"But it was Written by Ignorant Desert Dwellers"

[Adrift]

The development of the character Satan is an interesting thing in its own right.

You're sort of jumping all over the place here. I know this is a topic of great interest for you, but I really only jumped in to discuss your issue with Isaiah 25:8, and 1 Corinthians 15:54. I don't really have the time to respond to each new point in detail. I'll try to engage this post, but I'm not sure how many others I can do the same for.

In Job Satan is ha satan- the advesary. This is not a specific evil character, but rather it is a role within the divine council.

Yes, I know. I don't think that its actually fair to say that Satan is not an evil character in Job. I don't think we really know enough about what the author of Job thought of Satan to come to that conclusion. Whether in a court of law or not, an adversary or an accuser against a righteous man does not paint Satan as a purely benign character. And though he may be part of the divine council, the wording in Job 1:6 is interesting. The Divine Council seems to be already gathered, but Satan is introduced in the following way "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them...". Its as if Satan wasn't part of the council's in-group. In fact, the Lord has to ask Satan, "From where have you come"? (A side note, and I'm sure you'll dismiss this because of its late theological undertones, in traditional Christian theology, God is omniscient. When God asks a question like "from where have you come" it isn't to fill the gaps in his own understanding, he's asking to drive the point home to the addressee or to the reader of the exchange.) The dialogue that follows offers a picture of spiritual being that shares similarities with the serpent in Genesis 3, and they're eventually revealed to be the one and the same in later tradition.

This character's role is to bring forth charges and is common in Semitic and Mesopotamian literatures regarding the divine council bureaucracy.

Fair enough. I'm curious, what's the name of the direct parallel to the ha satan adversary type character in the Canaanite divine council?

Interestingly enough the bible also spends a great deal of time equating Baal with Satan.

Sure, and that makes sense to me. Baal was a competing deity (or number of deities as I understand it). In later revelation we learn that Satan's goal is to usurp the Creator and attempt to rob him of glory even after his fall.

Beelzebub is a play on the zbl b'l . Prince Baal becomes Lord of the Flies in a great piece of polemic.

Yes.

In Canaanite literature it is Baal who fights Leviathon and Yam. In Israelite literature Yahweh fights Leviathon and Yam.

Yahweh fights Leviathan and Yam? As I understood it Yam/Lotan is supposed to be identified with Leviathan. Baal fights Yam, Yahweh fights Leviathan.

The modern theological explanation forgets the original conflict and equates its original combatants into one force.

When exactly was it forgotten do you think? But yes, I agree that the original combatants were combined into one force, and I believe the reason for that is because Jewish theology doesn't rely on Canaanite theology, but simply borrows familiar imagery for their independent interpretation of the spiritual realm.

For the modern believer there is no conflict because they are practicing a living theology which has for thousands of years changed and has eventually become 'the explanation'.

That's correct. Jews and Christians believe that God has progressively revealed himself and the spiritual realm throughout history. Heck, that's why we have books titled things like "The Revelation"

Cameron wasn't trying to make a theological point drawing upon his cultures past whereas the writers of the bible were.

I think my point stands.

This is a good overview of the Topeth. However in Jeremiah it is repeated many times "which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind." This is a denial....I didn't do it. The denial implies an accusation-namely that the practitioners (even if in error) thought that it was an acceptable thing. Strong claim I know. Please read Ezekiel 20. This chapter has Yahweh saying that he gave statutes that were horrible so that they might fear him...specifically the statute to burn their sons and daughters.

Mmm... I disagree with how you've framed these events.

God clearly and repeatedly tells Israel NOT to commit idolatry over and over and over again. The problematic verse in question is specifically Ezekial 20:25-26. After spending the whole chapter detailing rebellious Israel as they constantly crave and go after pagan idols despite warning after warning to avoid these things we finally get :

Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.

This whole passage isn't exactly ringing endorsement from God, and I'm sure the skeptical historian might be inclined to squeeze out of this one verse that there was a period in Israel's history where God wholeheartedly approved of idol worship and child sacrifice (or that the practitioners thought that God wholeheartedly approved of the same), but another (and I think better) interpretation is that God simply got to the point where he allowed Israel to fall away so that they might reap the negative consequences of their stubborn, rebellious, and lustful hearts. The laws that were “not good” likely refers to the infiltration of pagan customs from the surrounding nations, not ancient practices re-explored, or new commandments laid down. At worst the law that is in mind is a misapplication of Exodus 34:19 that ignores the rest of the passage that refers to animal sacrifice.

Anyways, the book of Acts goes into a same sort of giving-over that God does during the events leading up to the Golden Calf and the Exodus:

Acts 7:38b

(speaking of Moses) This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us. Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him aside, and in their hearts they turned to Egypt, saying to Aaron, ‘Make for us gods who will go before us. As for this Moses who led us out from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’ And they made a calf in those days, and offered a sacrifice to the idol and were rejoicing in the works of their hands. But God turned away and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets:
“‘Did you bring to me slain beasts and sacrifices,
during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?
You took up the tent of Moloch
and the star of your god Rephan,
the images that you made to worship;
and I will send you into exile beyond Babylon.’

And Paul touches on a similar situation in Romans 1

Romans 1:24-32

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

There is also the precedent of Abraham being rewarded for his willingness to sacrifice Isaac.

Who's hand was, of course, stopped.

For arguments against my points (but with concessions) see John Day Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan pg 213-216). However, this is taken up in more depth by Mark S Smith in The Early History of God pages 171-181).

Thanks for the resources. I'll check them out. I don't really have time to reply to the rest, though I'll check out your other resources, and thanks again. Though he's got some pretty unique ideas concerning his other areas of interest, Heiser is not a Mormon, he considers himself an evangelical Christian.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Mountain Man]

Personally, I wouldn't make too much of the God and Satan dynamic in Job since it's likely an embellished retelling of a true event.

[Nathan Poe]

Personally, I wouldn't make too much of the God and Satan dynamic in Job since it's likely an embellished retelling of a true event.

Not necessarily disagreeing, but how do you figure?

[The Pixie]

Why? Because you have already made up your mind that God doesn’t exist therefore, it’s impossible? Isn’t that called assuming before the evidence is presented?

I said why in the very next sentence.

So because your biasness against miracles, it’s impossible because it didn’t happen

Oh, does that make it impossible? Well, if you say so...

So you have decided, without any sort of reason or logic, which he is either lying or mistaken before you even look at the evidence before you to see what you got? Can I do that next time you make a claim I disagree with? Just assume you are wrong from the start?

What on Earth are you talking about, lpot?

I asked for evidence. I did not say he was mistaken, I did not say he was lying. I have reserved judgement until I see the evidence.

And yes, that is exactly what you should do!

I would research it before hand...

Would you? And how would you do that?

Personally, I asked him to show some evidence. That is research.

Perhaps you should think this through before mouthing off, eh, lpot?

A picture of a stack of books is evidence? So if I run out and take a picture of a stack books, does that actually mean I read everything those books said and understood it?

Do you know the difference between evidence and proof, lpot?

The pile of books was evidence. It was not proof.

Now in the case of Raphael, what evidence is he supposed to present? A video? What if you say it was edited, could he prove it wasn’t? How about before and after X-rays, can you just say those were photoshopped or taken from two different X rays and how is he suppose to prove it? He can’t. So what sort of evidence will convince you? The answer is, none will convince the person that is dead set on doubting.

As I said before, a newspaper report and even better an article in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

[Mountain Man]

Not necessarily disagreeing, but how do you figure?

Things like the detailed exchange between God and Satan (I'm not aware of any other such records in the Bible) and other curious storytelling devices like a servant giving Job bad news, and just as he's finishing, another servant appears with even worse news, something that happens multiple times throughout the narrative. My take is that Job was a real man and his experiences as related are essentially true, but I don't believe that the book of Job is literally true as written.

[Nathan Poe]

Things like the detailed exchange between God and Satan (I'm not aware of any other such records in the Bible) and other curious storytelling devices like a servant giving Job bad news, and just as he's finishing, another servant appears with even worse news, something that happens multiple times throughout the narrative. My take is that Job was a real man and his experiences as related are essentially true, but I don't believe that the book of Job is literally true as written.

Interesting. My own take on it is something similar.

I think the basics of the story came from somewhere else -- maybe a true story, maybe folklore -- and the interactions between God and Satan were added later. There's a theme of "why bad things happen to good people," but whether that was part of the original story or added at the same time as the God/Satan dialogue is unknown.

[showmeproof]

Adrift,

These are all ideas worth discussion. I want to be brief here though because I think we are bogging down the thread with the details. Please feel free to bring the discussion into the Canaanite pantheon and Israel's Polytheistic roots thread and we can shoot ideas back and forth there. My main intention in this thread was to draw awareness to what the Biblical writers believed about the time of the patriarchs versus what we actually know about that time period. Digging into that is the first and foremost challenge, in my opinion, to the intent of the OP.

Sorry to the OP for bogging this down with the nitty gritty details.

Quick answer to the title of the adversary role in other divine councils- I'm not sure about Mesopotamia. However, as far as I am aware, in Canaanite literature there isn't a specific title, but rather the role can be filled by any of the deities and bring charges against other deities in the presence of El. The adversary is identifiable by the charges brought forth in accusation in much the same manner the adversary does in Job. Psalm 82 is unique in that in this setting Yahweh is judge, adversary (prosecutor), jury, and executioner.

[Raphael]

About seven months ago I drove into a rock wall going about 75 miles per hour. Myself, my wife, and my two year old son were all unharmed...not a scratch.

I'm glad that your sister's legs straightened out.

Now what of the Muslim who has an equally improbable story to relate?

I would quite happily chalk you and your family being completely unharmed from the accident to being a miracle.
As I commented to PMan, I am quite prepared to accept the story a Muslim may bring up as well. I may not attribute it to God being the source of the miracle in that case, but I would be quite prepared to accept his claim that a supernatural event happened

That is an amazing story, and I am not surprised that those present considered it a miracle, but from the perspective of others reading about it on TWeb, this is just a claim by some guy on the Internet, so I hope you will understand if some of us are skeptical.

Such an event would, I assume, be quite famous locally. Are there newspaper reports available on-line? Even better, is the event recorded in the medical literature? As the medical profession were involved in the case, it would be especially convincing if you can find an article written by the girl's doctor describing in medical terms her condition before and after. I am very glad for your sister that this happened, but as I said, I am not going to believe this is a miracle merely on your testimony on an internet forum (not that I will necessarily believe it anyway, but I will certainly find it more believeable).

There was no internet 35 years ago, so I cannot point you to any online stories, and my parents didn't run off to the media to sell their story.
I have emailed my father asking if he happens to have a copy of the medical records (he might not, they moved here to NZ last year and had to toss most of their stuff).
Baring that, as my folks were fostering my sister at the time (they hadn't adopted her yet), she was a ward of the state, so I could see if I can get her to put in a request to the South African Govt for the records to see if they still have their records from 35 years ago. (which is a bit of hit and miss with the SA govt)

Unrelated to me at all, there are organisations like World Christian Doctors Network who do work on proving particular cases are the result of prayer. (they have 53 case studies where they have gathered together and come the conclusion that it is medical evidence of a clear miracle.)

shunyadragom has already touched on how God is awfully selective with his miracles; there does seem to be a tendency for Christians to attribute everythiong good to God, and everything bad to Satan or to free will. I have a relative who contracted polio as a child (some sevety years ago now), and has been unable to walk ever since. She too is a Christian, so it makes me wonder why God is so capricious.

As I said to Shunya, I cannot answer why God chose to heal my sister, and not my sister-in-law who is dying of cancer. I never pretended to have that answer, what I cannot deny however is that a miracle did happen with my sister, she was healed. And I know of others who have been healed. and I know of others who have been healed of various ailments, and I've heard testimony of people I trust of them seeing people healed.

[Doug Shaver]

I don't know if this question has been raised before but I wanted to discuss a common statement that is often made by Bible skeptics when dismissing the Bible. That is to call the writers of the Bible "ignorant desert dwellers". The comment is usually along the lines of "why should I base my life, morals and beliefs about the universe on the scribblings of some bronze age desert dwellers who herded goats?" They would usually make some comparison to the modern world and the knowledge and understanding we have today. The questions I have are as follows:

1. Does living in ancient times and living in the desert necessarily make people ignorant in some or all areas of life making them less credible?

Much is known now that was unknown to people of ancient times. So, with respect to modern knowledge, they were ignorant. That does not mean that they were our intellectual inferiors. They also knew a lot of things that we moderns do not know. But, if we had lived in their place and time, we would have known them, too, just as they would know what we know if they had been born in our time and place.

As for the credibility of the Bible's authors, there is no way to assess that without knowing something about those particular people. If only one percent of the people in ancient Judea knew how to write, it doesn't make a bit of difference what the other 99 percent knew or didn't know.

Were some more educated and capable than others?

That is highly probable.

Can you for example dismiss Paul or Luke as "ignorant desert dwellers?

I would not.

[lilpixieofterror]

I said why in the very next sentence.

Oh, does that make it impossible? Well, if you say so...

I see irony is beyond your understanding. Sorry, I'll try to be more literal with you next time I say something.

What on Earth are you talking about, lpot?

I asked for evidence. I did not say he was mistaken, I did not say he was lying. I have reserved judgement until I see the evidence.

And yes, that is exactly what you should do!

So what evidence you want is evidence beyond the ordinary, you want several documents to be produced that are not always produced or around in order for you to believe anything that goes against your pre-convinced notions. In essence, you have set the bar so high, you will not believe anything that you do not want to.

Would you? And how would you do that?

Personally, I asked him to show some evidence. That is research.

Perhaps you should think this through before mouthing off, eh, lpot?

I didn’t ‘mouth off’ at all idiot, but you seem to want so much evidence for things that go against your notions, you’ll never have to believe it. Nice system you got working for yourself there, so no matter what, you never have to believe it.

Do you know the difference between evidence and proof, lpot?

I do child, but how is taking a picture of a stack of books evidence that a person actually read that stack of books? I hate to burst your fantasy bubble little boy, but people can say things that are not true or exaggerations about ‘ordinary claims’ as much as they can about ‘extraordinary claims’.

The pile of books was evidence. It was not proof.

It was neither because child, I can run down to a library or search Google for a picture of a stack of books. Does that mean I read them all and understood everything within? It is cute though that you are trying to back technical definitions up, but I guess when you have no real arguments, try arguing over definitions and try to bog the conversation down that way because you are running out of excuses.

As I said before, a newspaper report and even better an article in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

So eyewitness testimony isn’t enough, you want tons and tons of things before you’ll believe it. Nice, but what sort of ‘peer-reviewed medical literature’ is going to be around for a case 35 years ago, in South Africa? You are aware not everything medical is found in medical journals and newspapers often collections of eyewitness testimony, no different then what was produced here, right?

[Mountain Man]

And there's still the matter that he will only dismiss it as a freak natural occurence whether evidence is provided or not, so why does he even bother asking?

[SarahB]

There's nothing in Christianity that commits one to believing that supernatural occurrences only happen for believers, or that God's providence is a fringe benefit exclusive to Christians. Matthew 5:45: "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

What constitutes a miracle? What constitutes sufficient evidence to believe miraculous claims? Why ought one believe a miraculous claim without being provided sufficient evidence? Should one make assertions of a miracle without providing sufficient evidence? Are there miracles which are self-evident, incontrovertible?

The word miracle gets tossed around to the point it has nearly lost any meaningful effect. For instance, the Hudson River landing by Capt Sullenberger.

"It was a miracle no one was killed. Thank you, Jesus."

What if only one person survived?

"It was a miracle. Thank you, Jesus."

What if the plane missed the river and all aboard died?

"It was a miracle no one on the ground was killed. Thank you, Jesus."

What if some on the ground died?

"It was a miracle more on the ground weren't killed. Thank you, Jesus."

What if it hit a skyscraper and thousands died?

"It was a miracle that a ticketed passenger had a flat tire and missed the doomed flight. Thank you, Jesus."

Miracle claims are a dime a dozen.

[Sparko]

It's a miracle that SarahB remembers how to breathe, she's that dumb.

[Nathan Poe]

It's a miracle that SarahB remembers how to breathe, she's that dumb.

And yet she raises a valid point: "miracle" seems to be a subjective term.

[lilpixieofterror]

And yet she raises a valid point: "miracle" seems to be a subjective term.

I would agree that it is, but do you think a young women being healed from a serious medical condition, in an instant, qualifies as a miracle?