posted
That they suffered and died is also part of the text under contention, so its factuality can hardly be used to support the text's factuality, the former being dependent on the latter.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone doubts that many of the apostles or other followers of Jesus suffered and died. There's plenty of 3rd part verification.
They were who I was referring to. Obviously, it would be circular to view the writings about their sufferings as proof they were telling the truth in those writings.
It always irritates me when people use reasoning like this. "You don't believe the Bible? Let me show you 2 Timothy 3:16. See? It says that the scriptures are inspired." Dumb.
posted
"That they suffered and died is also part of the text under contention"
That is pretty much bypassing the argument.
"There's plenty of 3rd part(y) verification."
This is the main argument that IanO is trying to make. It took me a while to understing this portion of the argument as well, but its a main point to consider. The Bible has shown that the writers are less biased about themselves than many other religious documents (although I don't find this to be as true as it might seem at first reading, but enough for credibility). The narrative is historically set, and not just in some remote out of time and space representation of the Gods and Heroes. Although every instance has been questioned by the more anti-Biblical, for the most part its veracity AS history has been found reliable. In many cases this was by accident. This doesn't exactly prove the more extraordinary and paranormal portions, but it does show its history is believable. Of course, that can be some evidence that the spiritual sections are closer to the truth for those who are more open to such possibilities.
I don't know if this has anything to do with the original question. To me that is a totally different subject. However, it does seem to indicate that the Exodus has a high probability to have happened. By the way, the places mentioned in the Exodus are, for the most part, recognizable and geographically extant. Either the Hebrews traveled the routes that they did in the Exodus, or someone did. You can't easily dismiss the Biblical account because of pacity of Egyptian records to what probably was a minor group with little or no political, religious, or social power. There would have been more than an Egyptian coverup. The uprising would have been a non-issue.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are correct that it all comes down to faith. But I find that, when pressed, the Egyptian record does not really deny the possibility of the exodus, nor of the Israelites as slave. There are certainly mentions of slaves in Egypt from Canaan, which would include the Israelites. There were also the Habiru, which some- not all- have taken to mean the Hebrews.
That documents do not deny the presence does not imply presence, either. Unless you are claiming that the Canaanites were Hebrews, which the bible does deny (calls them two different people), then you are simply grasping at straws there. Same with the Habiru, as it seems to be begging for there to be something taken into account when other evidence shows a distinct lack.
quote:Now, as you said, you are not being conclusive, and really, neither am I, at least in any sort of scientific sense. And I do appreciate the respect in your tone toward my beliefs. I do not DEPEND on archeology to prove the Bible. But, as I explained, I do not find anything in Egyptian history requiring me to say the exodus did not happened. Archeology is admittedly a human study of the remnants of old civilizations. Like going through someone's garbage. Yes, you can learn a lot. But you can also make a lot of mistakes, and then, basing other ideas on those mistakes, build an entire house of cards whose foundation is rather shakey.
Rightly, Archeologists don't (or at least shouldn't) make sweeping claims about what did or did not occur, who did or did not exist. At best, they can say no evidence has been found, so far. That would have been the course of wisdom regarding claims of Sennacharib or Belshazzar.
Ahh, but your religion makes sweeping claims of absolutes. That's the tricky part. The problem with the bible is that you either have to allow for it to be completely true or just as fallable and subject to revision historically as any other documents. That doesn't have to mean the existence or non-existence of any god (in fact, I think such arguments are useless tripe), but when speaking historically, either it is or it isn't fallable and subjective.
quote:Most religions, on the other hand, unlike science, in fact CLAIM to tell the THE TRUTH (cue the trumpets.) And writings that are the basis of those religions, especially regarding events that have such seminal importance to those belief structures (such as the Exodus in Judaism and Christianity), cannot be expected to change and still be believed as THE TRUTH. At least not believed in any really meaninful, change-your-life kind of way.
The religions can still absolutely be held to hold the truth and still allow for the documents to be subject to historical revision. Just look at the numerous retranslations of the Christian bible over the centuries as a testament to that. It's a process that is always subject to scrutinization after new information is either discovered or released. If it weren't, there would have been no reform movement, no protestant revolution, and none of the offshoots since then.
quote:The Hebrew Scriptures are uniquely historically based documents. While a person may doubt miraculous events, they cannot doubt that, unlike the myths of the Greeks, for example, they are meant to be viewed within a specific historical framework and time (The Illiad and the Oddessy would be major exceptions to the general Greek legends- and that exception allows the modern historian to place those events in specific historical settings.)
You mean like the Trojan War?
quote:Unlike most myths and legends of the different world cultures, Biblical stories, more or less, intersect actual history at specific times and places and peoples. Thus, the completing of the temple by Solomon is claimed to have occurred in the 473rd year from the exodus, or another event occurs during the 15th year of Jehoshaphat, in this specific city. Or the detailed chronogies, firmly tye the present with the past, etc. Luke 3:1 is perfect example naming at least 3 or 4 magistrates in order to place the ministry of John firmly in history. All of this allows the attempts to verify or falsify those stories, unlike most mythologies.
Have you ever read Buddha's writings? Hindu mythology? Akkadian legend? The bible was neither the first nor the only religious document to do as you describe.
quote:The fact that many times, such statements have turned out to be accurate, at least in the verifiable details (like Sennacharib's foray into Judah after his conquering of Israel), together with a host of other factors (that I thought not relevent to this discussion), as well as the aforementioned willingness to record their own shortcomings, make me trust the Biblical record more than I would any other ancient peoples.
I'm sure growing up in a culture where it dominates and is the majority source of religion helps more than you may be willing to admit.
quote:I DON'T doubt the Dalai Lama had the experiences he did. After studying the life of Joseph Smith, I also came to the conclusion that he also believed he had those experiences. So I do "defend" that they had those experiences.
People do not usually let themselves suffer and even die for something they know they made up.
So, as fugu asked earlier, David Koresh was telling the truth?
Honestly, you don't have to answer any of this. What I began pointing out is that there are no absolutes possible historically, no matter what documents you're drawing from. It's quickly becoming a debate over faith.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no problem reconciling the two versions of Genesis. The first focuses upon the Revolt of the Angels, with collateral damage leaving behind only fossilized remains of animal species which no longer exist. And the second focuses upon the Creation of Humankind. With the first set wiped out, naturally there had to be a second creation of the animals which we see today.
quote: The two stories of creation in the Bible are logically mutually exclusive. I think you don't see it because you don't want to see it. Your belief in literal intpretation overrides your respect for the Bible.
I still am waiting for you to explain where the contradiction is. You say I don't see it because I am intellectualy dishonest. I disagree, but it might be true. Could you please explain exactly what this damning contradiction is? I honestly don't see it, unless it's what I mentioned earlier.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, remarkably little of the old testament has been verified as historical. Mainly the existence of certain cities, and nations, and the occasional war. Most of it has not been verified, and we have more than a few historical documents that have a similar number of verified events, written by authors who appear honest, which however have many events/facts proven false: witness Herodotus, for instance: many of the facts he repeated as true just aren't, despite there being many that are. Given the extreme evidence for the OT existing for a long period as an oral history, is it possible to make the assertion (absent belief) that just because a solid handful of facts in it are right we should trust the whole?
A bit off the subject, of course, but it always irritates me when I see people saying things like this. Justa, Buddha didn't write any of his teachings down*. In fact, they weren't written down until several hundred years after his death.
*at least, none that survive, or whose existance modern scholars or religious figures are aware of. If you've got some in your attic, though, I'd love to read them.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:A bit off the subject, of course, but it always irritates me when I see people saying things like this. Justa, Buddha didn't write any of his teachings down*. In fact, they weren't written down until several hundred years after his death.
His sayings are attributed to him, and the same things could be said for the entire New Testament of the Christian bible (that neither Jesus nor anyone who knew him wrote the books), so this is not an issue for me. Does it irritate you seeing quotes and sayings attributed to Jesus, when he did not dictate anything nor had someone inscribing what his words were? That the deeds and words of Abraham were put to writing long after he was gone?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does it irritate you seeing quotes and sayings attributed to Jesus, when he did not dictate anything nor had someone inscribing what his words were? That the deeds and words of Abraham were put to writing long after he was gone?
It wouldn't irritate me to see quotes attributed to Buddha, any more than it does when I see quotes attributed to Jesus, or Socrates (I do take such attributions with an enormous grain of salt, of course).
I would, however, be irritated if I read someone referring to Jesus' or Socrates' writings. Seeing someone refer to the writings of any of these people, I imagine them waving a huge red flag bearing the inscription "I really don't know what I'm talking about here". Now, admittedly, the reference to the Buddha's writings were fairly incidental to your larger point. It isn't as though I'm going to dismiss everything you ever say here as tripe because of what may have been a simple misspeaking.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, I see what you mean now. Yes, I should have worded that somewhat better. You make a good point.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Hobbes. We had another this one start up this morning. Just be patient, and we'll always have another gay marriage thread. There's been no slacking in that department.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
You're right. This is becoming a debate over faith, which I'm sure was not the point, nor is it necessarily something I want to do.
But I'll address a few of your points.
quote:You mean like the Trojan War?
You'll notice I specifically mentioned the Illiad and the Oddessy as exceptions to most greek mythologies. While some have tried to fix the stories of Perseus or Hercules or any of the other doings of the greek gods into some specific time period (usually bronze age Greece, at it's most specific, if I remember correctly) in the end the effort is fruitless. The stories neither lend themselves, nor are intended to be fixed points and events in history. They are mythic tales, true for any time and place.
quote:Have you ever read Buddha's writings? Hindu mythology? Akkadian legend? The bible was neither the first nor the only religious document to do as you describe.
As a matter of fact I have. And I have yet to see, in the Ennuma Elish, for example, or the Epic of Gilgamesh, many, if any, verifiable facts. And the more extravagant myths, dealing with the Annunaki and Enku, etc, provide little, as well. Egyptian mythology, the death and rebirth of Osiris, is similarly vaguely, if at all, placed in history. The same is true of most mythologies. They are almost always vaguely set in time and place.
The contrast I was trying to note was that the Biblical stories (myths, if you will) are set firmly in history. Most events occur within specific reigns of kings, and not just Judean or Israelite kings, but kings of Babylon, Assyria, Medo-Persia and Rome, as well as numerous local magistrates. (Again, Luke 3:1 is a good example. Also, most of the books of the prophets contain a quick description of the time period they are set in.)
There are also numerous chronologies tying the (then) present with the past, saying how many years this or that person lived, etc. Thus, 1 or 2 Chronicles, tying every character in with every other, and all of them to the audience those books were written for (post-exilic Judeans). Seriously, look at the first 9 chapters of 1 Chronicles. Again, steeped in what was, especially to its audience, facts that could be verified, at least geneologically speaking.
Those facts that are verifiable, such as who was reigning at what time, what, generally occurred, etc, are often found to be relatively accurate- at least the non-miraculous dealings. Sennacharib's assault on Judea, including the taking of Lachish is reflected in the Lachish letters. Writings from Sennacharib's time indicate, too, that Sennacharib did indeed invade and, while conquering much of Judea, did not invade Jerusalem itself. Obviously, the Sennacharib Prism makes no mention of Sennacharib's army's defeat at the hand of an angel. But, in the details, including the tribute he did take, etc, the Biblical account is remarkably accurate.
The same could be said of numerous other stories and brief mentions. And at the very least the mileu, the setting in the which the story is set does not contradict what is now known about that time and place and environment, nor does it contradict known facts. At worst, the secular record is silent.
Do you have to believe any of it? Of course not. Faith definitely comes into play- a willingness to, based on the evidence that does exist, actually believe what it says. But my point is, given the Bible's accuracy, myself and others cannot be faulted when we find secular silence on a matter as less then final on an issue. Again, Sennacharib or Belshazzar are perfect examples of people the were claimed not have existed, period, because secular history was silent on them.
And I am perfectly willing to admit that my familiarity with these events for most of my life plays some role in my belief in them. But I'd like to think that, like those who have become Christians in other lands with different mythological traditions, I'd too consider the existing evidence weighty enough that I'd believe it even if it WASN'T the dominant culture.
quote:The religions can still absolutely be held to hold the truth and still allow for the documents to be subject to historical revision. Just look at the numerous retranslations of the Christian bible over the centuries as a testament to that. It's a process that is always subject to scrutinization after new information is either discovered or released. If it weren't, there would have been no reform movement, no protestant revolution, and none of the offshoots since then.
Better and more accurate translation is not the same as definitevly saying that this part of Exodus is bunk, so we must chuck it in the interest of being accurate. One is based on refined understandings of the original languages and thoughts, while not negating the texts themselves. It is saying that the texts were accurate but the translation was poor (as my first post basically was attempting to do). It'd be a stretch to do that and, effectively, excise 5, 10 30% of the Bible based on research that is tenous and theoretical at best, subject to change or any new discovery.
It is precisely this difference that separates science from religion. One attempts to discover the truth about physical (and even historical, in the case of archeology) events through natural observational methods. Religion, on the other hand, attempts to explain (sometimes) those things, as well as the answers to life's most difficult and metaphysical questions by appealing to authorities who would know- God, gods, or benevolent spirit forces.
Obviously, you don't have to believe them. But to be upset that religion is unfair because it is not science and not subject to scientific methods is strange (though archeology is unique in that the very process of observation sometimes destroys other evidence and, to a certain extent, is unrepeatable. You can re-excavate a city. All of which only serves to make archeological claims all the more tenuous).
quote:David Koresh was telling the truth?
About what? He wrote no historical documents. From what I recall, the only thing he wrote was a treatise on Revalation, to be submitted and examined by a panel of Biblical scholars. As for his teachings, well, just because a person believes what they teach doesn't make it true. Old Vernon was no Messiah, at least not one in harmony with what had been written biblically nor by his actions (child-brides and all). Moreover, his techniques (and abuses) only serve to emphasize the shallowness of his claim- on par with Jim Jones.
Again, my point was, in addition to a number of other "proofs" if you will, the fact that Bible writers were willing to expose their own weaknesses and sins, even to their own embarrassment or the embarrassment of national heroes (like Abraham or Moses or David or Noah) only serves to lend credence to their accounts of what happened, especially when the secular record, at best is simply silent on the matter.
In the end, it is a matter of faith. I would dispute the claim that little in the Bible is verifiable. And comparisons to Herodotus do little good because, unlike Herodotus, most of the Bible's verifiable facts have turned out to accurate. I would argue with the statement that little of the Bible is verifiable.
But it has been a good discussion and I appreciate the tone in which it was conducted.
posted
IanO, I think its more of a matter of "I will not believe in the Bible, no matter WHAT is discovered!" Every bit of the historical parts(and I believe a fair amount HAS been discovered more than even the accepted ancient histories) could be proven true, and these kinds of people would still find some loophole to disregard the Bible as trash. Or, as Jesus said, "you wouldn't believe any of it even if you saw a man arrived from the dead."
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to agree with that, Occasional. For many people, only witnessing the return of Christ would make them believe, and then it would be too late.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shame that a loving God believes that it's ever too late for some people to come to Him. Sounds like a bit of a bastard, really.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Occasional, I don't necessarily agree, at least about people here.
I mean, having spent a number of years reading posts by Tom Davidson or David Bowles or fugu13, I don't get the impression that there is a desire not to believe. I remember one poster (not them) stating that they would absolutely love to believe in a creator who cared about them.
The difference is, for many reasons some people are simply unwilling to believe in something for which there isn't a flat out yes or no piece of evidence for. I think of Tom's envelope with pieces of paper of one color in it. Some people, understandably, don't want to play what they perceive are games. They don't want a maybe answer or an answer that isn't a bolt of lightning out of the sky kind of answer. They don't understand that if God existed, why doesn't he just show himself explicitly. I do believe that if Tom received the answer he was looking for with his envelope, or if David or fugu13 or many of the other's here at Hatrack saw incotrovertible proof of God, they would very easily believe (but would probably have a number of questions for the Deity.)
That's not say that there aren't people like you describe. The one who comes to my mind is Richard Dawkins. He is so arrogant in his presentation of what he considers evidence, and his assumption about the general stupidity and lack of fortitude believers display, that I don't think anything would shake him. Nothing.
posted
With respect to Squicky's "disdain" [tongue in cheek, ref. other threads] for those who claim to be religious but don't have enough knowledge of their particular faith: I don't dispute that there are those of us that don't know the fundamentals of a religion that we profess and that is wrong. However, there is only so much that you can be an expert in during one lifetime, so I'm not convinced that everyone has should be held to the standard that your promoting. At some point we all have to rely on others who have made it their business to be experts on religious matters. I take issue when people lose their objectivity, or as CT has put it, skepticism, and accept the teaching or opinions of experts, regardless of the field, without independent thought.
I think a perfect example is the discussion that has occurred in this thread. I commend Ian on his depth of knowledge on these subjects. It is just a fact that I have to rely on someone else to present the facts in an organized way. I also congratulate Ian on being objective enough to be able to take the criticism. I think that this openness is required of an expert in order to maintain with credibility skeptics.
quote:You'll notice I specifically mentioned the Illiad and the Oddessy as exceptions to most greek mythologies. While some have tried to fix the stories of Perseus or Hercules or any of the other doings of the greek gods into some specific time period (usually bronze age Greece, at it's most specific, if I remember correctly) in the end the effort is fruitless. The stories neither lend themselves, nor are intended to be fixed points and events in history. They are mythic tales, true for any time and place.
I can't accept that, Ian. You're being selective in what is and is not allowable. For example, are you willing to accept early biblical figures as living for centuries, yet not willing to accept stories of other mythical figures having great strength, longevity, or other exceptional powers (like Gilgamesh)?
quote:As a matter of fact I have. And I have yet to see, in the Ennuma Elish, for example, or the Epic of Gilgamesh, many, if any, verifiable facts.
Do you mean he wasn't a real king? Don't the accounts of the deluge in his epic predate Hebrew accounts? Doesn't the account of waters parting at his death predate Hebrew account? How about this? Considering Abraham is said to have originated from Ur, which is not far from Uruk, the city Gilgamesh is supposed to have been king of, it is easy to point out similarities in some accounts, with certain points-of-view altered to fit different settings.
quote:And the more extravagant myths, dealing with the Annunaki and Enku, etc, provide little, as well.
Do you mean Enki, one tale of which not only closely resembles the Genesis account of creation (with obvious differences), but seems to be the first account of what later becomes evolutionary theory (manipulation of apes into man)?
quote:Egyptian mythology, the death and rebirth of Osiris, is similarly vaguely, if at all, placed in history. The same is true of most mythologies. They are almost always vaguely set in time and place.
Yes, if you are judging from a modern, Western point of view, literal translations are archaic and vague. Oddly enough, so are the oldest Hebrew texts we have translated. The Hebrew texts are less so because they can only be dated back to around 800 AD, I believe. I understand that they are accounting things which go back much further, but since there are few, if any, verifiable texts and writings from 1500 BCE from the Hebrews, then it is difficult to say what has been added in the interim and what was there from the beginning.
This isn't to say that the oldest versions we know of are forgeries or are inconsistent, but it is to say that you are comparing 2000-4000 year-old texts to 1200-year-old texts. Would you like to compare a modern novel and an Old English novel, and see which one is going to have more relevant events listed that are not directly related to the plot or story? Orson Scott Card's novels include far more historical and social inclusions than even his own eariler books, let alone earlier Hugo winners. Maybe not all, but most.
With the verifiable things in the bible, even you yourself have argued that the historical timelines outside of the bible are not to be trusted (the 3500 year thing), so what exactly are we verifying against?
In the end, this is where it becomes an issue of faith. For example, the more we learn with history and archeaology, the more we see the reason for accounts of the Great Deluge. The more I hear on findings, the more believable it is. The difference between it and biblical accounts is simply scope, cause, and point of view. That's where the faith comes in. There is really no adequate argument for faith, in my opinion, so there's nothing I can say to contradict that. It simply is.
Regardless, Ian, I want to thank you for the wonderful exploration and the mentions of things I haven't looked at in a while. I appreciate it.
p.s. - Koresh also claimed divinity and decided biblical meanings were different from the mainstream, among other things. He made some wild claims, if I recall correctly.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, Occasional, I don't necessarily agree, at least about people here.
I mean, having spent a number of years reading posts by Tom Davidson or David Bowles or fugu13, I don't get the impression that there is a desire not to believe.
Having spent a number of years reading posts by these same people, even if I am for the most part a recent poster, I don't believe they actually have a desire to believe. They want knowledge, maybe, but not belief.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? You don't think Tom wants to believe? Why, then, do you think that so much of his life has been dedicated to searching for the divine?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Shame that a loving God believes that it's ever too late for some people to come to Him. Sounds like a bit of a bastard, really.
It will be too late to develop faith in Him, that is true. But that doesn't mean God won't take things as a case-by-case basis, taking into account each person's advantages and disadvantages.
I just read a very fascinating passage in The Book of Mormon. In The Book of Mormon, Christ appears to the people after his ressurrection and ascension into heaven. Before this happens, we are told that the people in that land at that time had been given every cause to believe, that every person in there had had strong enough witnesses that there was no cause for disbelief. They had to very deliberately choose not to believe. For example: A prophet foretold that on the night before Christ would be born, the sun would set as usual, but the sky would remain as light as midday until the rising of the sun the next day, and also about a new star appearing. The people all heard the message, and they all saw it happen. That is a pretty major sign.
I thought to myself, perhaps that is how it will be before Christ returns this last time. In order for it to not be an unjust thing, He will give the people on the earth at that time every cause to believe.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
But what is it a sign OF? I mean, I can predict eclipses. Does that make me a prophet?
Why do we assume that a generalized prediction of an unusual event means someone speaks for God?
Consider, for example, that lots of people can do magic tricks. If somebody does a magic trick that you can't figure out, then tells you that God made it possible, do YOU believe that they're a prophet?
In the old days, actually, people DID believe this more readily than they do today. But I think the quality of miracles as "proof" needs to be considerably higher than "I called this sunrise accurately" before you can be expected to be CERTAIN that someone is in fact the mouthpiece of God.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, that is a good question. I think that a sign like that wouldn't work nearly so well today because we have the abilities to predict such occurrances better. But what if the person doing the predicting predicts something never seen before and has no means to know of it scientifically before hand?
We certainly need to beware of "displays of power" as proof of the divine.
In each of these cases in The Book of Mormon, there were multiple witnesses. It was never just one person saying something. What the prophet Samuel said about the heavenly signs had been fortold by other prophets. What he did specifically was tell them *when* it would happen. So that they would know and be prepared to accept it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the problem is, there was still no way to be certain that Samuel was telling the truth, at least not in the event as described.
Because, let's face it, each person has his own criteria for "truth," and someone might well be skeptical of a sunrise when someone else might not.
Now, if you told me that God had personally met each and every person's burden of proof, and yet they deliberately chose to turn against Him after they KNEW He existed, that would be different -- but not believing in Him despite the "evidence" of a sunrise simply means they didn't buy into the evidence, not that they rejected God.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the prophet who compiled the writings states more than once that everyone had sufficient cause to believe, I assume that there must have been some "micromanaging" by God going on there in order for that to happen. That is, if I believe what was said there (which I do.)
The night that was bright as day was just an example. The text says that many different kinds of signs were given. But The Book of Mormon is a compilation and can't include every detail.
posted
Tom, beverly, that would depend on a lot of things. That's kind of what I was discussing with Ian. It's going to boil down to faith in every case, and trying to build it solely on empirical data is going to always be insufficient to someone.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, so it would seem. I believe God knows us each individually and knows what it is we need and will judge us accordingly. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can't accept that, Ian. You're being selective in what is and is not allowable. For example, are you willing to accept early biblical figures as living for centuries, yet not willing to accept stories of other mythical figures having great strength, longevity, or other exceptional powers (like Gilgamesh)?
Clearly, more would be needed to believe in the extravagent claims of any ancient stories, biblical or not. Since this discussion was mainly focusing on general historical events (an Exodus occurring, for example, not necessarily that the Red Sea was parted) that may or may not be verifiable and their contrast to other secular histories, and which of the two was the more reliable, I mainly have concentrated on trying to show that the absense of secular confirmation of certain biblical events does not prove that they did not occur. And that the general attempt at honesty the Bible writers showed in contrast to those of the other secular sources of the time (as well as the other reasons I mentioned that I don't want to repeat), lends credence to their account.
At any rate, the difference in the two is not THAT great. 1200 BC versus 1500 BCE. A 300 year difference is no reason to jump all over the Bible as inaccurate, especially considering that the dating to 1500 BC from Biblical sources is arrived at through fairly consistant chronological sources in the text. That is to say, from verifiable events (read: historically placeable events) such as the fall of Babylon in 539 BC (verified through ancient astronomy and multiple sources) one can work backward and fairly easily arrive at 1500 BC for the Exodus. The timeline is generally dense and non-contradictory. From there to Abraham (1900-2000 BC) is also fairly straight forward and requires no outlandish descriptions or long lived people or anything else. The chronology from that pivotal point of 539 BC back to 2000 BC is fairly straightfoward and consistant. Any further, obviously, and faith has to step in, as in accepting the long lives of the ancients and their relationship to Adam, etc.
But up to that point, little, if any faith is required, except to say that the time periods the writers were describing were 1) not really too distant from the writings (500 years at most), and 2) the manipulation of dates and time periods would serve no purpose.
So it would be 3200 instead of 3500. Not a big difference.
Obviously, belief in the Bible as God's word requires much more. I believe the book of 1 Macabbees to be a valuable historical document. But I do not believe it to be inspired and thus accurate even in the more difficult to believe sections (a whole separate issue requiring more and differing evidence). For that reason, obviously, I would not accept other ancient tales as being absolutely true, though a kernal (or larger) of truth probably exists in them.
But my main point was that, in contrast to what I just wrote about biblical "history" and chronology, Egyptian history is rife with guesswork, errors, and outright fraud (at least in the case of certain ancient records.) Given that (which you admitted), a difference of 300 years is not enough for me to deny the fairly consistant Biblical account for those secular Egyptian histories.
posted
Sorry, didn't see your post till now, Tom. Here's how I see it. He will give us what we need, eventually. For many skeptics, the first step will probably be realizing they are dead and yet have not winked out of existance. That's some pretty good evidence right there, and it doesn't overly disrupt the running of the universe. It doesn't remove another individual's faith or lack thereof. It is a very personal thing.
The sort of "proof" going on in this story was hastening that moment of "aha" because an event was coming, a crucial event, one foretold for centuries before that. People were given plenty of opportunities to develop faith without proof before those final proofs were given.
This included an extreme increase in missionary activity before that visit from Christ. Interestingly enough, that is what is happening in the LDS church right now--an incredibly fast expansion through missionary work. I think that time is winding down and coming to an end. A time of testing and signs, I expect, will follow.
These are the words of Christ as written in The Book of Mormon (I happened to read it today) "3 Nephi 12:1-2 ...therefore blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized, after that ye have seen me and know that I am. 2 And again, more blessed are they who shall believe in your words because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me, and that ye know that I am."
The idea here is that those who trust in Christ and His spirit without "empirical proof" are more blessed than they who require "empirical proof" to believe.
So it is reasonable to believe that it is better to have every opportunity to develop that faith and trust on as little "proof" as is required for that particular individual.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Here's the thing, though: if God knows what we need, why doesn't He give it to us?
I'm of the opinion that most of what we need can't be given. What if what we need is to learn the value of a dollar?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Thanks! Now back to your previously scheduled argument.
