|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 24, 2020 0:51:12 GMT -5
Ok.. the study of the nature of god and religious beliefs. When do you ever study or view the bible outside of this? The only way you view the bible, is “through the study of the nature of god and religious belief”. When it comes to the flood story, you only see it “through the study of the nature of god and religious belief”, regardless of how one can see it through actual history. Take away “study of the nature of god and religious beliefs” that your entire world view is based on, and you will see history in a different, more realistic light. Only then might you realise there are experts in these fields and what they say about these matters shouldn’t be so easily dismissed.. I and many others believe that a study of the bible should be multifaceted, and not just simply a study of the bible.. that still doesn't make the statement "written histories came long after the oral ones thats a FACT" theological by any measure... Oral, or written, it doesn’t change the fact that there were floods stories in circulation throughout the ancient near east long before the story of Noah.. But because the story of Noah is in the bible and central to Christian belief, the only way you can make sense of it all is to deny that there were flood story’s around before the story of Noah.. Because in your view, the bible cannot be seen as an expression of error.. and that right there has clear theological underpinnings..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2020 0:59:53 GMT -5
well we all know what i think of "biblical scholars" right? from abraham to moses they were known as the hebrews...it was after moses had died and joshua took over that the word "jew(s)" came about 2 Kings 16:6(bob taught me that, thanks bob)...so we're still back to it wasn't a jewish oral Noah story BEFORE that time period....no cookie for you... Humm said the Dark Crystal Skeksis: Doesn't the Hebrew Bible uses the term Hebrew to refer to Israelites when they are introducing themselves to foreigners? do you have a particular verse in mind? i am not seeing one that says that....
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 24, 2020 1:06:54 GMT -5
Okay so your really going to make me work for my cookie?
Archaeology reveals the origins of the Jewish people: they did not necessarily leave the Levant. The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel in Canaan is "overwhelming" and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness". Many archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit". Ref - Dever, William G. (2002). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-8028-2126-3.p. 99
A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence that can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness, leading to the suggestion that Iron Age Israel—the kingdoms of Judah and Israel—has its origins in Canaan. Ref - Finkelstein, Israel and Nadav Naaman, eds. (1994). From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Israel Exploration Society. ISBN 978-1-880317-20-4 and - Compare: Ian Shaw; Robert Jameson. Ian Shaw (ed.). A Dictionary of Archaeology (New edition (17 Feb 2002) ed.). Wiley Blackwell. p. 313. ISBN 978-0-631-23583-5. The Biblical account of the origins of the people of Israel (principally recounted in Numbers, Joshua and Judges) often conflicts with non-Biblical textual sources and with the archaeological evidence for the settlement of Canaan in the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age. [...] Israel is first textually attested as a political entity in Egyptian texts of the late 13th century BC and the Egyptologist Donald Redford argues that the Israelites must have been emerging as a distinct group within the Canaanite culture during the century or so prior to this. It has been suggested that the early Israelites were an oppressed rural group of Canaanites who rebelled against the more urbanized coastal Canaanites (Gottwald 1979). Alternatively, it has been argued that the Israelites were survivors of the decline in the fortunes of Canaan who established themselves in the highlands at the end of the late Bronze Age (Ahlstrom 1986: 27). Redford, however, makes a good case for equating the very earliest Israelites with a semi-nomadic people in the highlands of central Palestine whom the Egyptians called Shasu (Redford 1992:2689-80; although see Stager 1985 for strong arguments against the identification with the Shasu). These Shasu were a persistent thorn in the side of the Ramessid pharaohs' empire in Syria-Palestine, well-attested in Egyptian texts, but their pastoral lifestyle has left scant traces in the archaeological record. By the end of the 13th century BC, however, the Shasu/Israelites were beginning to establish small settlements in the uplands, the architecture of which closely resembles contemporary Canaanite villages.
The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute. Ref - Killebrew, Ann E. (2005). Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300–1100 B.C.E. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. p. 176. ISBN 978-1-58983-097-4. Retrieved August 12,2012.
Much has been made of the scarcity of pig bones at highland sites. Since small quantities of pig bones do appear in Late Bronze Age assemblages, some archaeologists have interpreted this to indicate that the ethnic identity of the highland inhabitants was distinct from Late Bronze Age indigenous peoples (see Finkelstein 1997, 227–230). Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish (1997) advise caution, however, since the lack of pig bones at Iron I highland settlements could be a result of other factors that have little to do with ethnicity. well we all know what i think of "biblical scholars" right? from abraham to moses they were known as the hebrews...it was after moses had died and joshua took over that the word "jew(s)" came about 2 Kings 16:6(bob taught me that, thanks bob)...so we're still back to it wasn't a jewish oral Noah story BEFORE that time period....no cookie for you... "Biblical scholars?" Wally?
Where did you find anything about "Biblical scholars" in intelchips post?
It seems that any information found was due to archaeological findings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2020 1:11:47 GMT -5
that still doesn't make the statement "written histories came long after the oral ones thats a FACT" theological by any measure... Oral, or written, it doesn’t change the fact that there were floods stories in circulation throughout the ancient near east long before the story of Noah.. But because the story of Noah is in the bible and central to Christian belief, the only way you can make sense of it all is to deny that there were flood story’s around before the story of Noah.. Because in your view, the bible cannot be seen as an expression of error.. and that right there has clear theological underpinnings.. so i am right oral traditions of the flood came long before written ones....we are half way there then.....
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 24, 2020 1:14:35 GMT -5
It's a cherry pick at best. When I see folks discussing these sort of issues its like they have never read a single thing I have posted here (or if they have, they have never bothered to offer fact why I was wrong). So lets do an experiment. What is the difference between stories of King Arthur, Aesop"s fables, the story of Gilgamesh and the Gosples? The only differences are the areas of the world where they were supposed to have taken place, -as well as time periods in some stories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2020 1:17:38 GMT -5
well we all know what i think of "biblical scholars" right? from abraham to moses they were known as the hebrews...it was after moses had died and joshua took over that the word "jew(s)" came about 2 Kings 16:6(bob taught me that, thanks bob)...so we're still back to it wasn't a jewish oral Noah story BEFORE that time period....no cookie for you... "Biblical scholars?" Wally?
Where did you find anything about "Biblical scholars" in intelchips post?
It seems that any information found was due to archaeological findings.OOPS...i should have said archaeologists that are out to disprove the bible....
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 24, 2020 1:18:57 GMT -5
Oral, or written, it doesn’t change the fact that there were floods stories in circulation throughout the ancient near east long before the story of Noah.. But because the story of Noah is in the bible and central to Christian belief, the only way you can make sense of it all is to deny that there were flood story’s around before the story of Noah.. Because in your view, the bible cannot be seen as an expression of error.. and that right there has clear theological underpinnings.. so i am right oral traditions of the flood came long before written ones....we are half way there then..... So you agree then the story of Noah has shared similarities of other much older flood stories and not the other way round?
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 24, 2020 1:19:46 GMT -5
"Biblical scholars?" Wally?
Where did you find anything about "Biblical scholars" in intelchips post?
It seems that any information found was due to archaeological findings. OOPS...i should have said archaeologists that are out to disprove the bible.... That’s hardly the case... they are not out there to disprove anything..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2020 1:20:50 GMT -5
so i am right oral traditions of the flood came long before written ones....we are half way there then..... So you agree then the story of Noah has shared similarities of other much older flood stories and not the other way round? no i say they(noah) came first orally but do share similarities with later stories....
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 24, 2020 1:30:53 GMT -5
So you agree then the story of Noah has shared similarities of other much older flood stories and not the other way round? no i say they(noah) came first orally but do share similarities with later stories.... That’s where I believe your mistaken, and brings us back to you viewing the bible as the word of god, so you can’t stand the thought of Noah being a flood story that shares similarities with much older stories, which is exactly what history tells us. Is history wrong Wally?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 24, 2020 3:50:22 GMT -5
"Biblical scholars?" Wally?
Where did you find anything about "Biblical scholars" in intelchips post?
It seems that any information found was due to archaeological findings. OOPS...i should have said archaeologists that are out to disprove the bible.... Sorry Wally, but as you are always telling others by saying, "I hate to burst your bubble," -it isn't in the archaeologists job description to "disprove" something but rather to understand what DID happen.
Besides, archaeologists aren't only concerned about just one little part of the world called the "Levant," -they work all over the world at the sites many ancient cultures.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2020 5:51:21 GMT -5
OOPS...i should have said archaeologists that are out to disprove the bible.... Sorry Wally, but as you are always telling others by saying, "I hate to burst your bubble," -it isn't in the archaeologists job description to "disprove" something but rather to understand what DID happen.
Besides, archaeologists aren't only concerned about just one little part of the world called the "Levant," -they work all over the world at the sites many ancient cultures.
yeah right like they don't have bias's? gimme a break....nice try though
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2020 5:54:12 GMT -5
no i say they(noah) came first orally but do share similarities with later stories.... That’s where I believe your mistaken, and brings us back to you viewing the bible as the word of god, so you can’t stand the thought of Noah being a flood story that shares similarities with much older stories, which is exactly what history tells us. Is history wrong Wally? some of it is as it depends on who's writing it...like your any different in your view of science you can't stand the thought that it might be wrong....
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 24, 2020 5:57:44 GMT -5
Sorry Wally, but as you are always telling others by saying, "I hate to burst your bubble," -it isn't in the archaeologists job description to "disprove" something but rather to understand what DID happen.
Besides, archaeologists aren't only concerned about just one little part of the world called the "Levant," -they work all over the world at the sites many ancient cultures.
yeah right like they don't have bias's? gimme a break....nice try though What about the archaeologists in working other parts of the world that has nothing to do with the bible?
Are they "biased" about their findings as well?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2020 6:04:43 GMT -5
yeah right like they don't have bias's? gimme a break....nice try though What about the archaeologists in working other parts of the world that has nothing to do with the bible?
Are they "biased" about their findings as well?i am quite sure that some have agenda's its only human to do so....
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 24, 2020 6:10:09 GMT -5
That’s where I believe your mistaken, and brings us back to you viewing the bible as the word of god, so you can’t stand the thought of Noah being a flood story that shares similarities with much older stories, which is exactly what history tells us. Is history wrong Wally? some of it is as it depends on who's writing it...like your any different in your view of science you can't stand the thought that it might be wrong.... Well to put another way, can the entire field of biblical scholarship be wrong? The good thing about science is that’s it’s a self correcting body of knowledge..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2020 6:12:53 GMT -5
some of it is as it depends on who's writing it...like your any different in your view of science you can't stand the thought that it might be wrong.... Well to put another way, can the entire field of biblical scholarship be wrong? The good thing about science is that’s it’s a self correcting body of knowledge.. i'm sure there are some half-truths in it, thats how it sells....
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 24, 2020 6:31:24 GMT -5
Well to put another way, can the entire field of biblical scholarship be wrong? The good thing about science is that’s it’s a self correcting body of knowledge.. i'm sure there are some half-truths in it, thats how it sells.... I don’t see scholarship as having the need to sell itself.. Don’t forget that historians aim to reconstruct the past as accurately and as neutrally as possible, based on evidence. Historical research does not cherry pick, it uses all the evidence available and it does not ignore inconvenient data. There needs to be a neutral and unbiased use of that evidence. What would historians gain from purposely trying slant it’s conclusions to suit a modern agenda? If that’s what your getting at, you need to reassess what you think you know about how historians do their work..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2020 6:59:28 GMT -5
i'm sure there are some half-truths in it, thats how it sells.... I don’t see scholarship as having the need to sell itself.. Don’t forget that historians aim to reconstruct the past as accurately and as neutrally as possible, based on evidence. Historical research does not cherry pick, it uses all the evidence available and it does not ignore inconvenient data. There needs to be a neutral and unbiased use of that evidence. What would historians gain from purposely trying slant it’s conclusions to suit a modern agenda? If that’s what your getting at, you need to reassess what you think you know about how historians do their work.. information is power, people with agendas know that....
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 24, 2020 7:16:51 GMT -5
I don’t see scholarship as having the need to sell itself.. Don’t forget that historians aim to reconstruct the past as accurately and as neutrally as possible, based on evidence. Historical research does not cherry pick, it uses all the evidence available and it does not ignore inconvenient data. There needs to be a neutral and unbiased use of that evidence. What would historians gain from purposely trying slant it’s conclusions to suit a modern agenda? If that’s what your getting at, you need to reassess what you think you know about how historians do their work.. information is power, people with agendas know that.... Scholars have no agenda. After all, a good majority of them are also devout Christians. Go figure..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2020 7:21:00 GMT -5
information is power, people with agendas know that.... Scholars have no agenda. After all, a good majority of them are also devout Christians. Go figure.. sure they don't...NOT....
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 24, 2020 7:26:12 GMT -5
Scholars have no agenda. After all, a good majority of them are also devout Christians. Go figure.. sure they don't...NOT.... So just because they don’t agree with you, they have an agenda.? How convenient for you..
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Mar 24, 2020 8:43:08 GMT -5
Archaeology is a practical activity. It is basically digging up old stuff and trying to piece together a puzzle of how it got there. Christianity is a faith. Faith doesn’t require proof otherwise it wouldn’t be a faith. There is really very little reason to juxtapose archaeology and Christianity.
Now there is such a thing as biblical archaeology. There is also a group of archaeologists that specialist in evolution. Neither of these things necessarily equate to being non-christian. Many Christians are completely behind evolution so that argument goes out of the window. Biblical archaeologists tend to be more connected to the issues though, sometimes this takes the form of trying to find evidence for parts of the bible. Other times it is merely a classification for a time period and area.
And then we come to our present argument. There are also archaeologists who work in fields related to the study of Christianity. The usual term is Biblical archaeology rather than Christian archaeology, since a pretty big chunk of it is involved with periods and regions related to the Old Testament and overlaps heavily with the history of Judaism. Since a lot of that predates Christianity as such, "Biblical" is considered more accurate.
Here's the thing that can happened in any field. If you believe there is a herd of Jackalopes roaming to the east outside of Roswell NM up on the cap-rock and you seek long enough you just might convince yourself you seen one, once for a brief moment and need more funding to continue the search.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 24, 2020 13:04:34 GMT -5
the oral story of noah was around long before the written story of gilgamesh....and the only reason you think there is no fact's on jesus is you ignore the testimonies of the gospels and about 7 or so references from outside the bible.. and just because you were born 1967 years too late for other evidences just means too bad so sad... How could that be when there were no Jews to past around the oral story at that time? The Babylonian epic Gilgamesh was written around 2000 BCE and has survived in several versions. and they got it from the Ubraid's (which I wrote about a few days ago) It predates the scriptural story. A tradition dates the revelation of the Bible to 2448 after creation, or about 1312 BCE. Scholars offer a date of around 1200 BCE. but here we are back to the young earth flaw again. Which just has so much proof against. All one has to do is read google news to find almost ever day some find is reported that drives the history of mankind back further and further. As time goes by the Old Testament is gaining a not so long ago creation date for it composition including the tribal oral traditions. The bible also reflects the creation story that is much older than the Hebrew version. That's one reason why the first chapters of the bible read so weird. It talks of two different first couples being made. The first was made equal out of clay and life breathed into them and the second was Adam and then a rib taken from Adam to make Eve. The first version was Lilith but they don't include her name and what her story actually was so it makes the bible a little confusing on why there are two versions of the making of the first couple.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 24, 2020 13:18:42 GMT -5
well we all know what i think of "biblical scholars" right? from abraham to moses they were known as the hebrews...it was after moses had died and joshua took over that the word "jew(s)" came about 2 Kings 16:6(bob taught me that, thanks bob)...so we're still back to it wasn't a jewish oral Noah story BEFORE that time period....no cookie for you... Humm said the Dark Crystal Skeksis: Doesn't the Hebrew Bible uses the term Hebrew to refer to Israelites when they are introducing themselves to foreigners? This is a pretty good summary of the Hebrew history
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 24, 2020 13:35:27 GMT -5
Sorry Wally, but as you are always telling others by saying, "I hate to burst your bubble," -it isn't in the archaeologists job description to "disprove" something but rather to understand what DID happen.
Besides, archaeologists aren't only concerned about just one little part of the world called the "Levant," -they work all over the world at the sites many ancient cultures.
yeah right like they don't have bias's? gimme a break....nice try though Wally not everyone is out there trying to prove the bible wrong. Most of them are out there trying to prove what is right. That matters more. If the data supports the bible I would bet that a majority of them wouldn't mind at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2020 16:36:46 GMT -5
How could that be when there were no Jews to past around the oral story at that time? The Babylonian epic Gilgamesh was written around 2000 BCE and has survived in several versions. and they got it from the Ubraid's (which I wrote about a few days ago) It predates the scriptural story. A tradition dates the revelation of the Bible to 2448 after creation, or about 1312 BCE. Scholars offer a date of around 1200 BCE. but here we are back to the young earth flaw again. Which just has so much proof against. All one has to do is read google news to find almost ever day some find is reported that drives the history of mankind back further and further. As time goes by the Old Testament is gaining a not so long ago creation date for it composition including the tribal oral traditions. The bible also reflects the creation story that is much older than the Hebrew version. That's one reason why the first chapters of the bible read so weird. It talks of two different first couples being made. The first was made equal out of clay and life breathed into them and the second was Adam and then a rib taken from Adam to make Eve. The first version was Lilith but they don't include her name and what her story actually was so it makes the bible a little confusing on why there are two versions of the making of the first couple. some say one is the creation of the earth and the 2nd was a creation of the garden... some say the 1st version is the whole story and the 2nd is just a general run down of what happened in the first story....
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Mar 24, 2020 17:11:38 GMT -5
Why are our most beloved ideas about the human race and also our belief system being challenged every day? In 2012 it was reported on the BBC that The earliest unambiguous evidence for modern human behavior has been discovered by an international team of researchers in a South African cave. Please note that unambiguous means weasel words can’t be used to change the meaning of this find. The finds provide early evidence for the origin of modern human behavior 44,000 years ago, over 20,000 years before other findings. The artefacts are near identical to modern-day tools of the indigenous African San bush people.
Since 2012 many more reports have come in to continue to change our comfort zone of belief.
|
|