13 Feb 14
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/camels-in-the-bible-182042100.html
"Biblical authors," Baden writes, "simply transplanted the nomadic standards of their time into the distant past. There is nothing deceptive about this. They weren’t trying to trick anyone. They imagined, quite reasonably, that the past was, fundamentally, like their present."
This guy has a bad case of redundancy.
The problem with his reasoning is that he assumes the record of the past didn't come from the past. He is merely projecting his own present day bias into the historical record.
And what is even more idiotic is the suggestion that camels weren't domesticated prior to the 10th century b.c. No evidence was provided that proves positive any claim or comment made in the article.
13 Feb 14
Originally posted by josephwRead this one:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/camels-in-the-bible-182042100.html
[b]"Biblical authors," Baden writes, "simply transplanted the nomadic standards of their time into the distant past. There is nothing deceptive about this. They weren’t trying to trick anyone. They imagined, quite reasonably, that the past was, fundamentally, like their present."[/b ...[text shortened]... ury b.c. No evidence was provided that proves positive any claim or comment made in the article.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/06/camel-bones-suggest-error-in-bible/
13 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwEasy to say, not so easy to substantiate without resorting to 'God wrote it'. Of course if you do resort to 'God wrote it' then the question is whether 'historical record' is a reasonable description.
The books contained in the Bible are the best and most well preserved historical record of it's kind, as well as the most reliable, in the world.
13 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen the accolades and testimony purporting the reliability of Scripture are offered in any form other than general summary and/or anecdotal, the methods employed are decidedly not the intellectually-resigned "God wrote it."
Easy to say, not so easy to substantiate without resorting to 'God wrote it'. Of course if you do resort to 'God wrote it' then the question is whether 'historical record' is a reasonable description.
The Bible has stood the tests of time, withstanding all scrutiny within the means of man's various disciplines.
When man discovers new methods of testing, the Bible will withstand the scrutiny of those investigations, as well.
13 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell these offerings must be being kept under wraps then.
When the accolades and testimony purporting the reliability of Scripture are offered in any form other than general summary and/or anecdotal, the methods employed are decidedly not the intellectually-resigned "God wrote it."
The Bible has stood the tests of time, withstanding all scrutiny within the means of man's various disciplines.
What do you mean by 'withstanding'? Do you mean you simply deny an 'tests of time' that do not give the results you want? Or are you saying you have never heard any criticism of the Bibles historical accuracy? Or are you saying there are good rebuttals to such criticism? And who makes the final judgment as to which criticism is valid and which isn't?
Note that this thread's OP refers to a particular instance of 'scrutiny within the means of man's various disciplines'.
You also may wish to read up on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible#Challenges_to_historicity
13 Feb 14
Originally posted by josephwWhy did you call this thread 'Hypocrite'?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/camels-in-the-bible-182042100.html
[b]"Biblical authors," Baden writes, "simply transplanted the nomadic standards of their time into the distant past. There is nothing deceptive about this. They weren’t trying to trick anyone. They imagined, quite reasonably, that the past was, fundamentally, like their present."[/b ...[text shortened]... ury b.c. No evidence was provided that proves positive any claim or comment made in the article.
13 Feb 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitHe claims the writer of the article is 'projecting his own present day bias into the historical record' which is supposedly what the writer of the article is accusing the Biblical authors of doing.
Why did you call this thread 'Hypocrite'?
It doesn't quite match the definition of hypocrisy on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am mystified by this reference you offer.
Well these offerings must be being kept under wraps then.
[b]The Bible has stood the tests of time, withstanding all scrutiny within the means of man's various disciplines.
What do you mean by 'withstanding'? Do you mean you simply deny an 'tests of time' that do not give the results you want? Or are you saying you have never heard any criticism o ...[text shortened]... to read up on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible#Challenges_to_historicity[/b]
Vague, at best, when it gets down to specifics, it doesn't offer anything substantive and declaratory.
If you feel satisfied with this level of support, I don't see a lot of difference or distinction between you and the person who resorts to "God wrote it," albeit at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Truth requires far more rigor than displayed here.
Originally posted by josephwOK then, kindly please do play –choose and win!
The books contained in the Bible are the best and most well preserved historical record of it's kind, as well as the most reliable, in the world.
Who carried the cross to Golgotha?
A. Mat. 27: 32, B. Mark 15: 21, C. Luke 23: 26, D. John 19:17
What exactly was written on the plate of the cross?
A. Mat. 27:37, B. Mark 15:26 C. Luke 23:3
What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?
A. Mat. 27:46, B. Mark 15:34, C. Luke 23:46, John 19:30
Who went first at the grave on Sunday morning?
A. A woman (John 20:1), B. Two women (Mat. 28:1), C. Three women (Mark 16:1), D. More than three women (Luke 23:55-56, 24:1, 24:10)
When did the woman or the women went to the grave?
A. Mat. 28:1, John 20:1, B. Mark 16:2
The woman/ en went to the grave because they wanted to:
A. Mark 16:1-2, Luke 24:1, B. Mat. 28:1
The women acquired and prepared the spices:
A. Luke 23:54-56, B. Mark 16:1
The first visitor of the grave came face to face with:
A. Mat. 28:2-5, B. Mark 16:5, C. Luke 24:4, D. John 20:1-2
Where did the person/s they saw were sitting at?
A. Mat. 28:2, B. Mark 16:5, C. Luke 24:3-4
After the woman/ en found the grave empty, they:
A. Mat. 28:7-8, Luke 24:9, John 20:2, B. Mark 16
The risen from the dead Jesus was presented for the first time at:
A. John 20:14, Mark 16:9, B. Luke 24:13-1, C. Mat. 28:1-9, D. Peter Α' Cor. 15:4-5
The location at which the risen Jesus was presented for the first time was:
A. Mat. 28:8-9, B. John 20:11-14, C. Mark 16:6-7, D. Luke 24:13-15
The disciples saw for the first time Jesus:
A. Mat. 28:7, Mark 16:7-10, B. Luke 24:33-36, John 20:19, Acts 1:4
The risen from the dead Jesus… :
A. Mat. 28:9, Mark 16:9-10, Luke 24:31, B. Mark 16:12, Luke 24:15-16 & 36-37, John 20:14-15)
The risen from the dead Jesus was:
A. Mat. 28:9, Luke 24:41-43, John 20:27, B. Mark 16:9, 12, 14, Luke 24:15-15, 31, 36-37, Α’ Cor. 15:8-9
The disciples saw the risen from the dead Jesus:
A. Mat. 28:16-17, B. John 20:19, 26, 21:1,14, C. Acts 1:3
When Jesus was presented to his disciples, they were:
A. Mat. 28:16-17, Luke 24:33-36, B. A’ Cor. 15:5
The risen from the dead Jesus wanted to:
A. John 20:27, B. Mat. 28:10
Jesus ascended:
A. Mark 16:9, 19, Luke 24:13, 28-31, 50-51, B. Acts 1:3-9, C. Mat. 28:19-20, John 21:23
The disciples and the descent of the Holy Spirit:
A. John 20:19-22, B. Acts 2:1-13
😵
13 Feb 14
Originally posted by black beetleBiblical proof for alternate universes! 😀
OK then, kindly please do play –choose and win!
Who carried the cross to Golgotha?
A. Mat. 27: 32, B. Mark 15: 21, C. Luke 23: 26, D. John 19:17
What exactly was written on the plate of the cross?
A. Mat. 27:37, B. Mark 15:26 C. Luke 23:3
What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?
A. Mat. 27:46, B. Mark 15:34, C. Luke 23:46, John 19:30
Who ...[text shortened]... :23
The disciples and the descent of the Holy Spirit:
A. John 20:19-22, B. Acts 2:1-13
😵
13 Feb 14
Originally posted by black beetleAren't these just so precious?
OK then, kindly please do play –choose and win!
Who carried the cross to Golgotha?
A. Mat. 27: 32, B. Mark 15: 21, C. Luke 23: 26, D. John 19:17
What exactly was written on the plate of the cross?
A. Mat. 27:37, B. Mark 15:26 C. Luke 23:3
What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?
A. Mat. 27:46, B. Mark 15:34, C. Luke 23:46, John 19:30
Who ...[text shortened]... :23
The disciples and the descent of the Holy Spirit:
A. John 20:19-22, B. Acts 2:1-13
😵
Who carried the cross... to Golgotha?
Matthew: "As they came out"
Out? Out of where?
Mark: "... and led him out to crucify Him."
Again with the out. Out of where?
Luke: "... and as they led Him away..."
Away? Away from where?
Please. Before you deign yourself a student of learning, learn as much on the topic as you would your rate of pay.
When the critics point to such horrid examples and declare to have found the error, they are as compelling as the wild-eyed zealot who stands on the street corner screaming every day is the final one.
If you're not going to take the text seriously, why should anyone pay attention to what you have to say?
13 Feb 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOK, let's see if we can do a quick parallel reconstruction.
Aren't these just so precious?
Who carried the cross... to Golgotha?
Matthew: "As they came out"
Out? Out of where?
Mark: "... and led him out to crucify Him."
Again with the out. Out of where?
Luke: "... and as they led Him away..."
Away? Away from where?
Please. Before you deign yourself a student of learning, learn as much on the to ...[text shortened]... e not going to take the text seriously, why should anyone pay attention to what you have to say?
In Mark 15, Jesus goes from Pilate to the Praetorium (palace) where he gets the crown of thorns and they mock and beat him. They lead him out of the palace to crucify him, when they spot Simon the Cyrene passing by. They make Simon carry the cross, from just outside the palace to Golgotha, the crucifixion site.
Matthew 27 agrees with Mark's account in pretty much every particular.
Luke 23 omits the trip to the palace for beating/crowning/mocking. Simon the Cyrene is coming "in" as they go out, and they make him carry the cross. From there they go to 'place of the skull' or Golgotha, as in the other accounts.
The problematic account is John 19, which has Jesus leave Pilate, omits the beating/crowning/mocking bit, and takes Jesus and soldiers to Golgotha, but this time with Jesus carrying his own cross. No mention of Simon to be found.
So clearly there is a bit of a contradiction between John and the others. Does this mean that the accounts are not to be trusted? No, unless you are committed to the extreme position that every word in every one of the accounts is inerrant, divinely inspired, and completely true.
If you admit that these tales were passed by word-of-mouth and after that jotted down by hand and copied laboriously and imperfectly by hand thereafter, and our earliest known copies are dated at decades after the events supposedly occurred, then it is not at all surprising that some small details are not consistent.
13 Feb 14
"In the beginning God created..."
Or maybe Moses got it wrong. Maybe God really told Moses, "Before the beginning...", or "After the beginning..."
If one can't be sure, then one isn't reading the Word of God. If one doesn't believe in the existence of God, then nothing can be said to them to convince them otherwise.
The oldest trick in the book is to discredit what God has said. That is a very dangerous business to be in. Be sure or be silent. Believe or believe not. But if one insists on tampering with the Word of God, then to be sure, if there be a God, one will give an account for every word taken away or added to.
13 Feb 14
Originally posted by josephwSeriously, you should read up on how the Bible was written and compiled over the centuries. It's fascinating stuff.
"In the beginning God created..."
Or maybe Moses got it wrong. Maybe God really told Moses, "Before the beginning...", or "After the beginning..."
If one can't be sure, then one isn't reading the Word of God. If one doesn't believe in the existence of God, then nothing can be said to them to convince them otherwise.
The oldest trick in the book is t ...[text shortened]... n to be sure, if there be a God, one will give an account for every word taken away or added to.