OK! You answered the question. Your view is a faith based conclusion.
I do believe that over the millennia different people believe the 'Holy Spirit' confirmed different conclusions concerning the scripture than yours.
-
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!
The time of Judeo-Christian writings
- Thread starter Ted Evans
- Start date
OK! You answered the question. Your view is a faith based conclusion.
I do believe that over the millennia different people believe the 'Holy Spirit' confirmed different conclusions concerning the scripture than yours.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Nearly everything is a faith based conclusion. We have the testimonies of many witnesses to the resurrected Christ. You do not believe them because of a lack of faith on your part.
Yes, verifiable both from archeological, historical records and a plethora of circumstantial evidence. Obviously, the first two do not verify every aspect of Scripture. None of which will mean anything to those who adamantly deny the supernatural, IMO.
As an example there are over 100 prophesies in Daniel 10-12 which can be verified with secular documents. I am still waiting for empirical evidence of where space, energy, matter and time came from. The honest, say they do not know, which I can appreciate, I cannot say where God came from but I am ridiculed for believing that it was God who created space, energy, matter and time.
Not true for some, others do not want to find Him, I did not either for more than four decades.
Actually no, among academic Biblical historians there is not a significant disagreement. They are by far dominantly Biblical Minimalists, and they seriously question the authorship and historical accuracy of the Pentateuch, and the gospels. They for the most part believe they are second and third source edited texts of unknown authorship.
The dominant view among Christian apologists is Biblical Maximalism, and they for the most part believe in the historical accuracy and traditional authorship of the Pentateuch and the gospels.
Last edited:
Not so the vast archaeological and historical evidence is not faith based evidence. You admit your view is in contradiction with the archaeological and historical evidence.
There is absolutely no known written record of any first person testimony during the life of Jesus Christ.
Thanks for the comments, those figures are close to what I believe with the exception of "NT =70-95AD". There are some Bible scholars that seem to think some of Paul's writings could be as early as 50-55 however, I have not seen anything that irrefutably proves that thought but I tend to agree with it.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
But we have the testimony of the Spirit. We don't need your approval.
This is simply nonsense. You redefine the terms and then make self-validating claims. It's more than a little underwhelming.
Airball! This is a canard and not a coherent response.
Obfuscation is not an argument.
Specifically what terms have I redefined?
No, not at present verified both from archaeological, historical records and a plethora of circumstantial evidence.
The only argument so far is the accuracy of the text justifies the accuracy of the text, and appealing to the 'Holy Spirit.'
Basically false! Secular sources tend to question the validity of the claims of the prophecies. You need to specific about your claims of sources,
Your presenting an 'argument from ignorance' to justify your worldview, and this is not productive.
[/quote]
I cannot say where God came from but I am ridiculed for believing that it was God who created space, energy, matter and time. [/quote]
Many people of different beliefs including atheists, especially atheists, are ridiculed for their beliefs, This is not the way to a productive dialogue.
Questioning and judging the motivation of others is not ethical nor productive,
Yes, 'some' Paul's letters may have an earlier date, but not the gospels by the present evidence.
Relevant to the thread: Oldest possible primitive Hebrew script. Not all scholars consider this ancient Hebrew script. The article describes it as descendant from Phoenician script, but because of the common heritage of Phoenician, Canaanite and Ugarit, and other later texts, and differences in script among these cultures, the distinction of origin can only be generalized as from these linguistic roots
From: The Oldest Hebrew Script and Language - Biblical Archaeology Society
In a recent BAR article,* epigraphy scholar Christopher Rollston asks a seemingly straightforward question: What is the oldest Hebrew inscription? His examination requires him to address the fundamental questions of epigraphy. Is a text written in Hebrew script necessarily in the Hebrew language? And was the Hebrew language originally written in an alphabet that predates Hebrew script? Christopher Rollston examined four contenders for the oldest Hebrew inscription—the Qeiyafa Ostracon, Gezer Calendar, Tel Zayit Abecedary and Izbet Zayit Abecedary—to explore the interplay between early Hebrew script and language.
In his study, Christopher Rollston distinguishes between purely Hebrew script and other visually similar alphabets while examining relationships between alphabets and languages. Not only can a single language be written in various scripts, but a single script can be used for dozens of languages. English shares the Latin script with most Western languages; finding Latin letters does not necessarily mean that a text is English.
Israel Museum curators have called “Gabriel’s Revelation” the most important document found in the area since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Read the original English publication of “Gabriel’s Revelation” along with Israel Knohl's BAR article that made scholars around the world reconsider links between ancient Jewish and Christian messianism in the free eBook Gabriel’s Revelation.
Old Hebrew script derived directly from Phoenician, and Christopher Rollston contends that Old Hebrew script did not split off from its Phoenician predecessor until the ninth century B.C.E. The Hebrew language existed well before then; the oldest extant Hebrew language texts are recorded in Phoenician script. Identifying the oldest combination of Hebrew script and language is hindered by a diverse set of complications including the poor condition of texts, the existence of cognates, regional variation, partial language preservation, limited number of artifacts and myriad other difficulties.
The Qeiyafa Ostracon and Gezer Calendar are the best known contenders that Christopher Rollston examines. The five-line Qeiyafa Ostracon** has garnered a great deal of attention since its 2008 excavation at Khirbet Qeiyafa, the fortified tenth century B.C.E. Judahite citylocated on the border of Judah and Philistia. The faded text on the Qeiyafa Ostracon has challenged potential translators; what is known is that its variations and left-to-right orientation signal a pre-Hebrew script deriving from Early Alphabetic rather than Phoenician writing. Most scholars agree with Christopher Rollston about the type of script, but he suggests that the language may not be Hebrew. The lexemes, or word roots, could come from one of several Semitic languages. This interpretation of the Qeiyafa Ostracon raises a new set of questions. Could the Qeiyafa Ostracon be from a non-Judahite site? Or could another language have been the lingua franca of the period? More simply, could the text have been imported from elsewhere, or written by a foreigner? The Qeiyafa Ostracon is a significant puzzle piece in the development of Hebrew writing, but there are still too many unanswered questions for the Qeiyafa Ostracon to be considered the oldest Hebrew inscription."
Basic conclusion the Hebrew script did not descend from alphabetic phonetic Egyptian text as some claim like John Ankerberg.
From: The Oldest Hebrew Script and Language - Biblical Archaeology Society
In a recent BAR article,* epigraphy scholar Christopher Rollston asks a seemingly straightforward question: What is the oldest Hebrew inscription? His examination requires him to address the fundamental questions of epigraphy. Is a text written in Hebrew script necessarily in the Hebrew language? And was the Hebrew language originally written in an alphabet that predates Hebrew script? Christopher Rollston examined four contenders for the oldest Hebrew inscription—the Qeiyafa Ostracon, Gezer Calendar, Tel Zayit Abecedary and Izbet Zayit Abecedary—to explore the interplay between early Hebrew script and language.
In his study, Christopher Rollston distinguishes between purely Hebrew script and other visually similar alphabets while examining relationships between alphabets and languages. Not only can a single language be written in various scripts, but a single script can be used for dozens of languages. English shares the Latin script with most Western languages; finding Latin letters does not necessarily mean that a text is English.
Israel Museum curators have called “Gabriel’s Revelation” the most important document found in the area since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Read the original English publication of “Gabriel’s Revelation” along with Israel Knohl's BAR article that made scholars around the world reconsider links between ancient Jewish and Christian messianism in the free eBook Gabriel’s Revelation.
Old Hebrew script derived directly from Phoenician, and Christopher Rollston contends that Old Hebrew script did not split off from its Phoenician predecessor until the ninth century B.C.E. The Hebrew language existed well before then; the oldest extant Hebrew language texts are recorded in Phoenician script. Identifying the oldest combination of Hebrew script and language is hindered by a diverse set of complications including the poor condition of texts, the existence of cognates, regional variation, partial language preservation, limited number of artifacts and myriad other difficulties.
The Qeiyafa Ostracon and Gezer Calendar are the best known contenders that Christopher Rollston examines. The five-line Qeiyafa Ostracon** has garnered a great deal of attention since its 2008 excavation at Khirbet Qeiyafa, the fortified tenth century B.C.E. Judahite citylocated on the border of Judah and Philistia. The faded text on the Qeiyafa Ostracon has challenged potential translators; what is known is that its variations and left-to-right orientation signal a pre-Hebrew script deriving from Early Alphabetic rather than Phoenician writing. Most scholars agree with Christopher Rollston about the type of script, but he suggests that the language may not be Hebrew. The lexemes, or word roots, could come from one of several Semitic languages. This interpretation of the Qeiyafa Ostracon raises a new set of questions. Could the Qeiyafa Ostracon be from a non-Judahite site? Or could another language have been the lingua franca of the period? More simply, could the text have been imported from elsewhere, or written by a foreigner? The Qeiyafa Ostracon is a significant puzzle piece in the development of Hebrew writing, but there are still too many unanswered questions for the Qeiyafa Ostracon to be considered the oldest Hebrew inscription."
Basic conclusion the Hebrew script did not descend from alphabetic phonetic Egyptian text as some claim like John Ankerberg.
tevans9129;n45092 said:
I disagree, if there is archaeological evidence that proves some one other than Moses was the author, would that not disprove Moses as the author? OTOH, there are a number of verses in scripture that seems to claim Moses is the author so what verifiable evidence does academia have that proves someone other than Moses as being the author? What about the Bible scholars that agree with scripture, why are they wrong and those that disagree are correct?
I did not become a Christian until my late forties and since I come from a technology background, I required more than faith in the beginning. But there is a very profound statement relative to scripture, “the more you learn, the more faith you have and the more faith that you have, the more you learn”. I started with the “learning” part first, faith came afterwards.
What convinced me beyond any reasonable doubt was predictive prophecy, much of which can be proven with archelogy and secular history. There are hundreds of prophecies in scripture that have been fulfilled exactly as was prophesied, sometimes centuries in advance. Furthermore, the scriptures were penned by 40 or so authors over many centuries and hundreds of miles apart that maintain continuity from Gen 1:1 to Rev 22:21 before, telephone, telegraph, television and telewoman.
Not true, the Bible speaks of what was, history, what is, the present, and what will be, the future. To think of it as nothing more than a historical document is extremely myopic.
BTW and IMO, there is a huge difference in "Christian" and a Bible believing Christian.
I am perfectly willing to engage in any serious discussion about the Judeo-Christian scriptures but have no interest in scoffing and ridicule.
I will answer every question that I may be asked with plausible, verifiable answers, IF, others will agree to do the same. If they are not, then I really do not take them seriously. Not meant to be rude, just stating my views.
Did I say anything about a "Bible" or, did I ask about OT and NT writings? It is my understanding that "Judeo-Christian" covers both, the OT and the NT is that incorrect?
I'm not interested in repeating myself. Pay better attention next time -- or not. I'm fine with it either way.
This is sloppy and misleading. It reads as if the text suggests a bible written centuries earlier that 1000 BCE, but that's not at all what the article is saying.
Archaeology has almost no bearing on what history is. Jewish historian Josephus wrote a series of history books grouped in books, chapters and sections. Now go through those books to count how many sections are actually supported by the so-called archaeology. I'd say 99% of the sections are not supported by archaeology.
Archaeology are about rare events in which a scenario is scarcely preserved more like a fluke, such as an ancient city buried by an earthquake. It's usually about a rather large scale or mass activities such as a living city of humans or wars. It's never down to the deeds or speeches of an individual.
Archaeology are about rare events in which a scenario is scarcely preserved more like a fluke, such as an ancient city buried by an earthquake. It's usually about a rather large scale or mass activities such as a living city of humans or wars. It's never down to the deeds or speeches of an individual.
It's strange how theists and atheists can't seem to agree on the definition of "evidence." Evidence isn't what you want it to be so it fits your religious story, it either is objective or not. The Bible is not objectively factual. If it were, we would all take it as factual, just like we take other historical texts.