Not just that... but when you use it to counter his position... it becomes irrelevant.
Can't quite figure that one out yet.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?
- Thread starter kai
- Start date
Can't quite figure that one out yet.
outhouse
Atheistically
The problem here is you look like you don't have the intellect to understand that you have not countered anything.
You don't understand the difference, you cannot even comprehend between what a majority position is and a minority position.
Your reasoning Is so poor, you don't understand that because a minority argue against evolution, it does not change its status from FACT. YEC are NOT correct because a minority argue against this known and taught FACT of evolution.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Actually I study history at a very high level here. And I have been very honest about my education here. And I post as truthful as one can.
I have not seen that out of you. The world views this event as mythology. Same with the flood and many other events written as "theology" not history.
Your problem is not seeing the forest through the trees. Your focusing on the tree forgetting the theology.
The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος exodos, "going out") is founding myth of Israel;
I know the truth bothers you, but you will have to get used to it. We are not going back to the ancient times where people literally lived mythology day in and day out.
Education and knowledge have taken precedence over mythology.
I apologize Jonathan. It must have just skipped my peripheral view. Wasn't trying to avoid it--even had to go back to see whom you were waiting for.
I hope it is OK to use some info from the Bible as a backdrop. For an example:
When Jacob (also known as Israel) reached Egypt, there was 66 people who had come with him. Gen 46:26So the total number of Jacob's direct descendants who went with him to Egypt, not counting his sons' wives, was sixty-six. Obviously with a total of 66 people, we aren't going to have evidence of such people. To look for evidence of 66 people would be impossible IMO.
We also have the hurdle to overcome in reference to archaeology. It is a painstaking effort since there has been wars, destruction, floods, etc. There have been things that people said never happened and never existed, but then archaeological discoveries changed their position. I just searched the internet and here are some:
Then you have the problem of differing views of what is found. Example: Solomon's signet -- well, it could be a different Solomon or a Solomon of a smaller nation (or however else one wants to look at it). There will be disagreements until further discoveries nail it one way or the other.
So, if 66 went to Egypt and then grew under slavery, we would first have to look there and see about possibilities. Without spending too much time finding something on the internet, I simply went to the first one I found. I do not know the author but the general information is a "proposed" possibility that has been floated by many and argued against by others.
Joseph, Egypt and the Hyksos...
One could argue whether it is right and another could argue about it being wrong. With none of us having lived at that time, perspectives can abound. But it does match Biblical understanding and it remains that the information may have been the first supportive documentation of the Israelites. (Dates are listed at the site)
You are correct that many other religions are older than Judaism because the bulk of it started with Moses. The question remains whether it influenced it or not. Whether it revolved around it or not, remains an opinion. Similarities doesn't necessarily translate into influence.
In that so much of the Torah is contrary to the religions around it, one would be hard pressed that it evolved from it. For an example: Deut 12 basically says "DON'T DO ANYTHING THAT EVERY OTHER RELIGION IS DOING" (in that tone of voice). So how can one "evolve" when everything is contrary? For me, it doesn't seem logical.
You are generally correct. However, there was no proof of black holes but they still believed there were black holes. Time proved it out. If the theory is plausible, then lets investigate it instead of saying "I don't see black holes therefore they don't exist and I won't look for it". So in principle you are correct as long as we don't forget that theories can exist without support other than thought and ideas. Doesn't make the theory correct but, until properly rejected, but remains a theory if it has merit.
After, as it is written, they Israelites did begin to take on the other gods.
Certainly you are correct. We haven't exactly interacted much and most of my statements have been with a fundamentalist Outhouse who doesn't really care to debate. So I don't debate him.
What I have done, however, is realize that more and more archaeological discoveries confirm what was written in the Bible. The more discoveries that confirm what was written, the more validity the Bible has. Like a theorem, the more examples that confirm the theorem the more trustworthy it becomes
Usually its "Your source is a myth and now it your burden to prove me wrong". I call that baloney.
Here you made a statement. I look at the differences between the two and I find it impossible how Judaism came out of that belief system. I don't find any supportive evidence to bridge the gap between the two.
Thank you for a though provoking effort.
We have covered a LONG list of items... I fear it is too long.
Those are good point and hard questions. I'm not really asking for any leniency, just that we address each other with respect. In some cases, respect has gone out the window to the outhouse. (pun intended)
I hope it is OK to use some info from the Bible as a backdrop. For an example:
When Jacob (also known as Israel) reached Egypt, there was 66 people who had come with him. Gen 46:26So the total number of Jacob's direct descendants who went with him to Egypt, not counting his sons' wives, was sixty-six. Obviously with a total of 66 people, we aren't going to have evidence of such people. To look for evidence of 66 people would be impossible IMO.
We also have the hurdle to overcome in reference to archaeology. It is a painstaking effort since there has been wars, destruction, floods, etc. There have been things that people said never happened and never existed, but then archaeological discoveries changed their position. I just searched the internet and here are some:
- The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
- The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
- It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
- Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting
on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out
by the discoveries of archaeology. - King David and Solomon was thought of as a myth until they found a signet and the famous saying of House of David
Then you have the problem of differing views of what is found. Example: Solomon's signet -- well, it could be a different Solomon or a Solomon of a smaller nation (or however else one wants to look at it). There will be disagreements until further discoveries nail it one way or the other.
So, if 66 went to Egypt and then grew under slavery, we would first have to look there and see about possibilities. Without spending too much time finding something on the internet, I simply went to the first one I found. I do not know the author but the general information is a "proposed" possibility that has been floated by many and argued against by others.
Joseph, Egypt and the Hyksos...
One could argue whether it is right and another could argue about it being wrong. With none of us having lived at that time, perspectives can abound. But it does match Biblical understanding and it remains that the information may have been the first supportive documentation of the Israelites. (Dates are listed at the site)
The statement of "you are free to dance" presupposes that people know everything and nothing ever changes. May I suggest that if my first point is obviously true, when discoveries are made that contradicted the consensus, that we should leave some room for correction?
You are correct that many other religions are older than Judaism because the bulk of it started with Moses. The question remains whether it influenced it or not. Whether it revolved around it or not, remains an opinion. Similarities doesn't necessarily translate into influence.
In that so much of the Torah is contrary to the religions around it, one would be hard pressed that it evolved from it. For an example: Deut 12 basically says "DON'T DO ANYTHING THAT EVERY OTHER RELIGION IS DOING" (in that tone of voice). So how can one "evolve" when everything is contrary? For me, it doesn't seem logical.
Good... I don't think there are fire breathing dragons.
You are generally correct. However, there was no proof of black holes but they still believed there were black holes. Time proved it out. If the theory is plausible, then lets investigate it instead of saying "I don't see black holes therefore they don't exist and I won't look for it". So in principle you are correct as long as we don't forget that theories can exist without support other than thought and ideas. Doesn't make the theory correct but, until properly rejected, but remains a theory if it has merit.You'll have to expand on this one.
Let's look at this in context. IF, and I say again, IF Genesis is correct and it started out monotheistic and then branched from there, there can be some similarities from the original--that was one of my statements. Another statement, in context, was in reference to the word Adonai how it existed (in context of the Bible) before Judaism. So I have no problem with the word existing in other cultures.
"In the beginning" of Judaism... no. Why? because it said "Don't do what all the others are doing". So how can it be birthed and influenced by it if it was completely different?
After, as it is written, they Israelites did begin to take on the other gods.
I'm sure you can substantiate your position in cases. However, I also realize that there is much interpretation in what we discover.
However, the general viewpoint has been "I don't care if there are multiple records recorded by different people that has been collated into one book--they aren't historical".
Certainly you are correct. We haven't exactly interacted much and most of my statements have been with a fundamentalist Outhouse who doesn't really care to debate. So I don't debate him.
What I have done, however, is realize that more and more archaeological discoveries confirm what was written in the Bible. The more discoveries that confirm what was written, the more validity the Bible has. Like a theorem, the more examples that confirm the theorem the more trustworthy it becomes
Agreed. Honestly, I have decided that "the burden of proof that your source material... is yours", is tiring with some truth in it. I have decided that when someone says "Your source of material is a myth" the burden of proof is on them since they made the first volley.
Usually its "Your source is a myth and now it your burden to prove me wrong". I call that baloney.
Again... I have no problem supporting my position (as it should be). But when dealing with people who have no desire to debate--I don't try. There is no reason to.
I eliminated the last paragraph... I didn't think it was that different or important. Hope you didn't mind.
Here you made a statement. I look at the differences between the two and I find it impossible how Judaism came out of that belief system. I don't find any supportive evidence to bridge the gap between the two.
Thank you for a though provoking effort.
We have covered a LONG list of items... I fear it is too long.
Last edited:
Please go have a cup of coffee.
outhouse
Atheistically
Not a credible source.
outhouse
Atheistically
Pitiful methodology. It flat ignores the credible academic work done on these subjects.
It is the same as saying all credible education and knowledge is worthless because people were not there, and because I refuse to use credible education, no one knows anything.
You believe in a global flood and a 6000 year old earth don't you?
outhouse
Atheistically
NO
Were not going to let you denounce credible education and knowledge.
We have ever right to poke holes in the things you bring forth that go against education and knowledge.
outhouse
Atheistically
Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".
Jacob has no historicity as ever existing.
You need to supply credible sources. Your opinion is not credible.
Okay.
outhouse
Atheistically
Your wrong again.
History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[79] By the time of the early Hebrew kings, El and Yahweh had become fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult,[79] although she continued to be popular at a community level until Persian times.[80] Yahweh, later the national god of both Israel and Judah
This is all after 1200 BC
Good.
Yes.
Probably.
[I just wanted to try out your responding to a single post one line as a time to try to see what it was like.
Frankly, it was a pain.]
outhouse
Atheistically
Then how do you explain it when the world looks at it as mythology.
The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος exodos, "going out") is founding myth of Israel;
This is not an atheist view. This is an educational view
outhouse
Atheistically
What about this?
Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".
First, the goal, nature, task and mission is contrary to the sort of detailed scholarship that you are claiming as the entry level into these debates. Unless it has dramatically changed, the nature of Wikipedia was that anyone and everyone could contribute to build a general body of knowledge.
That is nothing like 'competent professional' publication which is subject to verification of credentials and peer review.
As evidenced by the pranks occasionally perpetrated to and using Wikipedia.
I have no doubt that I could submit a paper or report to a community college using Wikipedia as my primary source with little risk of any academic consequence, but it would probably not be an acceptable source at the University level.
I cannot even imagine trying to survive a peer review using Wikipedia for a Masters or Doctorate level work. Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias of old, is an excellent general resource ... but hardly of the caliber of challenging the origin and evolution of a belief from three or more millennia in the past with verifiable archaeological evidence.
That is the level of proof you are requesting, is it not?
I haven't been following that closely.
Frankly the terse, rude banter (back and forth) is generally uninteresting.
On the more basic issue of anti-religious bias on Wikipedia.
If you cannot see it, then I doubt there are sufficient words in the universe to explain it to you.
The 'conversations' behind any religiously relevant page provide ample complaint and specific examples of biased wording and editing.
Not hating on the Wikipedia.
It is what it is, but it is not the be-all, end-all.
It is biased against all matters of faith.
As an experiment, you made a big deal about "some scholars" vs. "most scholars".
Are there any Wikipedia quotes or references from the "some scholars" position?
Past experience with Wikipedia leads me to expect not.
Are there any Wikipedia quotes or references from the "most scholars" position?
Past experience with Wikipedia leads me to expect so.
Whether appropriate or not, that is the definition of biased.
When was the Book of Exodus written?
If during the (alleged*) Babylonian exile or later, these people had a damn impressive knowledge of events that never happened or that happened, but they never saw.
Was there no town of Jericho? Did its wall not fall?
Where are the records of the refugee survivors of whatever REALLY destroyed Jericho?
You seem quick to dismiss all Scriptural evidence, fair enough, but where is the secular record of what really happened?
It would be easier to dismiss Scripture if I didn't have to read an entire friggin book on a subject I barely care about to find some crumb of opinion (probably from someone with a PhD ... I will give you that).
Where is the translation of some other record?
Where is the alternative explanation?
I see lots of flying rocks, but few competing foundations.
So I view it as probable ... it is not a cornerstone of my faith, but people have been betting against scripture and loosing for a long time.
* (I say alleged, because some of the arguments seem to imply that the Israelites don't exist as a people before 1200 and are really just a Canaan cult that slowly got re-imagined as a new religion ... so I didn't want to assume that there really was an exile.)
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
That is correct, you don't want to write academic papers using any encyclopedia.
But that does not mean they are not a great source is a debate where credible conclusions are required.
My knowledge and research existed outside this material. But one cannot simple source books or videos or lectures in a debate.
His post are bordering the outright dishonest, and so he has raised it to this level.
You and me? well each person is on their own footing here. Your fresh and im giving you leeway for now.
Agreed.
Not true. Nor can show any secular bias. I personally think you just don't like the conclusion.
It was also in the same article stated as minority and majority. That is one issue.
What does it mean when they say most scholars think it was not written by Peter? Its really simple , it means the minority are not on equal footing correct?
I have to ask you, are you a young earth creationist?
outhouse
Atheistically
No it did not fall to any Israelites.
Book of Joshua - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Book of Joshua is anonymous. The Babylonian Talmud, written in the 3rd to 5th centuries CE,
The prevailing scholarly view is that Joshua is not a factual account of historical events
the destroyed cities are not the ones the Bible associates with Joshua, and the ones it does associate with him show little or no sign of even being occupied at the time
When one is creating mythology one does not have to be accurate. It is EXACTLY why they deem it mythology because it is obvious theology written for people at that time in history.
Almost nothing they describe before their origin at 1200 BC is even correct. Nothing before 1000 BC is even semi accurate.