|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: Kinji_2007]
#117381
03/15/07 17:01
03/15/07 17:01
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Okey, that makes sense, well I didn't quite understand what you meant with C+P, but now I know. Trust, me though, open that particular issue of Antiquities and check it, you'd be suprised... You can't check Antiquities with e-sword by the way, nor with BibleWorks for that matter. edit: you obviously missed my point, just go read the Antiquities issues. Don't worry I know about the 'topic notes' thing in e-Swords. Quote:
but I dont understand why you say they cant be accessed through e-sword
I used different words, "different words have different meanings", to quote your president. 
Cheers
Last edited by PHeMoX; 03/15/07 23:43.
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: PHeMoX]
#117383
03/15/07 17:32
03/15/07 17:32
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
Okey, that makes sense, well I didn't quite understand what you meant with C+P, but now I know. Trust, me though, open that particular issue of Antiquities and check it, you'd be suprised...
You can't check Antiquities with e-sword by the way, nor with BibleWorks for that matter
why not? it seems to be available here i have never read any of them personally but I dont understand why you say they cant be accessed through e-sword  You are talking about "antiquities of the Jews" by Flavius Josephus?
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: Kinji_2007]
#117384
03/15/07 19:03
03/15/07 19:03
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,973
Bay Area
Doug
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,973
Bay Area
|
Quote:
...if you take a "good" man and watch as he applies the principles in the Bible.. he will be a better man. Much better.
So a better man would kill the Starbucks employee that made me coffee last Sunday? (Exodus 35:2).
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: Doug]
#117385
03/15/07 19:06
03/15/07 19:06
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 183
Kinji_2007
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 183
|
Depends on how the coffee tasted. O_O
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Unless you are interested in a history lesson... why are you way back in exodus? Following every word that Jesus spoke is hard enough considering the weak-minded people we are today. Why go back to the OT when you KNOW you cant live by those rules. lol Sorry, the weak-minded part will surly catch negative attention. I compare our present generation to people like Jesus, Paul, John and so on.
Last edited by Kinji_2007; 03/15/07 20:12.
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: Kinji_2007]
#117386
03/16/07 02:28
03/16/07 02:28
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,234
Wisconsin USA
FoxHound
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,234
Wisconsin USA
|
So it's ok to be gay then?
---------------------
There is no signature here.
QUIT LOOKING FOR ONE!
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: FoxHound]
#117387
03/16/07 04:03
03/16/07 04:03
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
I do not intend to prove that the bible is errant. The bible is not more errant than Shakespeare's 'Hamlet'. It only becomes errant when you misunderstand it as a historic, geographic, or scientific record. The error is in the interpretation, not in the bible.
What's interesting to me is that its incredibly reliable when it comes to historical, geographical facts. With the exception of scientific facts on the age of the earth, and the origin of humanity.
Quote:
Your impression is wrong, but national pride was just the reason for the writing of Genesis 1.
So we're hearkening back to the "old school" of biblioskepticism? Along with the JEDP hypothesis I see.
Quote:
Now you see the problem of apologetics: when attempting to adapt bible sentences to today's science, you must utterly change their meaning.
The fact that there are some, rather shallow, similarities between the Hebrew and Babylonian myths is little more than ambiguous evidence that tells us just about nothing. For all we know they both descended from a common source, and that's why they're so similar, and its the Babylonians that turned the myth to fit their culture better, while the Hebrews retained a myth that stayed closer to its source. Careful with that sort of idea, though: its dangerous thinking.
Quote:
It's tempting to ask for an example, but in your view there probably must be many cases, so I guess this would result in a futile attempt of trying to understand and probably make the entire discussion go right back to square one. Comments like yours are a bit too easy to make without backing them up though,
I can see what you're saying, since you're still entertaining that Jesus Myth tripe. The only "scholars" that reject a minimalist description of Jesus Christ in the antiquities, are the same who claim Jesus never existed. Otherwise scholars of all stripes concede that (with as much certainty as one can hope for), Josephus is making a pretty unambiguous reference to Jesus.
But why not an example? I've run into plenty of them, so I'll try and scrape one up.
Oh, I totally ripped this guy a new one on the issue of slavery just a little while ago. I mean, this guy is a fundy atheist to the core. You can shove all the evidence you want in this guy's face, and he will refuse to budge.
But I finally piled on so much of an argument that he didn't have so much as an argument from emotionalism for me. That may not sound amazing to you, but I was proud.  Especially on such a touchy issue.
There are better examples, and when I think of one I'll let you know.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 03/16/07 04:04.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#117388
03/16/07 06:19
03/16/07 06:19
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
For all we know they both descended from a common source, and that's why they're so similar, and its the Babylonians that turned the myth to fit their culture better, while the Hebrews retained a myth that stayed closer to its source.
The Enuma Elish was written on tables in 1200 BC in Babylon, and is therefore the oldest written creation myth we know. Back then, the Hebrews were still nomadic tribes and had yet to invent writing. Their version (Genesis 1) was written 700 years later in the Babylonian Exile. Sure, both versions obviously have a common source, but which version was derived from which one?
Quote:
What's interesting to me is that its incredibly reliable when it comes to historical, geographical facts. With the exception of scientific facts on the age of the earth, and the origin of humanity.
Some geographical and historical facts in the bible are correct, some are wrong.
Genesis 2: "A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there. The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates."
If you look this up in a map, you'll find that the Tigris indeed runs along the east side of Assur - correct so far. But the Tigris and Euphrates don't spring from a common river - which would have been be a geographical curiosity anyway, as rivers normally only separate in a river delta. And the land of Cush (Sudan) lies on an entirely different continent.
3 facts, 2 of them plain wrong - hardly "incredibly reliable", won't you agree?
For all we know, Genesis 2 was written between 900 - 1000 BC by an author dubbed "Jahwist" by historians. The location of Tigris, Euphrates and Cush were known at that time. So we can assume that either Jahwist was not very educated, or he intentionally mixed up geography to describe Eden as a mythological place that could have been anywhere. In that case the text does not contain mistakes. It only becomes wrong when misunderstood as a geography book - and then causes the typical funny apologetic explanations that I've read, such as "the land Cush was washed from Asia to Africa by Noah's flood..." 
|
|
|
Re: Bible apologetics
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#117389
03/16/07 06:29
03/16/07 06:29
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
For all we know they both descended from a common source, and that's why they're so similar, and its the Babylonians that turned the myth to fit their culture better, while the Hebrews retained a myth that stayed closer to its source. Careful with that sort of idea, though: its dangerous thinking.
Some asian countries have (had) myths that are similar to some western or middle-eastern myths, things like that still don't prove much nor which one was first, the others could simply have been the last to write it down...
Quote:
What's interesting to me is that its incredibly reliable when it comes to historical, geographical facts.
With the exception of the exodus, the massive field battles, the global flood, shape of the earth, and and and.. sorry, but there are really a lot of things that are questionable at least, so I wouldn't call the bible very reliable as a historical source. I understand why you wish to defend that point of view anyway though.
Quote:
The only "scholars" that reject a minimalist description of Jesus Christ in the antiquities, are the same who claim Jesus never existed. Otherwise scholars of all stripes concede that (with as much certainty as one can hope for), Josephus is making a pretty unambiguous reference to Jesus.
This is probably something you've picked up at one of those christian sites, because there's convincing evidence to be found inside some of the original writings about this source, which not only strongly suggest that some parts of that particular text were added as interpretations, not as translations, but also that it was added on a later date. I don't think I can convince you, but you should look it up.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
