 |
| |
|
|
CB2034
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Speaking of which, there are large numbers of contradictions among the different accounts of events during the crucifixion and the Resurrection. |
I have heard this before and that the Bible is full of contradictions. Please give some examples. No one that I have met has ever been able to do this, I feel pretty certain that you will not be able to as well.
Most people I know will admit that the Bible is probably the best Historical Reference that we have, I've even heard this on TLC(The Learning Channel, not TLC of Michael Jackson fame), and from family, friends, and co-workers.
Also on a lighter note, The Guiness Book of World Records list the Bible as having sold more copies then any other book. Does anybody know which book is second behind the Bible?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CB2034
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark L
Lord of the Rings. |
That is a great guess, and Im sure its close, however, my source (The Guiness Book of World Records) indicates its another book. Im not sure if I should post what it is or not, or yet you guys try again. I think Ill wait till tomorrow, Ill be at work AGAIN and Im sure Ill have nothing to do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SnowFire
|
 |
New York City, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
In the US it is tought at schools....
And you're a real expert, thanks. You know, I thought I was taught a standard scientific Biology course in high school, but thanks for clearing me up that I was actually taught creation science without knowing it.
If you don't know a fact, don't just make something up.
As for the second most sold book, there is no way in heck it is Dracula or Mein Kampf or Tolkien. You have to think about something that is going to be in most literate households throughout history. The Bible certainly applies. 2nd place is a looooooooong way back, and I've seen several answers for it, everything from Dr. Spock's guide to Baby Care to Mao's Little Red Book.
As for the ressurrection, even if you don't think it probable on the obvious grounds (how could somebody come back to life?), you have to admit that this ressurection story is more unusual than most myths. For starters, if you're going to make up a myth in the ancient world and want to give it some credibility, you don't say that women were the people to find the empty tomb, see Jesus, etc. Why did they claim that? (aside from it possibly being true, of course). Another thing is, when Jesus appears to some of the disciples, they don't recognize them for some reason. Now it is known that grief-stricken people will sometimes see apparations of departed loved ones, but that's because they really want to see them and never have any trouble recognizing them. The fact that it wasn't obviously Jesus suggests that it wasn't just a hallucination of what they wanted to think. Lastly, most Messianic cults generally found a new Messiah when they one they thought was the Messiah died. Peter & James crowd didn't simply find a new Messiah, despite the fact that their old one was allegedly rotting in the ground. Why? If he really was dead & powerless, then he didn't strike a very imposing figure to recruit people.
None of this alone is proof. In fact, all of it together isn't proof either. It does however add a lot of suspicion and circumstantial evidence that something weird did happen back then in AD 32 or whenever...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CB2034
|
|
According to the Guiness Book of World Records, the second most sold book in the world is the Guiness Book of World Records. Congrats to KrazyHorse.
To Urban Ranger
Mark16:2
Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb
John20:1
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb ...
contradicting, I dont think so, It is easily possible for it be dark after sunrise.
who went?
John20:1
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb ...
Matthew 28:1
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
Mark16:1
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body
Luk24:10
It was Mary Magdalene, Joanaa, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.
Urban Ranger, How are these contradictory, all they do is state people who went. The last 2 state more then the first but the first text do not say it was ONLY Mary and Mary the mother of James. This is IMHO a very week attempt at contradictions. All these were taken straight from NIV text
and your last list of text
was how did the women find out Jesus had risen
Matthew 28:5-6
The angel said to the women,"do not be afraid for I know that your are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.
Mark16:5-6
As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Zazarene, whe was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.
Luke24:5-6
In their firght the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men(who were mentioned earlier wearing clothes that gleamed like lightning) said to them, "why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee.
Your best attempt yet UrbanRanger. 2 stories speak of 1 man (or angel) while the 3rd speaks of 2 men. I could see how one might try to make this a contradiction, but again I do not agree. Easily the man in Mathew could have been an Angel and they spoke of him as a man. And never do they say that there was ONLY one man or only 2 men when they entered the Tomb. Plus, each verse is from what I understand from someone else's point of view, and when in the presence of miracles and things of a Godly nature, each one might have seen exactly what was foretold. A very good attempt UrbanRanger, but in a book as big as the Bible, written by as many people as the Bible was written by (all versus inspired by our creator) I would think you could find something a little more tangible then these. These writings span many, many, many years, Are these the biggest so called "contradictions" that you are able to come up with. Sorry if this was too long, I just feel strongly about this as Im sure you can tell.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Most people I know will admit that the Bible is probably the best Historical Reference that we have |
Ermm.. WOT?! Compared to works by people like Herodotus and Tacitus? Age-wise, the Vedas fairly easily beats the Torah.
quote:
However......Moses was a true man. And now, archaelogists, after years of argueing. Have found semetic graffitti writing in the stone mines of Eygpt. |
Semetic is a language group, not simply another word for Hebrew. The Babylonians, Arabs, Pheonoicians, and Ethiopians for instance, are Semitic peoples.
In fact, the ancient Egyptians aren't that unrelated to the Semitic peoples; ancient Egyptian was off the Hamitic branch of the Semito-Hamitic language tree (the Semitic groups being the other branches).
So this doesn't mean anything, unless you mean to say something else.
quote:
So they are inclined to believe that most of what is said about Moses is true.. |
I've heard the opposite; while there probably was a small group of Hebrews that left Egypt at the time, the bulk never went to Egypt in the first place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:16
|
|
Regarding New Testament contrdictions: The four Gospels give 3 different accounts of Christ's last words. My connection's too slow tonight to look up which says what, but two say "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"; one says "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" (I'm prretty sure that's John); and one says He was inarticulate at the end and merely gave out a great cry before dying. It's always seemed to me that the latter had the ring of truth (have you ever read about what it was like for the crucified to die? Yikes!), while the others feel like some serious embellishment for the purpose of evangelical P.R. I'm reminded of the famous last words I posted on the thread of the same name, those of Pancho Villa: "Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something."
Regarding the Flood: I attended a talk last spring by the chief archeologist working on the question of the Black Sea flood. Apparently the remains of structures have been found under the Black Sea, indicating that it was indeed once much smaller than it is today, and that a cataclysmic flood of some sort did take place in the region. If that flood is the source of the Genesis myth, it would also go some way toward explaing how the landing place of myth came to be Mount Ararat, rather than some hieght that would have had more significance to the Jews.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CB2034
Most people I know will admit that the Bible is probably the best Historical Reference that we have, |
I bet you don't know any Egyptologists, Historians or Classical Scholars then. The Bible is crappy history, especially the Old Testament. There are numerous instances of revisionist history (ie the latest temple faction to win out rewrote the parts of the Old Testament to fit their doctrine, read up on the Deuteronomists if you are interested), and the entire document is written and rewritten by people who have no idea of history. Thus they make mistakes that are easy to spot (like Camels in a story that took place before there were Camels in the Levant), and the whole document is a real PIA to set in time.
Meanwhile more advanced societies in nearby Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Agaean kept better books. They were a good deal more literate, and the wealth of the material as well as the level of education of the authors make it fairly easy to recreate a history of the region. One would expect the opposite, that a history written by a people set in the middle of so many important dynamic societies would have a lot to say about the ancient world, but the Israelites were in a backwater, and the Bible rather than being a history is more a collection of oral traditions and revisionism, and stuff ripped off directly from the Babylonian stelae etc.
A good book to read is:
Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times
Donald B. Redford
Princeton University Press 1992
A review:
Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times is a general history of the relationship between Egypt and Canaan/Palestine/Israel from prehistory down to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. Of necessity it deals thoroughly with the history of both regions in the process. It is a solid work of scholarship which goes into considerable detail in discussing critical texts and evidence and is backed up with extensive references, but Redford has managed to produce a readable account that should be accessible to anyone with a basic knowledge of early Near Eastern history.
The first part deals with the history and prehistory of Egypt and the Levant down to the Hyksos, drawing on both archaeological and textual evidence. The second part deals with the Egyptian New Kingdom and its Asian Empire. Only then do the characters and events of traditional, Biblical history make an appearance. Redford begins by considering some of the differing theories about the origins of the Hebrews, and then deals with the relationship between Egypt and the Israelite monarchy, both political and cultural. It is after all of this, at the end of the book, that four of the origin stories from the Bible - the Creation, the Table of Nations, the Sojourn and Exodus narrative, and the story of Joseph - are discussed, within the historical context in which they were written.
As well as being scholarly, Redford's work meets my criteria for impartiality and honesty: he provides evidence against his own position and references to dissenting scholars; he uses the same standards for evaluating his own theories and alternatives; he accepts that some of his suggestions are only plausible; and he allows for uncertainty where evidence is missing. In a couple of places he does lapse into polemic, obviously extremely frustrated by the often ahistorical approaches to early Israelite history resulting from religious preconceptions and the resulting pall of confusion cast over the subject. This doesn't seem so bad to me - there is no point wielding sophisticated historical analysis to try and refute positions obviously held on other than historical grounds and, as when dealing with creationists, the really wonky ideas don't deserve much more than ridicule.
Anyone interested in the early history of Egypt and the Near East should enjoy Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Christians or Jews raised on "orthodox" accounts of Israelite history may find some of it disturbing, but should persist unless they are literalists - Redford is not out to discredit the Bible, he is just determined to treat it as one historical source amongst others.
----------
quote:
Originally posted by CB2034
Also on a lighter note, The Guiness Book of World Records list the Bible as having sold more copies then any other book. Does anybody know which book is second behind the Bible? |
Um, the Guinness Book of World Records?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
MarkL:
quote:
One or two, but creation science doesn't exist here cause it isn't sience. duh. In the US it is tought at schools....in Holland it is required by law to teach Evolution and I believe there is no school here that teaches creation science as a scientific field. |
you must be living in another Holland than I do.
Evolution isn't required to be teached in schools by law. And for sure not as the true theory.
And there are many schools that teach the bible to be the truth.
quote:
And a flood may or may not have happened. Though that's something for meteologist and geologists to find out. If there is prove it happened, that does not mean God created it. We aren't stuck in the middle ages... |
Your 'middle ages' line is growing old. For sure since you won't accept any scientific theory that disagrees with your opinion, just because any such a theory comes from the middle ages (no arguments here)
In fact you're saying "Every scientific theory that disagrees with my superior opinion is plain wrong by default"
Amazing................ I'm very happy that most dutch people aren't like you, but unfortunately much are that short sighted.
As for the flood, about all nations all over the world have flood-stories, from north america to Japan, China, South Africa. Most stories tell about one man and his family that build a ship to save himself and animals.
Satelite pictures of the Ararat have shown one big square in ice on the mountain that can't be anything natural. Many eye withness stories of the past ages (up till 1902) tell about seeing the arc by bare eye. In 1952 one scientist found wood on the mountain.
And for the record, the bible already prophecies people like you:
quote:
2 Pete 3:3-7:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men |
(that's no proof, but it's nice to know that 2000 years ago you were already predicted  )
quote:
And yes, there is some historical truth in the bible. However, that stuff is better thought in theology than in creation "science". Theology is a science, but takes a whole different angle on biblical events |
And of course I agree with you that the bible isn't scientific. It's a theological book to start with. But the events that happen can be declared scientific, for sure if it is explained, like the building of the arc was, or the building of the temple. The creation story is of course as unscientific as possible. (but pherhaps that just tells us that our science can't explain everything or comes short)
(our science comes short anyway since it can't explain our utter origin)
MarkL, please open your eyes and see there's more than evolution. That doesn't mean you have to accept the bible to be true, or evolution to be false, but it's really very ignorant to describe everything that disagrees with evolution to be ancient.
And to ignore the great flood, even with all those stories / myths / references / satelite pictures, is really ignorant. But again, you were already predicted, and I know you will keep on denying it anyway. Thanks for fullfilling another part of the bible !
CyberShy
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-12-2001 10:38
Here is 
|