Christians- How do you know Jesus and the Bible are true?

[Kenny]

They're different?

They are different in quite a few aspects but not on the important issues. The reality is that Catholicism in Venezuela is not the same as Catholicism in America.

The biggest difference in Venezuela is that the majority of people go to Catholic Mass but never open a Bible. You would be the highly exceptional one in Venezuela.

 

[joelr]

The problem we are having, imv, is that you are simply referencing those scholars and opinion that support your position while ignoring that which doesn't.

That isn't exactly correct. I'm taking the arguments that Christians are making and demonstrating it is incorrect.

If you read only those manuscripts that have the word Ka’ari and go from there you would be right.

The reading of Ka’aru (to pierce) however, is found in the oldest Hebrew manuscript of the Psalms, an ancient copy discovered at Nahal Hever and dating to about the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (HarperCollins Books, 1999) 519)

Rabbi Tovia Singer -
The Dead Sea Scroll version of the Psalm has kaari, but some Xians think it is kaaru because the yod is longer than normal and can be mistaken for a vav.

But here lies the problem: kaaru is NOT a word. There is no such word in Hebrew ancient or modern. Karu is a word -- but that isn't what is in the Dead Sea Scrolls or in any other Hebrew copy of the Psalm.

Ka'aru is not a word but karu IS a word. Some Xians try and say that the word in Psalm 22 should be karu. The only problem is that karu doesn't mean "pierced" either. It means to dig". If you use its cognate 3rd person plural masculine gender "KARU" it translates to they dug. But note that kara or karu do not us the letter "aleph".

Not only that, but the reality is that the Septuagint had to be translated from manuscripts older than that (which we no longer exist).

The Septuagint isn't reliable. The apologist I sources claims it's a mistake. Tovia Singer says the original Septuagint did not do Psalms, later books were done by Christian scholars.
"
Despite the overwhelming popularity of the contention that the Greek translation of 72 rabbis supports the use of the word “pierced” in Psalm 22:17, this explanation is completely without merit. It is universally conceded, and beyond doubt that the rabbis who created the original Septuagint only translated the Five Books of Moses, and nothing more. This undisputed point is well attested to by the Letter of Aristeas, ((This Letter of Aristeas (2nd-3rd century B.C.E.), written by a Hellenistic Jew, describes the events leading up to and surrounding the writing of the original Septuagint. There is considerable disagreement as to the date when this was written.)) the Talmud, ((Tractate Megillah, 9a.)) Josephus, ((Josephus, preface to Antiquities of the Jews, Sec 3. For Josephus’ detailed description of events surrounding the original authorship of the Septuagint, see Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, XII, ii, 1-4.)) the Church fathers, ((For example, St. Jerome, in his preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions, addresses this issue and concedes that, “Add to this that Josephus, who gives the story of the seventy translators, reports them as translating only the Five Books of Moses; and we also acknowledge that these are more in harmony with the Hebrew than the rest.” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Peabody: Hendrickson, Volume 6. P. 87.)) and numerous other critical sources. In other words, these ancient 72 rabbis did not translate the Book of Psalms. The Book of Psalms belongs to the third section of the Jewish scriptures called the Ketuvim, the Writings. This is an entirely different segment of Tanach from the Torah, which was the only section translated by the 72 rabbis. In essence, this missionary argument is predicated on a fabrication.

Furthermore, even the current Septuagint of the Five Books of Moses is almost entirely a complete corruption of the original Greek translation that was compiled by the 72 rabbis more than 2,200 years ago at the request of King Ptolemy II of Egypt. ((Ptolemy II, also known as “Philadelphus,” reigned from 283 to 245 B.C.E.)) This fact is well known to us because the Talmud ((Tractate Megillah, 9a-9b.)) records how these 72 translators distinctly rendered 15 phrases of the Torah in their translation. Of these 15 unique translations, only two are extant. ((Of these 15 phrases which appeared in the original Septuagint (Genesis 1:1; 1:26; 2:2; 5:2; 11:7; 18:12; 49:6; Exodus 4:20; 12:40; 24:5; 24:11; Leviticus 11:6; Numbers 16:15; Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3), only Genesis 2:2 and Exodus 12:40 are found in the current Septuagint.)) It’s clear that the Septuagint’s version of the Torah is a corruption of the original translation made by the 72 Jewish scribes. In addition, the rest of the Septuagint is a translation by Christian scholars with a strong motive to twist the messages of the Jewish Bible."

So, we will actually be at odds since we are basing our understanding on different manuscripts.

It isn't important because Mark is using Psalms to construct his narrative. But the evidence doesn't support the Christian version.

Obviously the "anti-Christian" stance will be held by those who do not believe in the Christ and the those who do believe in Christ will hold my position.

It isn't an "anti-Christian" stance. It genuinely looks like it does not say pierced. The apologist I sourced even feels it was a scribal error.

 

[joelr]

You believe the Biblical minimalist position and interpretation of archaeological evidence about Israel in Egypt and the Conquest and the authorship and reliability of the Bible. and date of writing etc

No, I believe what the evidence presents. I do not do what apologists do and deny or manipulate evidence in a variety of ways. I don't care about those terms. If I said you took a "minimalist position" on Greek mythology would you not just be like "I just don't believe in Zeus or any of those stories because the evidence demonstrates they are old myths"?

Then you even refuse to see that there is a minimalist and maximalist position in archaeological circles.

Because there isn't. Archaeology has never confirmed any supernatural aspects of scripture and it often contradicts historical narratives.
You can read a Biblical archaeologist explain :

NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Archeology of the Hebrew Bible | PBS

In this article, archaeologist and biblical scholar William Dever discusses how archeology can offer vivid insights into the biblical world.

www.pbs.org

or not. Again, I'm just following evidence.

To you the minimalist position is where the evidence leads and the other archaeologists are fundamentalists with no evidence.

No all archaeologists know this -
"
William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people."

The one team you presented were fundamentalists with no evidence because they made a claim you reproduced, then upon research, it was ALL B.S. Even you had to admit we have to wait until information is peer-reviewed. Yet you yourself also jumped the gun saying they had "proven" this and that.

OK so we have to agree to disagree.

We don't disagree. You can clearly see Dever is saying archaeology does not help the Biblical narratives.
The find you posted you agreed either you or they were premature in announcing a find.
That is the extent of the archaeology reviewed in the thread.
Also Dr Baden used archaeology to explain the origins of the Israelites in the video I linked to.

I certainly am not going to answer the flood of opinions of your favourite archaeologists and historians which you post with a flood of the same sort of stuff from mine in return.

1) You have never posted any historians work.

2)you posted ONE bogus claim about archaeology, and have since admitted it needs peer-review when I posted how premature the claims were and the lack of information the team is providing to others in the field.

3) There are no opinions that I post, there are conclusions based on evidence. Opinions are used when one says which sect of the hundreds of Christian sects is the actual correct sect. Opinions are used when evaluating the "personal experiences" religious people use as evidence. What one should have faith in is all opinion. I care about evidence.
But nice try attempting to completely transform what I'm actually saying into some sort of apologetic nonsense crank. I will stick to facts and conclusions based on evidence.

But what you should answer to is the fact that you seem to think a "demon" calls for many of the same things your religion promotes? This "demon" even says let slaves free, which the Bible never says.

"Whoever kills a human being, it is as if he had killed all mankind. Whoever saves the life of one, it is as if he had saved the life of all."

1. Don't confuse truth with falsehood or knowingly conceal the truth. 2:42
2. Be good to parents, relatives, orphans, and the needy. Speak kindly and pay the poor-due. 2:83
3. If you believe it, prove it. (A good rule, but does it apply to Muslims, too?) 2:111
4. The Jews say the Christians are wrong, and vice versa. Yet they both believe in the Scriptures. 2:113
5. Give of your wealth to family, relatives, and the needy. Set slaves free. 2:177
6. Do not fight wars of aggression. (Does this apply only during Ramadan?) 2:190
7. "Do good." 2:195
8. Spend your money for good: to help your parents, your family, orphans, wayfarers, and the needy. 2:215
9. Help orphans. 2:220
10. "Make not Allah, by your oaths, a hindrance to ... making peace among mankind." 2:224
11. "There is no compulsion in religion." (But see the next verse which says that disbelievers will burn forever in Hell.) 2:256
12. Pay the poor-due. , , 2:277
13. "If the debtor is in straitened circumstances, then (let there be) postponement to (the time of) ease." 2:280
14. Don't argue about things that you know nothing about. 3:66
15. Feed and clothe the needy. Set a slave free. 5:89"
16. Do good to parents, don't kill your children or other living things unnecessarily. 6:151
17. Pay the poor-due. 7:156
18. Be kind and forgiving toward others. 7:199
19. And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it. 8:61-Quran

 

[Brian2]

No, I believe what the evidence presents. I do not do what apologists do and deny or manipulate evidence in a variety of ways. I don't care about those terms. If I said you took a "minimalist position" on Greek mythology would you not just be like "I just don't believe in Zeus or any of those stories because the evidence demonstrates they are old myths"?

There is archaeological evidence for the truth of Israel being in Egypt and conquering Canaan. That's just the fact.

Because there isn't. Archaeology has never confirmed any supernatural aspects of scripture and it often contradicts historical narratives.
You can read a Biblical archaeologist explain :

NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Archeology of the Hebrew Bible | PBS

In this article, archaeologist and biblical scholar William Dever discusses how archeology can offer vivid insights into the biblical world.

www.pbs.org

or not. Again, I'm just following evidence.

I don't think confirmation of supernatural events has anything to do with it, we are talking about the basic history of Israel being in Egypt and conquering Canaan around 1400BC and settling there in the cities and villages they conquered.
There seems to be a spectrum of archaeological views but the basic position on the Exodus is early or late, conquest from Egypt or conquest from inside.
Once you reject the evidence for an early conquest then it is either a late one or an inside job. Many that say a late conquest or inside job are not extreme minimalists but they exist and seem to be instrumental in fighting any archaeological evidence for an early conquest.

No all archaeologists know this -
"
William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people."

The one team you presented were fundamentalists with no evidence because they made a claim you reproduced, then upon research, it was ALL B.S. Even you had to admit we have to wait until information is peer-reviewed. Yet you yourself also jumped the gun saying they had "proven" this and that.

Yes I jumped the gun about the curse tablet and people have been jumping at me to say it is BS, but that is jumping the gun in the opposite direction.
All archaeologists know that early archaeology in ANE was to show the Bible is true yes. They mistakes were made and wrong sites identified and etc and archaeologists started to not trust the Bible record.
That trust was continued with by those who believed the record and they have shown that the trust was warranted, but others still do not trust the record and prefer the mistakes and the picture built up with those mistakes, the re writing of the Biblical record even when it can be shown to be true.

We don't disagree. You can clearly see Dever is saying archaeology does not help the Biblical narratives.
The find you posted you agreed either you or they were premature in announcing a find.
That is the extent of the archaeology reviewed in the thread.
Also Dr Baden used archaeology to explain the origins of the Israelites in the video I linked to.

Yes theories of Israel origins have been developed using Documentary Hypothesis ideas and by not trusting the Biblical narrative and thinking that there should be evidence of Israel in Canaan when the Bible tells us that they lived in the places they conquered, or thinking that the idols found indicate lack of monotheism when that is exactly what the text tells us. There were no statues of YHWH, that was forbiden but Israel worshipped idols anyway. So the text is rejected and the theory is that there was no monotheism until after the exile or something.

1) You have never posted any historians work.

2)you posted ONE bogus claim about archaeology, and have since admitted it needs peer-review when I posted how premature the claims were and the lack of information the team is providing to others in the field.

3) There are no opinions that I post, there are conclusions based on evidence. Opinions are used when one says which sect of the hundreds of Christian sects is the actual correct sect. Opinions are used when evaluating the "personal experiences" religious people use as evidence. What one should have faith in is all opinion. I care about evidence.
But nice try attempting to completely transform what I'm actually saying into some sort of apologetic nonsense crank. I will stick to facts and conclusions based on evidence.

I think I have given you archaeological evidence in our discussions.
In most of what you post it is the opinions of historians as if those opinions are all that matters and is the following of evidence.
I look for evidence to confirm my faith and I would say that you do the same to confirm your beliefs.

But what you should answer to is the fact that you seem to think a "demon" calls for many of the same things your religion promotes? This "demon" even says let slaves free, which the Bible never says.

"Whoever kills a human being, it is as if he had killed all mankind. Whoever saves the life of one, it is as if he had saved the life of all."

1. Don't confuse truth with falsehood or knowingly conceal the truth. 2:42
2. Be good to parents, relatives, orphans, and the needy. Speak kindly and pay the poor-due. 2:83
3. If you believe it, prove it. (A good rule, but does it apply to Muslims, too?) 2:111
4. The Jews say the Christians are wrong, and vice versa. Yet they both believe in the Scriptures. 2:113
5. Give of your wealth to family, relatives, and the needy. Set slaves free. 2:177
6. Do not fight wars of aggression. (Does this apply only during Ramadan?) 2:190
7. "Do good." 2:195
8. Spend your money for good: to help your parents, your family, orphans, wayfarers, and the needy. 2:215
9. Help orphans. 2:220
10. "Make not Allah, by your oaths, a hindrance to ... making peace among mankind." 2:224
11. "There is no compulsion in religion." (But see the next verse which says that disbelievers will burn forever in Hell.) 2:256
12. Pay the poor-due. , , 2:277
13. "If the debtor is in straitened circumstances, then (let there be) postponement to (the time of) ease." 2:280
14. Don't argue about things that you know nothing about. 3:66
15. Feed and clothe the needy. Set a slave free. 5:89"
16. Do good to parents, don't kill your children or other living things unnecessarily. 6:151
17. Pay the poor-due. 7:156
18. Be kind and forgiving toward others. 7:199
19. And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it. 8:61-Quran

What are you expecting demons or people to teach murder and rape and adultery and stealing etc in their religions?

 

[CG Didymus]

No, I believe what the evidence presents. I do not do what apologists do and deny or manipulate evidence in a variety of ways.

I don't expect "true believers" to ever give in to evidence that is contrary to their beliefs. Their whole world is built around certain beliefs and interpretations. If those are shown to be false, what are they left with?

What's interesting is how true believers in any religion try and argue against the evidence that goes against the things they believe are true.

 

[Kenny]

That isn't exactly correct. I'm taking the arguments that Christians are making and demonstrating it is incorrect.

You are demonstrating it is incorrect by using only those documents that support your position while ignoring the oldest and other texts that say otherwise

Ka'aru is not a word but karu IS a word

That is a matter of opinion. K'ari is based off of more modern translation.

The Septuagint isn't reliable. The apologist I sources claims it's a mistake. Tovia Singer says the original Septuagint did not do Psalms, later books were done by Christian scholars.

So I have a choice... today's modern "apologists" vs what Synagogues used in the time of Jesus.

The apologist I sourced even feels it was a scribal error.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Certainly in the story God is the main character all the way through the Bible.
Maybe you mean that His existence in reality is not extablished in your life and so you read between the lines in the Bible and try to understand it without God.

God is in my life. I don’t need a literary character to worship.

 

[Audie]

There is archaeological evidence for the truth of Israel being in Egypt and conquering Canaan. That's just the fact.



I don't think confirmation of supernatural events has anything to do with it, we are talking about the basic history of Israel being in Egypt and conquering Canaan around 1400BC and settling there in the cities and villages they conquered.
There seems to be a spectrum of archaeological views but the basic position on the Exodus is early or late, conquest from Egypt or conquest from inside.
Once you reject the evidence for an early conquest then it is either a late one or an inside job. Many that say a late conquest or inside job are not extreme minimalists but they exist and seem to be instrumental in fighting any archaeological evidence for an early conquest.



Yes I jumped the gun about the curse tablet and people have been jumping at me to say it is BS, but that is jumping the gun in the opposite direction.
All archaeologists know that early archaeology in ANE was to show the Bible is true yes. They mistakes were made and wrong sites identified and etc and archaeologists started to not trust the Bible record.
That trust was continued with by those who believed the record and they have shown that the trust was warranted, but others still do not trust the record and prefer the mistakes and the picture built up with those mistakes, the re writing of the Biblical record even when it can be shown to be true.



Yes theories of Israel origins have been developed using Documentary Hypothesis ideas and by not trusting the Biblical narrative and thinking that there should be evidence of Israel in Canaan when the Bible tells us that they lived in the places they conquered, or thinking that the idols found indicate lack of monotheism when that is exactly what the text tells us. There were no statues of YHWH, that was forbiden but Israel worshipped idols anyway. So the text is rejected and the theory is that there was no monotheism until after the exile or something.



I think I have given you archaeological evidence in our discussions.
In most of what you post it is the opinions of historians as if those opinions are all that matters and is the following of evidence.
I look for evidence to confirm my faith and I would say that you do the same to confirm your beliefs.



What are you expecting demons or people to teach murder and rape and adultery and stealing etc in their religions?

You do know that defense and prosecution
both provide, evidence for their side?

No doubt there is evidence for your views.

" Good and sufficient" evidence is quite another thing.
Esp in the presence of strong country evidence
.

Just saying " there is evidence" is essentially meanjngless.

When there's a " spectrum" of interpretation it's a sure
sign that there is good and sufficient evidence for any
conclusion.

Anyone who is at all familiar with science or sound thought knows that.

If in fact you do look for evidence to confirm your beliefs
you are are admitting to, yes, intellectual dishonesty.
Sorry, but that is so.

A, if not the, first principle of science is to strive for
complate objectivity. No preconceived ideas.
No confirmation bias. Going only where the most
rigorous observation and testing takes you.

Ideals are impossible to achieve, but like having a
perfectly tidy home, the difference here is in the
results of trying, of even grasping that there is value in
trying.

By contrast, the Christian ideal you express is in
having faith. Choose a belief, than find value in the
faith of clinging to it despite any and all evidence against it.

Perhaps you can show where this is not intellectual
dishonesty.

 

[Audie]

God is in my life. I don’t need a literary character to worship.

I don't really see how one could
love such an errartic character as the OT
God.

 

[Brian2]

You do know that defense and prosecution
both provide, evidence for their side?

No doubt there is evidence for your views.

" Good and sufficient" evidence is quite another thing.
Esp in the presence of strong country evidence
.

Just saying " there is evidence" is essentially meanjngless.

When there's a " spectrum" of interpretation it's a sure
sign that there is good and sufficient evidence for any
conclusion.

Anyone who is at all familiar with science or sound thought knows that.

If in fact you do look for evidence to confirm your beliefs
you are are admitting to, yes, intellectual dishonesty.
Sorry, but that is so.

A, if not the, first principle of science is to strive for
complate objectivity. No preconceived ideas.
No confirmation bias. Going only where the most
rigorous observation and testing takes you.

Ideals are impossible to achieve, but like having a
perfectly tidy home, the difference here is in the
results of trying, of even grasping that there is value in
trying.

By contrast, the Christian ideal you express is in
having faith. Choose a belief, than find value in the
faith of clinging to it despite any and all evidence against it.

Perhaps you can show where this is not intellectual
dishonesty.

Do you believe that Israel was in Egypt and escaped slavery from there and then conquered Canaan and gained a place to live in about 1400 BC?
If so, why, if not, why?
If I believe it and look to see if there is scientific evidence to support that belief, and find that there is, is that intellectual dishonesty?

 

[Audie]

Do you believe that Israel was in Egypt and escaped slavery from there and then conquered Canaan and gained a place to live in about 1400 BC?
If so, why, if not, why?
If I believe it and look to see if there is scientific evidence to support that belief, and find that there is, is that intellectual dishonesty?

I suppose it is possible. Nothing about it
is of any particular interest to me.
If it matters to you for some reason,
that is your deal.

I'm not sure you understand the intellectual
integrity bit.

If a person starts with a conclusion, then
looks for evidence to support it, that is bad practice.

If data is only interpreted as favoring that conclusion,
and contrary data is ignored, that is where the
honesty failure comes in.

It is a behaviour pattern typical of creationists,
it being impossible to be a well informed and
intellectually honest yec.

 

[Sargonski]

Christians today have never met Jesus physically yet believe in Him. Why?

If you say you believe in Christ because of the Bible then how do you know the Bible is true?

How do you know Christ and the Bible are true?

What makes you so sure?

these are two different questions Jesus True - The Bible True

The answer to the latter is not all the time .. but that does not mean there is not Truth in the Bible .. just that it is not all True. Early Christians did not have much good to say about the OT --- "Hearken not to old myths and fables" one congregation was exhorted round 100 Ad .. The Church at the time very anti Jew --- Scripture coming out at that time very anti Jew. John for Example 100-120 AD

But, not believing that the OT was 100% God Breathed .. was no barrier to being a follower of Christ .. believing in the Truth of Christs message.

Now .. the New testament is full of untruth .. or shall we say dubious Truth .. just like the Old .. the depiction of Jesus changing with time ... the later the scripture .. the more Divine he became .. but even at the time of the writing of John .. no one believed Jesus was "The Father" .. that Most High Guy .. the one with the real good stuff .. if you know what I mean .. Jah .. Rastafa..

but I digress .. The author of Matt is the first to engage in pious fraud .. with Mark we just don't know -- as this is the only source document .. we have .. for the True Jesus ... of the Canonical scripture ... written around the time of the temple destruction .. Matt comes roughly 15-20 years later .. a rewriting of Mark .. Matt uses all of Mark except a few verses that he finds derogatory to Jesus and the disciples

Matt also adds some new material -- Jesus - rather than being adopted by a God at the age of 30 -- at his baptism by John the Baptist -- recieiving the Spark of the Divine .. then having to go through the ritual Trial .. where he is confronted by another of God's sons .. this one the product of a full God on God Union .. a "Son of God" .. Rather than the "Son of Man" product of a God -Human merger.

In Matt's version of the Story ... Jesus is Divine at Birth -- also added is the "Smoking gun" stories of Jesus appearing in the flesh after death.. the so called "Physical Resurrection" Something that doesn't happen in Mark .. nor does Paul know any stories of Jesus appearing in the flesh -- which is quite troublesome -- Clement is not aware either .. first pope round 95 AD -- Matt may not have had these stories at this time .. or may not have been written yet ..

But .. "Spoiler Alert" --- all this does not mean there is no Truth .. That Jesus was not a Prophet of the one True God -- "The Logos" a conduit/emissary between Man and God.

Jesus Told you what Da Truth is Mon --- Why you not Listen ? Have you not ears ? What say you What is the Truth that Jesus told the world .. gonna make it simple .. only One Sermon need look 3 chapters Matt 5-7. There is your Truth come from above..

Tell you what .. make it even more simple -- narry one chapter you need .. Only one verse needed .. sum up the whole ting for ya .. the Truth .. the Whole Truth . and nutting but .. the Golden nugget from above .. in the most Jungian of analogies ..

How bout dat ... Tell you what -- lets make some fun .. see if you can find .. narrow your search to Matt 7 --- now go find the Golden Nugget .. and don't let me down .. Hint -- Rabbi Hillel -- 110 BC - 10 AD -- so well known they named a Judaic School after him .. mentor and teacher to Jesus

One day .. some unbeliever / smart arse --- challenged the Rabbi .. said if could sum up entire Torah standing on one foot ... would become a believer .. Hillel say "Don't do to others what you hate .. the rest is all commentary - now go and Learn"

and .. Young Jesus .. mentored by this Rabbi .. from him learned the Truth -- So it is Written .. So it Shall be done

Say Jesus .. "Do not to others .. what not want done to you .. This rule Sums up the Law and the Prophet" Matt 7:12

Now go and learn more about the Golden Rule .. both Positive and Negative usage .. learn about the Truth .. the Way .. The Light .. and hearken to the True Path .. then you be follower of Christ.

 

[Brian2]

I'm not sure you understand the intellectual
integrity bit.

If a person starts with a conclusion, then
looks for evidence to support it, that is bad practice.

If data is only interpreted as favoring that conclusion,
and contrary data is ignored, that is where the
honesty failure comes in.

It is a behaviour pattern typical of creationists,
it being impossible to be a well informed and
intellectually honest yec.

Usually in archaeology afaik, the old written record is seen as a good guide to what happened and if that is confirmed by archaeology, that makes it an even better guide to what happened.
Not so these days with the biblical record. People deny the record even when archaeology confirms it.
I just look for archaeological evidence that the record might be right and WTF and palm face and pull my hair out when I find people denying the evidence for the sake of a version of history that was made up to fit what they see as the true evidence, and what they see as a true interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Sargonski]

Do you believe that Israel was in Egypt and escaped slavery from there and then conquered Canaan and gained a place to live in about 1400 BC?
If so, why, if not, why?
If I believe it and look to see if there is scientific evidence to support that belief, and find that there is, is that intellectual dishonesty?

I suppose it is possible. Nothing about it
is of any particular interest to me.
If it matters to you for some reason,
that is your deal.

I'm not sure you understand the intellectual
integrity bit.

If a person starts with a conclusion, then
looks for evidence to support it, that is bad practice.

If data is only interpreted as favoring that conclusion,
and contrary data is ignored, that is where the
honesty failure comes in.

It is a behaviour pattern typical of creationists,
it being impossible to be a well informed and
intellectually honest yec.

This is an interesting question .. which gets more interesting with every year as discoveries are made and seems at least a little bit of an interest to Audie )

The Israelis were a real people who formed a real nation for a short period of time. During the Bronze Age -- slavery was one of the main businesses up and down the levant .. a main trading center. What you had was city states at the time .. you also had Nomadic Tribes who were a persistent pest noted by Egyptian and other corrospondence .. These Nomads would often be attacked and Made slaves .. so .. were some of these Nomadic Tribes slaves in Egypt .. 200% they were .. but not all of them .. the idea that all the Israelites were originally slaves in Egypt is not the way things happened .. but, certainly there could have been a big group of these nomad slaves come out of egypt and join with other Tribes to become a force.

It is important to understand that the Israelites were Canaanites - "back in the day" Now around - 1200BC the Israelites been wandering around gaining strength for 100 years or more .. The Tribes doing well .. then something really bad happens .. out of this world bad .. Empires go Poof" Hittite empire - Greece -- Assyria -- Babylonia .. huge famine hits .. some kind of natural disaster .. the Sea Peoples invading the now weak cities .. and People just Leave . .. or die .. or or .. We don't know completly .. .. but what we do know is Society collapses .. In Greece you go from city States to rural -- homogeneous language .. gone .. culture .. pottery .. gone .. trade with places as far as India .. and all over the Mesopotamia .. Africa .. DONE -- Over .. it all just fking ends .. the reset button hits and then things over a few centuries work their way back. In Greece we have something as recognizable civilization again around 700-800 BC . .. Assyria wipes out Northern Israel .. "Israel" basically as was 90% of the Population Judah just a small but well fortified location .. goat herders but well fortified ..High fortresses such as Megiddo .. where Armageddon is supposed to happen. Jerusalem super tough to take .. the Assyrians failed one attempt.

but i digress in the midsts of this Chaos .. known as the "Bronze Age Collapse" -- these Nomads turn out to be well adapted and take over a bunch of the cities .. form quite the Nation .. but only for very short period of time united .. then is a divided and they start war against each other at times. . but .. they have a good run .. a few hundred years .. From the time David Takes Jerusalem round say 1000 BC until the Assyrians Lay waste round 721BC a good run of near 3 centuries

 

[Audie]

This is an interesting question .. which gets more interesting with every year as discoveries are made and seems at least a little bit of an interest to Audie )

The Israelis were a real people who formed a real nation for a short period of time. During the Bronze Age -- slavery was one of the main businesses up and down the levant .. a main trading center. What you had was city states at the time .. you also had Nomadic Tribes who were a persistent pest noted by Egyptian and other corrospondence .. These Nomads would often be attacked and Made slaves .. so .. were some of these Nomadic Tribes slaves in Egypt .. 200% they were .. but not all of them .. the idea that all the Israelites were originally slaves in Egypt is not the way things happened .. but, certainly there could have been a big group of these nomad slaves come out of egypt and join with other Tribes to become a force.

It is important to understand that the Israelites were Canaanites - "back in the day" Now around - 1200BC the Israelites been wandering around gaining strength for 100 years or more .. The Tribes doing well .. then something really bad happens .. out of this world bad .. Empires go Poof" Hittite empire - Greece -- Assyria -- Babylonia .. huge famine hits .. some kind of natural disaster .. the Sea Peoples invading the now weak cities .. and People just Leave . .. or die .. or or .. We don't know completly .. .. but what we do know is Society collapses .. In Greece you go from city States to rural -- homogeneous language .. gone .. culture .. pottery .. gone .. trade with places as far as India .. and all over the Mesopotamia .. Africa .. DONE -- Over .. it all just fking ends .. the reset button hits and then things over a few centuries work their way back. In Greece we have something as recognizable civilization again around 700-800 BC . .. Assyria wipes out Northern Israel .. "Israel" basically as was 90% of the Population Judah just a small but well fortified location .. goat herders but well fortified ..High fortresses such as Megiddo .. where Armageddon is supposed to happen. Jerusalem super tough to take .. the Assyrians failed one attempt.

but i digress in the midsts of this Chaos .. known as the "Bronze Age Collapse" -- these Nomads turn out to be well adapted and take over a bunch of the cities .. form quite the Nation .. but only for very short period of time united .. then is a divided and they start war against each other at times. . but .. they have a good run .. a few hundred years .. From the time David Takes Jerusalem round say 1000 BC until the Assyrians Lay waste round 721BC a good run of near 3 centuries

Archaeology / ancient history is intrinsically
interesting.
I have no particular interest in what
any one particular tribe did in the middle east.

I'd be fine if the whole middle east never existed.

The history of the Hebrews is very overrated and overstudied, imo.

Are we good with my reference to intellectual integrity?

 

[Brian2]

This is an interesting question .. which gets more interesting with every year as discoveries are made and seems at least a little bit of an interest to Audie )

The Israelis were a real people who formed a real nation for a short period of time. During the Bronze Age -- slavery was one of the main businesses up and down the levant .. a main trading center. What you had was city states at the time .. you also had Nomadic Tribes who were a persistent pest noted by Egyptian and other corrospondence .. These Nomads would often be attacked and Made slaves .. so .. were some of these Nomadic Tribes slaves in Egypt .. 200% they were .. but not all of them .. the idea that all the Israelites were originally slaves in Egypt is not the way things happened .. but, certainly there could have been a big group of these nomad slaves come out of egypt and join with other Tribes to become a force.

It is important to understand that the Israelites were Canaanites - "back in the day" Now around - 1200BC the Israelites been wandering around gaining strength for 100 years or more .. The Tribes doing well .. then something really bad happens .. out of this world bad .. Empires go Poof" Hittite empire - Greece -- Assyria -- Babylonia .. huge famine hits .. some kind of natural disaster .. the Sea Peoples invading the now weak cities .. and People just Leave . .. or die .. or or .. We don't know completly .. .. but what we do know is Society collapses .. In Greece you go from city States to rural -- homogeneous language .. gone .. culture .. pottery .. gone .. trade with places as far as India .. and all over the Mesopotamia .. Africa .. DONE -- Over .. it all just fking ends .. the reset button hits and then things over a few centuries work their way back. In Greece we have something as recognizable civilization again around 700-800 BC . .. Assyria wipes out Northern Israel .. "Israel" basically as was 90% of the Population Judah just a small but well fortified location .. goat herders but well fortified ..High fortresses such as Megiddo .. where Armageddon is supposed to happen. Jerusalem super tough to take .. the Assyrians failed one attempt.

but i digress in the midsts of this Chaos .. known as the "Bronze Age Collapse" -- these Nomads turn out to be well adapted and take over a bunch of the cities .. form quite the Nation .. but only for very short period of time united .. then is a divided and they start war against each other at times. . but .. they have a good run .. a few hundred years .. From the time David Takes Jerusalem round say 1000 BC until the Assyrians Lay waste round 721BC a good run of near 3 centuries

I have probably a more Biblical view of Israel and who they were and where they came from.
I don't know much about the Bronze Age collapse but have heard Egyptologist David Rohl talk about it.
He would like to reform Egyptian chronology quite a bit. I found this video about him which you may be interested in.

bronze age collapse and david rohl - Google Search

 

[Audie]

Usually in archaeology afaik, the old written record is seen as a good guide to what happened and if that is confirmed by archaeology, that makes it an even better guide to what happened.
Not so these days with the biblical record. People deny the record even when archaeology confirms it.
I just look for archaeological evidence that the record might be right and WTF and palm face and pull my hair out when I find people denying the evidence for the sake of a version of history that was made up to fit what they see as the true evidence, and what they see as a true interpretation of the Bible.

Usually when in a discussion one is
experience to reply to the subject matter of
what the other said. In this case it was the
dishonesty of starting with a conclusion.

Other details of an actual,discussion include
not making things up, attacking the honesty of
persons unknown and unidentified.

A written record is of course a good start, can be super helpful. If there were no record of WW1, it would be much
harder to interpret the archeology.

The prob with your Bible is that 8tsvnotvso much
history as a semi historical novel with a great deal
of what's called " magic realism", myths from
various sources, poetry, metaphor, allegory, dreams,
you name it.

Those who approach the archae9l9gy of the region
with the unshakeable Belief that the b8ble is the inerrant
word of god are incapable of honest unbiased work.

I trust that's obvious, given that yiunmade the same complaint.

What is in constant evidence in these forums is
people who, for example, read the Bible and say oh,there
really- really was a world wide flood!

From there, marine fossils in mountain rock,
frozen mammoths, grand canyon etc and blah are all
" evudence" of a flood. Hair pulling would be a bit
extreme as a reaction, though the occasional laugh
or facepalm is inevitable.

I don't suppose you'd care to share an example of what makes you facalm and hair pull?

I'd gladly help you denounce such behaviour as causes it,
if it's as you say.

 

[metis]

They are different in quite a few aspects but not on the important issues. The reality is that Catholicism in Venezuela is not the same as Catholicism in America.

But it's still the same Church even though some practices often vary from one region to another.

The biggest difference in Venezuela is that the majority of people go to Catholic Mass but never open a Bible. You would be the highly exceptional one in Venezuela.

That's basically a "side bar" as the real importance is does one try to live out the two important teachings that Jesus' taught: the love of God and the love of all? One could be completely illiterate and do that, whereas a theologian could have the knowledge but not live out of Jesus' teachings.

 

[Kenny]

But it's still the same Church even though some practices often vary from one region to another.

Absolutely!!

Let me ask you a question.... What is your viewpoint of Romans 10:8-13? Your interpretation?

That's basically a "side bar" as the real importance is does one try to live out the two important teachings that Jesus' taught: the love of God and the love of all? One could be completely illiterate and do that, whereas a theologian could have the knowledge but not live out of Jesus' teachings.

Again... your are correct. Here I have no added input. One could even open his/her Bible and read it and never implement it.

 

[Brian2]

Usually when in a discussion one is
experience to reply to the subject matter of
what the other said. In this case it was the
dishonesty of starting with a conclusion.

Other details of an actual,discussion include
not making things up, attacking the honesty of
persons unknown and unidentified.

A written record is of course a good start, can be super helpful. If there were no record of WW1, it would be much
harder to interpret the archeology.

The prob with your Bible is that 8tsvnotvso much
history as a semi historical novel with a great deal
of what's called " magic realism", myths from
various sources, poetry, metaphor, allegory, dreams,
you name it.

Those who approach the archae9l9gy of the region
with the unshakeable Belief that the b8ble is the inerrant
word of god are incapable of honest unbiased work.

I trust that's obvious, given that yiunmade the same complaint.

What is in constant evidence in these forums is
people who, for example, read the Bible and say oh,there
really- really was a world wide flood!

From there, marine fossils in mountain rock,
frozen mammoths, grand canyon etc and blah are all
" evudence" of a flood. Hair pulling would be a bit
extreme as a reaction, though the occasional laugh
or facepalm is inevitable.

I don't suppose you'd care to share an example of what makes you facalm and hair pull?

I'd gladly help you denounce such behaviour as causes it,
if it's as you say.

It is known that Tel Aviv university has a Biblical minimalist archaeological dept. They produce such articles as this:

Domesticated Camels Came to Israel in 930 B.C., Centuries Later Than Bible Says

Domesticated camels weren't known in Israel until about 900 B.C., when there were major changes in copper production throughout the region.

www.nationalgeographic.com

This is completely at odds with the Bible which talks of domesticated camels at the time of Abraham (about 2000 BC).
So this Tel Aviv article would be enough to convince some people about domesticated camels, but there is plenty of evidence for domesticated camels before 1000BC so how is it even possible for Tel Aviv to publish such nonsense?

The Date of Camel Domestication in the Ancient Near East

Joomla! - the dynamic portal engine and content management system

biblearchaeology.org