? So what would a loving parent do to a child who rebels eternally?

[shunyadragon]

well it looks like the exodus didnt happen, and the patriarchs abraham isaac and jacob are probably just legends, and israelites came from within canaan and spread out gradually as a result of socio economic problems in canaan, the israelites werent the warring victorious party that joshua and judges makes them out to be....


Im not even finished with the book, but its basically saying that the old testament isnt historically accurate....

The topic should be narrowed somewhat, in part because there are two different types of problems in the topics you mention.

The first is simply the present lack of archeological evidence that a particular event took place, or a person existed at a specific time and place in history. This is not very conclusive concerning the credibility of the OT as a historical record.

The other is that the evidence directly conflicts with the Bible. The origins of the Isrealites, Biblical Exodus, and invasion of Canaan, is an example of a direct conflict between the archeological data and the Biblical record. the archeological evidence indicates that the Bible record may reflect a composite of oral legends, and some lesser actual events that took place. This is an interesting topic, but it has been addressed in different threads before.

[MattPalumbo]

Actually Archaeology has proven most of the old testament. The book you've reccomended is crap. Sorry.

[freethinker]

Actually Archaeology has proven most of the old testament. The book you've reccomended is crap. Sorry.

Give some examples, please.

[MattPalumbo]

Give some examples, please.

Sodom and Gomorrah and a local flood in Israel come to mind. I Can find you some videos on a bunch when I get home from school

[Kia ora]

That is one critical theory. Another suggests that there was a smaller (than reported) Exodus group that integrated with a Canaanite group when they arrived there. This would suggest that the "conquest" of Canaan was more of a "merger". I happen to currently favor this view, since I think it at least explains the merging of the Yahwist and Elohist OT sources. (Genesis 1 vs. 2 for example).

Oh. Okay. So the Bible is wrong.

[freethinker]

Sodom and Gomorrah and a local flood in Israel come to mind. I Can find you some videos on a bunch when I get home from school

Low probability. The five city whose ruins have been found south of the Dead Sea were destroyed 600 years before the Biblical event according to Biblical Archaeology.
Floods are geological events, not archaeological. That would be another topic.

[shunyadragon]

Sodom and Gomorrah and a local flood in Israel come to mind. I Can find you some videos on a bunch when I get home from school

These points fail for a number of reasons on your claim that archeology proves most of th eOT. First the evidence of the destroyed town and cities fitting the actual Biblical record is nothin more than conjecture at this point and the present dating does not fit the Bible well.

Second there is evidence of local and egional floods every where, but no catastrophic world flood anywhere. As previously noted this is geological and not archeologic evidence.

[popaface]

I don't believe that there is much evidence at all for anything in the OT.

There is no evidence of the conquest of Cannan, no evidence for the existence of a King David, no evidence for the existence of a Golden Age of Israel. These are masterful literary creations written by priests during the 5th-2nd centuries, informed by Ugaritic mythology, Babylonian/Mesopotamian mythology and Persian/Hellenistic mythology.

The issue though is that they are still the central corpus of three major world religions today and they have informed the Jesus story and the self-identity of the birth of Christianity as well as the Christian liturgical, sacramental and ceremonial history over the millennia. Just because they're not historical doesn't mean that we can't live in and by them. Mythology is central to what it means to be human.

Allan