 |
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Archaic
Which is why you have things such as Judges 1:19
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Iron Chariots - 1
God - Nothing |
One of the interesting historicals tidbits one can gleen from that passage is that the Israelites must have been technologically backwards at the time. They were obviously still a bronze age people who had a disasterous run-in with an iron age people. God was apparently slacking on his metallurgical studies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
Obiwan, in general I'm going to have to agree with Jack first and foremost. For your points to hold true at all, one has to accept the Bible (or at least significant parts of it) to be completely true.
Second, none of what you posted adresses the fact that if God did indeed reveal himself, it was only to an incredibly infintismal percentage of the human population. Surely he could have, or could now, do better.
Finally, I find it odd that, according to the Bible or accepted religious teachings, one cannot ask God to reveal himself because that would question the very existance of God. What a fantastically circular and self-preserving argument: don't ask me why I'm doing something because it demonstrates that you don't have faith in me. No kidding! That's why I'm asking in the first place!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
Starting with Kontiki:
quote:
For your points to hold true at all, one has to accept the Bible (or at least significant parts of it) to be completely true.
|
True. Before I can answer anyone else's point I need to answer yours.
Looking at the bible we see several different genres present in both the OT and the NT.
Considering the NT, we have historical documentaries, in the forms of the Gospels, followed by the Pastoral letters of various leaders of the early Church. The last book, Revelations falls into the category of apocalyptic literature, found also in parts of Daniel.
For the sake of this discussion, the important parts of the NT are the Gospels and the pastoral letters. Can these be submitted as historical documents on par with any other historical source of the time?
Looking at the OT, there are 3 main divisions, historical accounts, wisdom literature, and prophecies. Again, for the sake of this thread, the primary section we are concerned with will be the OT historical section, comprising of most of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, both books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Esther, Nehemiah and Ezra. May I submit these books as an accurate historical account?
I say part of the Pentateuch, because I want to gage the reaction to Genesis. Can I submit all of Genesis past Genesis 9 as an accurate historical account?
This is an arbitrary division, but I want to deal with the Flood, Fall and Creation accounts seperately.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
Obiwan, I'm not a Biblical scholar, so I wouldn't be able to vouch for which specific parts of the Bible are are "historically acurate" (I use quotes because I think it is a given that any historical document from that time is open to some question as to the absolute veracity of events). I'm sure that someone with a better understanding, such as Jack, would be more qualified than me to discuss this with you.
Having said that, the problems primarily stem from creation, the flood and the fall, which you wish to treat as a serperate issue. For the sake of my argument, at least, these issues are tantamount. If one accepts that there was no flood (ergo, no mass kill-off of people or any other species by God) and that God did not create modern humans in the form of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, then every problem I pointed out still exists. If you do accept that these things happened, then you are flying in the face of almost universally held scientific findings, and will have to explain that.
Put another way, the Bible does not deal with the dispersion of humanity around the globe. If you accept current scientific knowledge, then mankind was well dispursed around the world by the time the historical events of the Bible take place. Again, dismissing the flood (since there is no evidence whatsoever that it occurred outside of the Bible), it becomes self-evident that the majority of humanity has never been exposed to events in the narrow sector of the ME that the Bible deals with. Even if you then assume that every other act of God mentioned in the Bible did occur, including, most importantly, where he revealed himself to mankind, it was of such narrow reach as to really call into question what he had in mind with the other people of the Earth, who, of course, should be equally important to him as those living within the Holy Land during the time frame covered in the Bible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
Kontiki:
The points you specify are also in-house Christian debates, ie, one can agree that God exists, yet disagree with the interpretation of these passages.
To determine whether or not God exists does not depend on these sections of the Bible, but on other ones, particularly the Gospels.
quote:
(I use quotes because I think it is a given that any historical document from that time is open to some question as to the absolute veracity of events).
|
True, but you trust the sources we have to be accurate. That is all I can expect at this point.
quote:
If you do accept that these things happened, then you are flying in the face of almost universally held scientific findings, and will have to explain that.
|
That's why I need to make my case for the existence of God, to explain some of these events. Science does not rule out the existence of God, nor for miracles. Just because science cannot explain miracles does not mean that they do not occur.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
yes obiwan it is true that just because science can not explain something doesn't mean it doesn't occur. BUT ITS ALSO TRUE. that just because something isnt explained by science u get to makeup something and lay claim to it.
I think I've mentioned it before but science is the only way for rigorous proof of something. all religious arguments are idealogically unscientific, often anecdotal, and sometimes include redneck logic.
none of which should be used by intelligent ppl.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Kontiki:
The points you specify are also in-house Christian debates, ie, one can agree that God exists, yet disagree with the interpretation of these passages.
To determine whether or not God exists does not depend on these sections of the Bible, but on other ones, particularly the Gospels.
...
That's why I need to make my case for the existence of God, to explain some of these events. Science does not rule out the existence of God, nor for miracles. Just because science cannot explain miracles does not mean that they do not occur. |
Hmmm....you seem to be almost totally ignoring my argument, or at least misunderstanding it.
Let me try to put it this way, and perhaps it will explain why I would say that I am agnostic. When you start to remove rather large chunks of the Bible, or start interpreting them in a different way (although I find it hard to come up with a different interpretation of the flood, for example), it seems to me (and a great many others) that the whole foundation starts to seem kind of weak. And I understand full well that there are in-house Christian debates about the meaning and interpretation of certain parts/passages. However, you also have to consider that until there was a scientific basis that rather convincingly showed that, for example, there could not have been a flood that wiped everything out or that the world was created literally in six days, these passages were taken to be true at face value. When things like this need to be re-evaluated as to whether or not they are true, or maybe just a parable, or not really important in the grand scheme of things when contrary evidence arises, it really brings the credibility of the rest into question. How many more miracles and events in the Bible currently taken to be true will be proven to not have occurred within the next 50 or 100 years? How far can you take the "well, that part can be interpreted in another way"?
I agree that science does not rule out the existence of God, or miracles, and I certainly don't think that "it" (in that science is not an entity or single theory) intends to do so. There are certainly things yet unexplained by science, and there are things that may never be explained, and certainly the "why?" of many things is up in the air. This is why I think it's probably wrong to completely disregard the notion of a higher power at this point (and perhaps forever). However, science has so thoroughly disproven so many parts of the Bible once widely taken to be literally true, and calls into question so many more aspects of Christianity in general (and all other religions as well), that, for me at least, there is no reason to believe that the God held out by Chistianity or any other religion is in any way indicative of what may or may not actually exist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Rembere Galalio was a Christian too as were many of the founders of the fields of science. They had no problem with interpreting scripture in the light of hard evidence. Even a cursory reading of the Bible requires a spiritual interpretation. And Jesus himself said that his words are spirit and life. There is no way that one can pick apart scripture without a spiritual understanding of the contents. If you take Genesis strictly literally for example then there is contradictions in the first page. That would be a glaring and foolish attempt to defraud the world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
No Ranger, you have to partake of the same spirit in which it was written. Then the text makes sense just like a foreign language makes sense to those who know and practice it's use.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
No Ranger, you have to partake of the same spirit in which it was written. |
I think what Lincoln is saying is that in order to fully appreciate the writings of the Bible, you must first suspend your disbelief - the same way you do when reading any good fantasy novel. OK, I'll buy that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It does. How could science exist if pi is one value when you are measuring it but another if you aren't?
|
The word "bullsh*t" seems remarkably appropriate.
Your comment shows that you either don't understand Christianity or you don't understand science, or both.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
quote:
originally posted by Kontiki
I agree that science does not rule out the existence of God, or miracles, and I certainly don't think that "it" (in that science is not an entity or single theory) intends to do so. There are certainly things yet unexplained by science, and there are things that may never be explained, and certainly the "why?" of many things is up in the air. This is why I think it's probably wrong to completely disregard the notion of a higher power at this point (and perhaps forever). However, science has so thoroughly disproven so many parts of the Bible once widely taken to be literally true, and calls into question so many more aspects of Christianity in general (and all other religions as well), that, for me at least, there is no reason to believe that the God held out by Chistianity or any other religion is in any way indicative of what may or may not actually exist. |
Well said. The fact is that the nature of God is unknown. No religion has the answer. If I treat others with kindness and love, if I seek the truth, if I act with humility, then my life is well lived. God if he exists can do what he wants and I have no fear.
Obiwan, what is your take on the nephilim, Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33? There might have been a flood, and some animals on a boat, but surely you don't believe it covered the whole world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Considering the NT, we have historical documentaries, in the forms of the Gospels, followed by the Pastoral letters of various leaders of the early Church. The last book, Revelations falls into the category of apocalyptic literature, found also in parts of Daniel.
For the sake of this discussion, the important parts of the NT are the Gospels and the pastoral letters. Can these be submitted as historical documents on par with any other historical source of the time? |
No. There are better historical sources from the time: Roman records and accounts from various historians who actually witnessed the events they wrote about (or there's no reason to assume they didn't).
quote:
Looking at the OT, there are 3 main divisions, historical accounts, wisdom literature, and prophecies. Again, for the sake of this thread, the primary section we are concerned with will be the OT historical section, comprising of most of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, both books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Esther, Nehemiah and Ezra. May I submit these books as an accurate historical account?
I say part of the Pentateuch, because I want to gage the reaction to Genesis. Can I submit all of Genesis past Genesis 9 as an accurate historical account? |
The Tower of Babel also belongs in the "clearly false" part of Genesis.
Not the Pentateuch. In fact, I'd discount pretty much everything written prior to the end of the Babylonian captivity, except the existence of cities mentioned (no need to invent cities). This marked a huge upheaval in Judaism, the Zoroastrian-induced transition from polytheism to monotheism, which must have involved heavy rewriting of older stories.
I would have been prepared to accept the exodus from Egypt (stripped of its miraculous elements) as probably fact, but that's becoming increasingly unlikely. Partly because of the lack of evidence from the Egyptian side (no record of Hebrew slaves or a sudden migration of slaves, not even one with pro-Egyptian "spin"), partly because of DNA test results showing no genetic difference between Israeli and Palestinian gene pools except the European genes they picked up after the Diaspora (i.e. no separate population arriving from elsewhere), and partly because of what we now know about the development of Judaism from Caananite religions (the god Baal, demonized in the Old Testament, was the elder brother of Jesus: another son of El).
Solomon and David probably existed, but have been greatly exaggerated (they ruled over a few tribes of goat-herders, not a great civilization). Every character prior to that is probably mythical.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
quote:
originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Solomon and David probably existed, but have been greatly exaggerated (they ruled over a few tribes of goat-herders, not a great civilization). Every character prior to that is probably mythical. |
One thing I find in the Bible is that the faults of even the great ones aren't left out or covered up in the Bible. Both David and Solomon sinned greatly in their lives and there was no covering this up. I don't know why people discount the historical books of the Bible so readily. The rewriting Jack claims is pure speculation and amounts to as much fantasy as believing dinosaurs were on the ark.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
boris making up an entity that is unprovable. then trying to hold its legitimacy on the fact that its unprovable.
would be a complete joke if we were talking about NETHING but god. but somehow when we talk about god ppl give themselves these enormous leeways.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
The time period usually attributed to Solomon and David and the following few generations are known to be a lull between the area's great conquering empires like the Hittites, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, etc. So it is in fact likely like the petty kingdoms did exist.
There are also exhausting accounts in the Bible of things like the Temple of Solomon and various alliances and wars amongst the people of the region. There isn't any particular reason to reject them out of hand, especially since God is notably absent. He certainly doesn't help when Judah and Israel split apart.
The Temple is even more of a curiousity as it is mentioned in the Bible because even with God supposedly on their sides, the Jews had to bring in a Phoenician architect, Hiram, to build the thing. There are severals verses praising Hiram even though he is an idol worshipping gentile.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
To believe God does not exist is less reasonable, as it is an absolute statement that is unprovable. |
Is your statement just as valid if we replace the word God with "Zeus", "leprechauns", "Cthulhu", "little green men from Mars" or "The CivII Foreign Advisor"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
Is your statement just as valid if we replace the word God with "Zeus", "leprechauns", "Cthulhu", "little green men from Mars" or "The CivII Foreign Advisor"? |
Technically, yes, since we can pinpoint some definite characteristics/supposed actions of the above things and prove that they aren't/cannot be as described.
An omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent being is a bit slippier. Oh, we've proven Jehovah/Yahweh doesn't exist. But that isn't necessarily what God is.
At any rate, I do not believe because no one as proven to me any God exists, and I currently don't view it as something that fits in my worldview. However, I cannot believe God does not exist, because there is no evidence for such, either.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-04-2003 15:44
|