|
The Catholic Church: "The parts of the bible we don't like, aren't true" (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
Here we go again!
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
have u even looked at the evidence supporting the bible? before come to a conclusion, look at the facts first;)
I could say exactly the same to you. ;)
Have you actually sought out independent corroboration for the events of the Bible, in either archaeological or historical fact? No? I didn't think so.
[quote]History - The bible has proven time and time again that it is a reliable and accurate source of ancient history supported by numorous archeological finds. |
Some of the post-Babylonian Old Testament texts have some historical merit (or, at least, we presume there do - there aren't many non-Biblical texts from that time to compare them with) and the New Testament (with a few glaring exceptions) tends to be fairly accurate in terms of the people and the geography of the day (which we should expect seeing as how the region didn't change much between the death of Christ and the period when the Gospels were written), but the rest of it has virtually no archaeological support whatsoever.
Find me historical / archaeological evidence which supports:
- The existence of any of the people (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Isaac etc.) or events of Genesis.
- The existence of Moses, the presence of a large number of Jewish people in Egypt (600,000 according to the Bible), or the Exodus and the 40 years spent wandering the desert (that many people were involved and we can't even find a single bit of evidence to support that they ever existed?).
- The existence of Joshua, or the manner in which Joshua claimed the land of modern day Isreal for the 12 tribes of Isreal (kicking the out of everyone who lived in the region, burning towns down and killing tens of thousands of people at a time if the Bible is to be believed).
- The existence of any of the great Jewish kings.
Fact is, all of the above events and people almost certainly never happened or existed. There really isn't any other way of explaining the complete (and I do mean complete) absense of support for them in the archaeological record and, indeed, in the earliest manuscripts of the Bible (why didn't the Yahwehists, who must have written after the supposed period of Joshua and under the reign of at least one of these Jewish kings, ever mention these figures?).
| quote: | | Manuscript - strange how ancient classics such as the oddesey, have only a few manuscripts that were written at the earliest 900 years after the story was written, gets more creditablity than the bible, which has thousands of manuscripts, with several dating back to only the second generation after the apostles wrote the books. |
What do you mean by "credibility"? Are you trying to say that the Odyssey is historically and archaelogically accurate or that scholars treat it as such? If not, why are you comparing the Bible to one of the most important works of fiction in the history of Western Civilization? :conf:
No-one is trying to say that the Bible is flawed because its content has been slowly changed or corrupted over the years (although this certainly does figure as well - more on this in a second) but because it was flawed to begin with. The original authors simply wrote down the folklore of the Jewish people of the day - including its historical myths and legends - and I'm quite sure that the original texts of these authors have been copied quite accurately down the years. That, however, still doesn't change the fact that the original authors wrote down a mythology that never, in a historical sense, actually happened.
Now as for what I was saying about the Bible changing over the years:
| quote: | | its also been found that the manuscripts and the bible of today are over 99% as reliable as the original manuscripts, debunking the arguement that the bible has changed since it was written. |
The Bible has changed over the years and it has changed significantly. Firstly, with regards to the New Testament, I shouldn't have to tell you about the Council of Carthage and other earlier Christian councils, how arbitrary the selection of "holy texts" were at the meetings (4 seasons = 4 gospels? Makes sense to me!) and how this decision has impacted on the current composition of the Bible or - indeed - on Christianity itself.
With regards to the Old Testament, it is actually largely established that is was written by potentially dozens of authors over the space of several centuries, who went back and directly changed what was written in earlier accounts. With regards to the "Pentateuch" for instance (the first 5 books of the bible):
| quote: | In 1854, four sources were recognised. They were called the Yahvist version, the Elohist version, Deuteronomy, and the Sacerdotal version. It was even possible to date them:
1) The Yahvist version was placed in the Ninth century B.C. (written in Judah)
2) The Elohist version was probably a little more recent (written in Israel)
3) Deuteronomy was from the Eighth century B.C. for some (E. Jacob) , and from the time of Josiah for others (Father de Vaux)
4) The Sacerdotal version came from the period of exile or after the exile: Sixth century B.C.
[...]
The problem is, however, even more complex. In 1941, A. Lods singled out three sources in the Yahvist version, four in the Elohist version, six in Deuteronomy, nine in the Sacerdotal version, "not including the additions spread out among eight different authors" writes Father de Vaux. More recently, it has been thought that "many of the constitutions or laws contained in the Pentateuch had parallels outside the Bible going back much further than the dates ascribed to the documents themselves" and that "many of the stories of the Pentateuch presupposed a background that was different from-and older than-the one from which these documents were supposed to have come". |
With regards to Genesis in particular:
| quote: | | For Genesis alone, the division of the Book into three sources has been firmly established: Father de Vaux in the commentary to his translation lists for each source the passages in the present text of Genesis that rely on them. On the evidence of these data it is possible to pinpoint the contribution made by the various sources to any one of the chapters. For example, in the case of the Creation, the Flood and the period that goes from the Flood to Abraham, occupying as it does the first eleven chapters of Genesis, we can see alternating in the Biblical text a section of the Yahvist and a section of the Sacerdotal texts. The Elohist text is not present in the first eleven chapters. The overlapping of Yahvist and Sacerdotal contributions is here quite clear. For the Creation and up to Noah (first five chapter's), the arrangement is simple: a Yahvist passage alternates with a Sacerdotal passage from beginning to end of the narration. For the Flood and especially chapters 7 and 8 moreover, the cutting of the text according to its source is narrowed down to very short passages and even to a single sentence. In the space of little more than a hundred lines of English text, the text changes seventeen times. It is from this that the improbabilities and contradictions arise when we read the present-day text. |
(Full Text -
I know you won't read that, but I'll recommend that you do anyway. If you want anymore reading on this subject, I'd be happy to scan some passages from my own books for you.)
So basically - and this happens all throughout the Old Testament in its current form - we have evidence which suggests that its authors or "composers" have basically altered its wording to fit in with the predominant cultural emphases of the day. I don't know what the "original" Old Testament would look like without all the additions and mergings over the centuries, but I'd be quite sure that it'd look very different to how it looks now.
| quote: | | Science - HUGE TOPIC. for every problem the evolutionist come up with, the creationist can answer with feasability. the only problem is, "god" is involved with many events on the creationist time scale. |
No, the only way that a creationist can explain the discrepencies between the scientific account of the nature of our universe and the Biblical one is by saying "God did it". That's just a cop-out answer that doesn't explain anything. It isn't "feasible" and it doesn't make sense. For instance:
| quote: | Evolution - astroid hit.
Creation - the great flood killed most of them, and the survivors could not live in a post flood world. u also take into account the pre-flood atmosphere and post-flood atmosphere. |
The flood myth is not "feasible" in any sense of the word. It is not feasible for the Earth to hold that much water, it is not feasible for one man to gather up that many animals, there is no geological record to support a global flood, there is no evidence to support the assertion that the Earth's atmosphere was radically different 6,000 years ago and there is no evidence to support the existence of God. How, exactly, does that make the creationist account "feasible"?
| quote: | | Ethics - if evolution were to be true, then why would racism be wrong, why would murder be wrong, why would war be wrong? if this world revolves around survival, shouldnt the weak be allowed to die off or be subjugated? to the theist, it would be wrong because "god" said it was wrong. and we can see its wrong because of the implications such actions bring such as death and sorrow. we can see how it is wrong. |
Hooboy. This is going to be a long one. Gimme a couple of hours. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
Renegade 
Shouldn't he have learnt by now?! :p |
|
|
| Stanza |
Here's an article that I found today:
| quote: | How design supporters insult God's intelligence
November 15, 2005
The idea of a supreme being who leaves creation to chance does not sit well with some Christians, writes Neil Ormerod.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
INTELLIGENT design has become the latest hot topic in the increasingly blurred distinction between secular and sacred in Australian society. It has received qualified support from the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, and is being promoted within some Christian schools as an acceptable "scientific" alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. Yet intelligent design is based on a misunderstanding of God's relationship to creation.
Much depends on what its proponents mean by the term "intelligent design". If they mean that the universe as a whole displays a profound intelligibility through which one might argue philosophically that the existence of God is manifest, their position is very traditional.
However, if by intelligent design they mean that God is an explanation for the normal course of events which would otherwise lack scientific explanation, then this is opposed to a traditional Christian understanding of divine transcendence. In seeking to save a place for God within the creation process, the promoters of intelligent design reduce God to the level of what the early theologian Thomas Aquinas would call a "secondary cause".
This is just a more sophisticated version of so-called "creation science", which is poor theology and poor science. As theology, creation science failed to read the biblical story within its historical and cultural context, reading it through the eyes of modern positivism, which equates truth with the accuracy of data. The Bible could only be "true" if it were literally "true" in every detail.
This literalist fundamentalism finds few supporters in mainstream Christianity. As science it manipulates the evidence to fit this misreading of the Bible. Intelligent design seeks to go beyond the limitations of creation science. It does not reject or manipulate the scientific data, but argues that the scientific evidence for biological change reveals "intelligent design".
Theologically and philosophically the central issue is the nature of chance. The theory of evolution threatens some Christians because it evokes chance in the process of biological change. For Christians, God is the Lord of creation, a provident provider whose determinations are certain. What God wills, necessarily happens. To evoke chance may threaten this.
Yet Thomas Aquinas argued centuries ago that because something necessarily happens does not mean it happens necessarily. Chance can still be involved. Aquinas argued that what God wills to happen by chance, will of necessity happen by chance.
Two examples show how chance events can lead to determined outcomes. Take a radioactive atom. It is impossible to tell when this atom will decay. Yet if we put lots of atoms together, we can predict with precision how many will be left after a certain time. This is the basis of carbon dating.
Or, take the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. Despite the long denials by the tobacco companies, smoking causes lung cancer. The relationship between them is statistical: if we halve the rate of smoking we will halve the rate of related lung cancers. Yet we will never know whose lives we end up saving.
The philosophical issue is whether statistical causes are real causes or simply a cover for unknown causes. Even some religious believers want to cling to the type of scientific determinism which has dominated our culture since the initial discoveries of Newton.
Nonetheless, we human beings can use statistical causation - chance - to produce determinate outcomes. What the promoters of intelligent design argue is that God is not intelligent enough to produce determinate outcomes using statistical causation.
Do they think that God is not intelligent enough to use statistical causation? If we allow that God is more intelligent than us, then the whole basis of intelligent design is undermined. It is an unnecessary hypothesis which should be consigned to the dustbin of scientific and theological history.
Neil Ormerod is Professor of Theology at the Australian Catholic University.
|
|
|
|
| Lepanto |
And if there were no Jewish kings...who built Jerusalem's temples and what's now called the wailing wall?
the bible maybe aren't accurate but it is a handy tool. I think we could leave it at that. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
the bible maybe aren't accurate but it is a handy tool. I think we could leave it at that. |
handy? how?
handy as a form of social control no doubt. handy if you need something to put under a dodgy table leg for sure. handy for a book to read children to make them fall asleep.
thats all i could come up with on short notice.
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
There's a flag on the play. Illegal motion: Regurgitating refuted arguments and failure to respond to prior threads. That'll be a 10 yard penalty and repeat 1st down. |
*cue john madden with his pen which shows exactly where TVD fvcked up and what he shouldve done instead* :D
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
Ethics - if evolution were to be true, then why would racism be wrong, why would murder be wrong, why would war be wrong? if this world revolves around survival, shouldnt the weak be allowed to die off or be subjugated? to the theist, it would be wrong because \"god\" said it was wrong. and we can see its wrong because of the implications such actions bring such as death and sorrow. we can see how it is wrong. |
oh please. dont tell me that we need god's word coz we are incapable of making our own judgements re right & wrong? :rolleyes: should we therefore refer to the good book in all & every situation to evaluate whether we're doing what god would want? what happens when god's word contradicts itself? then youre fvcked.
but, essentially youre saying that you'd rather be led by a thousands year old document (origin ambiguous at best), over what your own rational deduction could give you? well, i guess you are the perfect believer :p |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
And if there were no Jewish kings...who built Jerusalem's temples and what's now called the wailing wall? |
I didn't mean to say that Isreal - or at least the Jewish faith within Isreal - never had a monarchy (as they obviously did) just that none of the "great" patriarchs of the monarchy (David, Solomon etc.) were likely to have existed. At the very least, there is no archaeological to support their existence which, when you consider their supposed power (and, in Solomon's case, extravegant wealth), would be pretty damn strange had they actually existed.
| quote: | | the bible maybe aren't accurate but it is a handy tool. |
I agree to an extent (read my first post in this thread) but in terms of historical fact, it really isn't. It isn't an insidious "fabrication" but it is, for the most part, still just a "mythology".
Also, what happened to trancevandyk? Don't tell me he just posted a bunch of non-sequiteur crap and then buggered-off when he was called on it? Because that sure isn't like him... :-/ |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
Ethics - if evolution were to be true, then why would racism be wrong, why would murder be wrong, why would war be wrong? |
If one is to take a purely evolutionist standpoint, ie no Supreme Being of anykind and both macro/micro-evolution, then we are nothing but a bunch of matter thrown together by chance, the lucky ones who have atoms arranged such that we are self aware. We live in a reality guided by the laws of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and other such sciences; the extent and full meaning of those science we do not know.
There are no absolutes in this reality, no defining purpose, we are the sum of our genes, dreams and who knows what else. Murder is not "wrong", hacking in computer games is not "wrong", and yet "wrong" is merely a human idea that is subjective. It changes from era to era, place to place, person to person.
In terms of absolute right and wrong nothing can be defined, because there are no absolutes. If I kill you and a judge tells me I'm wrong, I am just being judged by society's standards.
There are only two rules: "He who has the biggest guns wins." and "Look out for number 1." Or, to summarize both rules into one: "Survival of the Fittest".
Such thoughts as these are too much for most people, so they ignore them or try to find some way out. Then you enter the realm of B.S. that is "Evolutionary Psychology". Evolutionary Psychology is one of the few belief systems in life that I consider complete B.S.
They use big words and fancy ideas to tell us that there really is purpose, and right and wrong. And that you must be nice to your fellow man because that is what is best for getting your genes passed on. Yet getting your genes passed on is not the most important thing, even though Evolution, which is gospel truth btw, says it is; but it really doesnt. And thus its spirals down and down into nothingness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short Version: You are "right". There is no absolute "ethic" or "right" and "wrong", becuase there is nothing but cold hard math and science in charge. We are beings of chance and anything thought up by us is merely subjective. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I didn't mean to say that Isreal - or at least the Jewish faith within Isreal - never had a monarchy (as they obviously did) just that none of the "great" patriarchs of the monarchy (David, Solomon etc.) were likely to have existed. At the very least, there is no archaeological to support their existence which, when you consider their supposed power (and, in Solomon's case, extravegant wealth), would be pretty damn strange had they actually existed.
I agree to an extent (read my first post in this thread) but in terms of historical fact, it really isn't. It isn't an insidious "fabrication" but it is, for the most part, still just a "mythology".
|
And my point was that they did because David and Solomon were both the rulers behind building Jerusalem. Not only that...i learned this in college history, not too mention it was in every single history text book i've ever used. And not only here in America, if someone wants to play the whole Jesusland card.
on the contrary. the bible oftens helps piece certain events together because it was after all written down by people was it not? I'm not reffering to the fact that Moses split the river but around the same time that the bible tells there was a huge earthquake of the coast of Greece that sent a tsunami wave towards modern day Red Sea. Check it out.
It is used as a tool when some events don't make complete sense, historians often refer back to the bible to offer them some clues. Mainly because alot of is factual. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
And my point was that they did because David and Solomon were both the rulers behind building Jerusalem. Not only that...i learned this in college history, not too mention it was in every single history text book i've ever used. And not only here in America, if someone wants to play the whole Jesusland card. |
You're just assuming that they built it, with no other support than the mythology of the Bible:
| quote: | The current debate over Solomon shows how the argument between the maximalist and minimalist positions is not over whether archaeological evidence should be considered but over how it should be interpreted. Biblical chronology places Solomon in the tenth century BC, and he is depicted as an extremely wealthy king who ruled over an extensive empire and exerted far-reaching international influence. The Bible indicates that he imported luxury goods from afar and that he built many cities, including Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. Archaeologists excavating the ruins of all three of these named cities have uncovered fortifications with impressive city gates from approximately the tenth century BC. The ruins are silent; there are no inscriptions or any other clues as to who built the fortifications. If one assumes that the biblical account of Solomon’s reign is reasonably accurate, then it makes sense to attribute the fortifications and gates to Solomon.
Suppose, however, that one has strong reservations about the historical reliability of the texts, especially the larger-than-life description of Solomon, and one believes that any proper history of ancient Israel must be based on firsthand sources. Solomon does not turn up in any ancient written sources outside the Bible, and the archaeological ruins offer no clue. In short, no Solomon.
Even a more moderate historian -- one who suspects that the biblical account of Solomon’s reign is based on folk tales and legends that circulated more than a half millennium after the real Solomon lived, yet is open to the possibility that these folk tales and legends hark back to a historical figure -- may have reservations about crediting this legendary Solomon with the fortifications and gates at Hazor, Gezer and Megiddo. And even if our moderate historian does attribute them to Solomon, he or she may still have reservations about affirming the existence of a Solomonic empire. Why, if Solomon ruled an extensive empire for 40 years (or even close to that), are there no inscriptions from his reign, and no mention of him in the records of other peoples of the day? If he engaged in international trade and imported luxury goods, why are so few trade goods from his era to be found in the ruins at Hazor, Gezer, Megiddo and other sites throughout Palestine? And why are there only meager remains from Solomon’s supposed capital Jerusalem, the centerpiece of his building projects, that can be dated even approximately to the tenth century? |
http://www.religion-online.org/show....asp?title=2964
If the history text-books you've read have said - without qualification - that David and Solomon are regarded as legitimate historical figures and that they built the walls of Jersulelum, then they are wrong. Perhaps they're out of date (much of this debate is new - it wasn't really until the second half of last century that the historical legitimacy of the Bible was brought seriously into question) or perhaps they're just reluctant to teach the controversy, but - in either case - they are wrong to portray Solomon and David as legitimate historical figures.
| quote: | | on the contrary. the bible oftens helps piece certain events together because it was after all written down by people was it not? |
Yes, in most cases at least a few of hundred years after the events described were meant to have occurred (several thousand years in the case of Genesis) with no written testimony to go on. The people who wrote the Bible are not reliable sources.
| quote: | | I'm not reffering to the fact that Moses split the river but around the same time that the bible tells there was a huge earthquake of the coast of Greece that sent a tsunami wave towards modern day Red Sea. Check it out. |
I'll need to see a link to this. No Biblical literalist pages, please.
| quote: | | It is used as a tool when some events don't make complete sense, historians often refer back to the bible to offer them some clues. Mainly because alot of is factual. |
In terms of revealing the geopgraphy and customs of the people at times it was written (900 BC - 400 BC), absolutely. In terms of accurately desctibing people, places and events that were supposed to have happened several hundred years before they were written down in the Bible, absolutely not. It's a book of mythology, not a book of history. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
|
You're taking everything I said and stretch it out by a mile to fit your nonsense.
First off, according to you the history books are then outdated by 50 years. Ofcourse, in NYC colleges i cannot find up-to-date textbooks.
Next up, where did I say exectly that the bible is accurate or is used to, literally, pin point events that actually occured? Nowhere.
If you need to see a Link then you're going to have to search for it because I have only hard evidence of this. I.e. a newspaper clipping that was xeroxed by Prof in my ancient history of the western world.
as for the last reply. once again, no one said it is LITERALLY. For example, History chanel did that special on the Lemba and how they are one of the missing tribes of Israel. Now, obviously they have to refer back to the bible to find out if any of the patterns fit. Then they have to go archeological evidence. And then back to the bible, to see if it's in the same time period. And I was under the impression that certain parts were actually recorded short after events had happened.
The way you portray the bibles use as a historical tool is flaky. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
You're taking everything I said and stretch it out by a mile to fit your nonsense. |
No I'm not.
| quote: | | First off, according to you the history books are then outdated by 50 years. Ofcourse, in NYC colleges i cannot find up-to-date textbooks. |
I didn't say that all the debates surrounding Biblical archaeology commenced, raged and finished entirely within the year of 1955, I said that much of the debate is - in the context of the age of the Bible, especially - incredibly new. According to the link I posted earlier, debate about the historicity of King Solomon didn't really begin in earnest until the publication of a book in 1986. The most coherent and thorough archaelogical dismissal of Solomon didn't occur until the publication of this book in 2001. Like I said, either the books you've read are out of date or they just weren't willing to present the legitimate archaelogical evidence (or, more to the point, the complete lack thereof) surrounding kings Solomon and David.
| quote: | | Next up, where did I say exectly that the bible is accurate or is used to, literally, pin point events that actually occured? Nowhere. |
Where did I say you said this? Nowhere.
You said that "historians often refer back to the bible to offer them some clues" and I refuted this, or at least clarified it for you. What part of my response, specifically, do you disagree with?
| quote: | | If you need to see a Link then you're going to have to search for it because I have only hard evidence of this. I.e. a newspaper clipping that was xeroxed by Prof in my ancient history of the western world. |
You're the one making the claim, it's your responsibility to source it.
| quote: | | as for the last reply. once again, no one said it is LITERALLY. |
Trancevandyk, who my initial response was directed towards, is a Biblical literalist though, hence my argumentation against the historical legitimacy of the Bible and - in particular - of the Jewish kings, which is what initially dragged you into this thread.
| quote: | | For example, History chanel did that special on the Lemba and how they are one of the missing tribes of Israel. Now, obviously they have to refer back to the bible to find out if any of the patterns fit. Then they have to go archeological evidence. And then back to the bible, to see if it's in the same time period. |
According to this, the Lemba branched off from the semites about 3,000 years ago, around the time of Moses. If the Bible could get the Exodus so wrong - a massive event that took place at the same time - why should we presume it could help us at all with the tracing of the genetic history of this tribe? Are the Lemba even mentioned in the Bible?
| quote: | And I was under the impression that certain parts were actually recorded short after events had happened.
The way you portray the bibles use as a historical tool is flaky. |
I said:
| quote: | | In terms of revealing the geopgraphy and customs of the people at times it was written (900 BC - 400 BC), absolutely [it can be used as a factual reference for historians]. |
Isn't that what you're saying? How is my portrayal of the historicity of the Bible "flaky"? |
|
|
| Lepanto |
No. I've never said it was literal. What got me into this argument was just pointing something out that you've still no clearly explained. Also, as i've said i have the hard copy of the article I don't need an internet link to explain it to me further. Also, the Lemba never "branched" of from the "semites". If you know your history then you know there were 12 tribes of the Hebrews 10 in the nothern Israel and 2 in the souther Judea. Israel was taking over by Assyrians. And supposedly one of the tribes, the Lemba made their way down to southern africa leaving traces everywhere including Yemen and in the Great Zimbabwe.
When I said that you stretch what I say is because I say something like "It could be a usefull help" and you say "no it cannot be taken literally". |
|
|
|
|
