Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Could this really have happened?
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 16 of 159 (318401)
06-06-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Brian
06-06-2006 3:31 PM


Re: Think a bit deeper
It is because these stories are so illogical that it is difficult to take them at face value.
Are they illogical, or are we ignorant to how things where back then.
Example, the wild west, and a shoot-off in the street. Ten paces and fire? Now there's some good logic, but it obviously happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Brian, posted 06-06-2006 3:31 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by CK, posted 06-06-2006 5:57 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 17 of 159 (318405)
06-06-2006 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by riVeRraT
06-06-2006 5:20 PM


Re: Think a bit deeper
quote:
Example, the wild west, and a shoot-off in the street. Ten paces and fire? Now there's some good logic, but it obviously happened.
I don't think that's a great example for you to use. I'm pretty sure that was mostly myth and the considered way for a gunfighter to kill someone was to shot them in the back while hiding in the dark! (not "gunslingers" - that term came into existance in 1928!)
quote:
The articles by George Ward Nichols and Henry M. Stanley helped to develop the myth of the ritual shoot-out between two gunfighters who confront each other in a quick-draw duel. Most gunman who were in conflict with another westerner were much more likely to shoot them in the back than face a duel. There are no examples in history of two well-known gunfighters fighting in this way.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWgunfighters.htm
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by riVeRraT, posted 06-06-2006 5:20 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by riVeRraT, posted 06-06-2006 10:25 PM CK has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 18 of 159 (318406)
06-06-2006 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by riVeRraT
06-06-2006 5:16 PM


Re: Already thought of that
Well then it must have been God,
Why must it have been God? Why can't the story be fictional?
and the king knew it.
Where do you get this from?
The mid-wives were lawful in what they said, and knew they could get away with it.
Well, they told pharaoh a lie, so I don't know if it is lawful to tell a lie.
The child births came easy to the Jews
The Bible doesn't even imply this, it clearly says that the midwives let the boys live because they feared God. it doesn't say that the Jewish women actually did give birth before the midwives arrived.
because God was protecting them from what the king had ordered.
How do you know this?
The hair was a symbol of God's covenant with him.
Samson's hair was long because he was supposed to be a Nazarite.
His power did not return when the hair grew back, but only after he reconciled with God.
Where are you getting this from?
I don't see where in the story that Samson is reconciled with God, all it says about God and the return of Samson's strength is:
Judges 16:28-30
Then Samson prayed to the LORD, "O Sovereign LORD, remember me. O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes." Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other, Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines!" Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.
It doesn't even say that God did strengthen Samson. If you notice in other passages (e.g. 14:19) the spirit of God comes upon Samson in power. This isn't mentioned when Samson topples the temple.
What did he have to reconcile?
Judges 16:22 But the hair on his head began to grow again after it had been shaved.
There would be no point in mentioning the hair growing if it wasn't crucial to the plot.
Possibly the philistines did not think he would get his power back, since he broke his covenant with God.
Why would the Philistines have any belief in the power of Yahweh, did they worship Yahweh?
The Philistines were only aware that his hair gave him strength, what did they know about any covenant?
Brian.
Edited by Brian, : edited to add that Covenants were indeed a dime a dozen, many nations had numerous covenants with their God (s)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by riVeRraT, posted 06-06-2006 5:16 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 06-06-2006 6:15 PM Brian has replied
 Message 26 by riVeRraT, posted 06-06-2006 11:03 PM Brian has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 19 of 159 (318411)
06-06-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Brian
06-06-2006 6:04 PM


Re: Already thought of that
Samson's hair was long because he was supposed to be a Nazarite.
Ofcourse Samson could not have been a Nazarite anyway based on his general behavior like ass jawing folk and other violent behavior.
Just another example of why it is mythology and not history.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Brian, posted 06-06-2006 6:04 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by riVeRraT, posted 06-06-2006 11:04 PM jar has replied
 Message 56 by Brian, posted 06-09-2006 2:54 AM jar has not replied

  
Teets_Creationist
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 159 (318415)
06-06-2006 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
06-05-2006 6:21 PM


Brian, you are just having a battle of opinion; I will just answer your questions point blank:
Was pharaoh so dumb that he wouldn’t have asked “why do they need midwives then?
ANSWER: Why would he ask them this? It is plausible to think these women could still use a midwife, because you can't assume that it was the midwives ONLY job to assist the delivery of the baby. Even now midwives check up regularly in weeks after a birth. I know this, because my sister has had a midwife three times; and, if you look it up online, you can find this out too. A little research goes a long way. I don't think the issue is wether or not the pharoah in this account is "dumb", but rather how limited your knowledge of midwives is. My own opinion would be that the pharoah didn't ask such a question, because he already knew that women used midwives after their pregnancies also. The problem here isn't an errant and unbelievable Bible, it is too much speculation on your part.
How dumb is this passage asking us to believe that the Philistine’s were?
ANSWER: You ARE asking an impossible question, because any answer would be speculation. How would you prove the IQ of the Philisties. You can't. If it could be proven throughout history man has always made the most logical judgements, then you might have a case. But I believe quite the oposite would be the case. The sensible answer,then, would be to look at what we DO know about man's foolishness. Therefore, using current examples IS logical.
9/11 for example, here in America. How many times do you hear of all the warning signs the government got? Why did it still happen? Is it plausible to think that the American government acted "dumb"? If a current people can be "dumb", why not ancient? Maybe the Philistines were asking the same questions, when the warning signs (Samson's hair growing back) were all around them, and they ignored them. Any argument in this area is speculation, and is not proof of inaccuracy in the Bible, but opinion.
You can keep your opinion of an errant Bible, but these examples can be taken literally. If you are ask simply "Can people be this gullible, or unsensible?", the simple answer is YES. Looking to what we know about people, even those in commanding positions today, we know this answer to be true. I would love to hear your opinoin of George W. Bush. Is he "dumb"? If you believe he is, then your question on wether a person in power can be "dumb", or gullible, or stupid, is obviously yes. It would be interesting to know how many people in high positions today, you consider "dumb".
Summary: everything you're saying is speculation, and can only be considered opinion. Stating that these stories are any more illogical than what our current lives are, is, in my opinion, false. Stating that speculation is EVIDENCE, is false.
I don't claim that I know everything; but the FACT is that your OPINION is not EVIDENCE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 06-05-2006 6:21 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by CK, posted 06-06-2006 6:26 PM Teets_Creationist has not replied
 Message 59 by Brian, posted 06-09-2006 9:41 AM Teets_Creationist has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 21 of 159 (318417)
06-06-2006 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Teets_Creationist
06-06-2006 6:22 PM


quote:
Even now midwives check up regularly in weeks after a birth. I know this, because my sister has had a midwife three times; and, if you look it up online, you can find this out too. A little research goes a long way. I don't think the issue is whether or not the pharaoh in this account is "dumb", but rather how limited your knowledge of midwives is.
What does the duties of modern midwifes have to do with what they were doing back then? Maybe the duties are the same but how do you know?
On that basis, if I go into hospital I can ask the surgeon for a shave!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-06-2006 6:22 PM Teets_Creationist has not replied

  
Teets_Creationist
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 159 (318429)
06-06-2006 7:36 PM


Just to brush up, I believe some of what I have said about the midwives on this topic to be in too much detail, and useless. The one place many of us err in considering the scriptures, is reading only verses, and not taking the complete passage into consideration.
We all know that the job of the midwife is to help with the child at birth, the point of wether or not midwives were used to help after the birth, I now believe to be meaningless in this story. See, what you're missing, is the end chapter where the pharaoh commands to everyone that they need to kill all the men children. The reason he had to do this is because the Hebrews were not using midwives, as far as he believed. So he had to come up with plan number two.
So, to answer this question better:
Was pharaoh so dumb that he wouldn’t have asked “why do they need midwives then?
The pharaoh would have never asked this, because as far as he was concerned, they weren't using the midwives at all! So then....
[v.22] "And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.
KJV

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ringo, posted 06-06-2006 10:36 PM Teets_Creationist has not replied
 Message 25 by Coragyps, posted 06-06-2006 10:37 PM Teets_Creationist has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 23 of 159 (318470)
06-06-2006 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by CK
06-06-2006 5:57 PM


Re: Think a bit deeper
Is that what we do with everything that happened in the past and we can't explain, we call it myth?
It couldn't have happened, it's not logical.
I wonder what they will say about us in 300 years?
"You know, back in the day they would actually get in their cars and do drive-bys, now we just shoot them through the internet"
"Can't be, must have been a myth"
I am sure that the pyramids would be a myth if they weren't still standing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by CK, posted 06-06-2006 5:57 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by rgb, posted 06-07-2006 3:06 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 24 of 159 (318473)
06-06-2006 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Teets_Creationist
06-06-2006 7:36 PM


Teets_Creationist writes:
The pharaoh would have never asked this, because as far as he was concerned, they weren't using the midwives at all!
That doesn't make any sense. Pharoah must have known that the Hebrews were using the midwives, or he wouldn't have told the midwives to do the killing.
The midwives' excuse for not doing the killing was that the babies were born before they got there. They didn't kill any of the babies. They claimed that they were always too late.
The sensible question for Pharoah to ask would have been, "Why do they call you midwives at all if you're not going to get there in time?"

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-06-2006 7:36 PM Teets_Creationist has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 25 of 159 (318475)
06-06-2006 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Teets_Creationist
06-06-2006 7:36 PM


and not taking the complete passage into consideration.
OK. I Samuel 4-6 or so is a complete passage. It's about a little war, and maybe some bubonic plague, and the death of 50,070 men from one village for looking in a box. And it's sublimely ridiculous.
Interpret, ye literalists, until I quit giggling about golden images of hemorrhoids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-06-2006 7:36 PM Teets_Creationist has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 26 of 159 (318488)
06-06-2006 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Brian
06-06-2006 6:04 PM


Re: Already thought of that
Why must it have been God? Why can't the story be fictional?
Why can't it be God?
You can look at the story from 2 perspectives. You can say it was God, or not, then try to make the story fit from there. But either way, it is an over generelized story of what happened, and not short hand from a court case. There are way to many details left out for you to try and logically break it down to the level you are trying to, and make sense out of it.
Where do you get this from?
He knew because God was blessing the jews by allowing them to multiply. Thats the moral of that whole passage.
Well, they told pharaoh a lie, so I don't know if it is lawful to tell a lie.
I didn't say telling a lie was lawful, I said what they said to him was considered lawful. Again you try to break it down too far, even what I said, and turn it into something it's not.
The child births came easy to the Jews
The Bible doesn't even imply this, it clearly says that the midwives let the boys live because they feared God. it doesn't say that the Jewish women actually did give birth before the midwives arrived.
Yes, that is exactly what the story is about, the Jews multiplying.
That statement has nothing to do with the midwives being there or not, it's information that lends itself to the growth of the Jewish population, and how God was protecting them.
because God was protecting them from what the king had ordered.
How do you know this?
I wasn't there, so I don't "know this". It is what the story is about, and why I think the possibility remains that it is not a myth.
It doesn't even say that God did strengthen Samson.
quote:
Judges 13:3 The angel of Yahweh appeared to the woman, and said to her, "See now, you are barren, and don't bear; but you shall conceive, and bear a son.
4 Now therefore please beware and drink no wine nor strong drink, and don't eat any unclean thing:
5 for, behold, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head; for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb: and he shall begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."
Sure sounds like his power came from God, and it was in his hair, a sign of the convenant made between Samsons parents, and God.
When his hair was cut, God left him, not his strength.
This isn't mentioned when Samson topples the temple.
quote:
Judges 16:28 Samson called to Yahweh, and said, "Lord Yahweh, remember me, please, and strengthen me, please, only this once, God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes."
29 Samson took hold of the two middle pillars on which the house rested, and leaned on them, the one with his right hand, and the other with his left.
30 Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines!" He bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell on the lords, and on all the people who were therein. So the dead that he killed at his death were more than those who he killed in his life.
How can one say God didn't give him power to topple the temple, according to the story?
He sacrificed himself in the end to get his power back one more time, and do what God had made him to do. He fulfilled his calling, that's power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Brian, posted 06-06-2006 6:04 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Brian, posted 06-09-2006 5:00 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 27 of 159 (318489)
06-06-2006 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
06-06-2006 6:15 PM


Re: Already thought of that
Ofcourse Samson could not have been a Nazarite anyway based on his general behavior like ass jawing folk and other violent behavior.
Just another example of why it is mythology and not history.
jar knows, because he was there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 06-06-2006 6:15 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 06-06-2006 11:08 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 159 (318494)
06-06-2006 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by riVeRraT
06-06-2006 11:04 PM


Re: Already thought of that
Do you know what a Nazarite was?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by riVeRraT, posted 06-06-2006 11:04 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by riVeRraT, posted 06-12-2006 1:16 PM jar has replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 159 (318592)
06-07-2006 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by riVeRraT
06-06-2006 10:25 PM


Re: Think a bit deeper
riverrat writes
quote:
Is that what we do with everything that happened in the past and we can't explain, we call it myth?
I don't think that's what CK meant. He offered a more realistic approach to the common misconception of a western shootout back in the days. Notice that he specifically said that there are no historical example of the face to face western shootout we usually see in movies but we do have plenty of historical examples of face to back shootouts. Without much evidence to support a specific preconception of an era long in the past, we can only conclude that chances are the incredible stories are little more than exaggerated stories.
quote:
I wonder what they will say about us in 300 years?
"You know, back in the day they would actually get in their cars and do drive-bys, now we just shoot them through the internet"
"Can't be, must have been a myth"
If some catastrophe happens and all records of day-to-day life with our automobils (sp?) are gone, then yes future historians are justified to say that the usage of cars might have been nothing more than a myth.
[quote]I am sure that the pyramids would be a myth if they weren't still standing.
Is that what we do with everything that happened in the past and we can't explain, we call it myth?
It couldn't have happened, it's not logical.
I wonder what they will say about us in 300 years?
"You know, back in the day they would actually get in their cars and do drive-bys, now we just shoot them through the internet"
"Can't be, must have been a myth"
quote:
I am sure that the pyramids would be a myth if they weren't still standing.
If the pyramids disappeared long before civilizations that kept accurate historical records arrived on the scene and the only memories of these great structures were nothing more than a couple of stories (fairy tales) held by local people of backwatered communities, then yes we are justified to say that chances are these structures were nothing more than myth.
Think about it, without conclusive evidence, how can we tell the difference between real actual events and fairy tales?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by riVeRraT, posted 06-06-2006 10:25 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by riVeRraT, posted 06-07-2006 7:48 AM rgb has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 30 of 159 (318622)
06-07-2006 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by rgb
06-07-2006 3:06 AM


Re: Think a bit deeper
Think about it, without conclusive evidence, how can we tell the difference between real actual events and fairy tales?
We can't, so why claim it is one or the other?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by rgb, posted 06-07-2006 3:06 AM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by CK, posted 06-07-2006 7:56 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 36 by rgb, posted 06-07-2006 2:40 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024