Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any comment W_Fortenberry?
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 16 of 95 (47070)
07-23-2003 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Brian
07-23-2003 7:37 AM


Brian Johnston:
quote:
I was only pointing out that Doctrbill had dealt with the problem of very young children becoming fathers. He hadnt overlooked this error.
Thanks Brian.
There are plenty of ways to discredit the Bible but this is not one of them. Evolution of the calendar is an extremely complicated subject which deserves it's own website, and there are many books written on the subject. There were centuries, even millenia, during which various cultures maintained unique calendars. It is a fascinating subject if one enjoys a challenging puzzle.
quote:
Another problem that literalists need to solve regarding the ages as well, is that some early Bible versions disagree on some chronological data.
Thanks again. I had long ago noted such discrepancies between Hebrew and Greek versions of the Book of Revelation but was unaware of the stats you brought. Can you point me to the source of these figures? Do you actually own copies of the books you cite?
quote:
most, if not all, bible chronologies are artificial.
I am not conversant enough on the subject to deny this, but I suspect that the above mentioned chaos of calendrical systems could explain some of the discrepancies. Then again, some of the old numbering systems are extremely complicated as well and more than a few have had to be revised as additional evidence became available.
Again. I believe there are better targets for the purpose of discrediting the biblical text. This one is pretty fuzzy in my sights.
db
------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Brian, posted 07-23-2003 7:37 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Brian, posted 07-23-2003 2:49 PM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 17 of 95 (47100)
07-23-2003 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Brian
07-23-2003 6:20 AM


Brian Johnston, Rrhain, et. al.
This is to inform you that pertinent revision and additional evidence have been posted to this page as a result of our recent discussion here. It is still a quick read and I think you will find the case considerably enhanced.
http://www.sun-day-school.us/many_moons.htm
It is not possible for me to anticipate every objection which may be fielded against my hypotheses. I value your opinions and critiques. I need them in order to judge the effectiveness of my presentations.
Thank you all for your participation.
db
------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Brian, posted 07-23-2003 6:20 AM Brian has not replied

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


Message 18 of 95 (47109)
07-23-2003 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by doctrbill
07-23-2003 11:56 AM


Hi db,
Thanks again. I had long ago noted such discrepancies between Hebrew and Greek versions of the Book of Revelation but was unaware of the stats you brought. Can you point me to the source of these figures? Do you actually own copies of the books you cite?
The stats I quoted this morning was form Jeremy Hughes’ book Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Sheffield Academic Press, 1990, p7.
There are many discrepancies between different Bible verses, and a couple of good books and articles on the subject are:
Albright W F The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel BASOR 100 pp16-22
Barr J Why the World was Created in 4004 BC: Archbishop Ussher and Biblical Chronology Bulletin of the John Rylands Library No.67 1984 pp 575-608
Barr J Luther and Biblical Chrnology BJRL No.72 1989
Finnegan J Handbook of Biblical Chronology Princeton University Press 1964.
Hayes J An Introduction to Old Testament Study SCM London 1979
Klien R W, Archaic Chronologies and the Textual history of the Old
Testament
Havard Theological Review No.67, 1974 pp255-263.
Larsson G. The Chronology of the Pentateuch: a comparison of the MT and the LXX Journal of Biblical Literature No.102, 1983 pp401-409.
Miller J M Another look at the chronology of the early divided monarchy JBL No.86 pp276-288
Morgernstern J Supplementary studies in the calendars of ancient Israel Hebrew Union College Annual No.10 1935, pp1-148
Thiele E R The Mysterious numbers of the Hebrew kings: a reconstruction of the chronology of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah Zondervan, Grand Rapids 1951
As I said there are hundreds of discrepancies between early Bible versions, and it isn’t surprising when you consider how many different versions there are. There are even many different versions of the Septuagint, these are all versions of the Septuagint:
Codex Alexandrinus
Codex Vatanicus
Codex Venetus
Codex Cottonianus
Codex Coislinianus
Septuagint Lucianic recension
I do not own versions of these, but I access to dozens of different Bibles and translations at the reference section of my university library. However, I usually rely on translations and quotes in books and journal articles. I do not really dwell of the chronologies, I am of the same opinion as yourself that these discrepancies are not a big deal. However, I do think that it is little things like this that, when added to other problems, make the Bible less reliable than some people would like to think.
One final thing, it isn’t necessarily the case that people are trying to discredit the Bible by highlighting these discrepancies, I think most people are really trying to discover how and why the Bible was written and that perhaps we need to change or perception of the text.
We could argue all day over whether this Bible says X was 404 years old but that Bible says X was 504, these aren’t really a big deal. The Bible has much bigger problems than this if it is to be seen as a reliable historical document, in fact, the negative evidence for the enslavement, Exodus, desert wanderings, and conquest of Canaan, are problems that the Bible will never recover from.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by doctrbill, posted 07-23-2003 11:56 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by doctrbill, posted 07-24-2003 1:00 AM Brian has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 19 of 95 (47235)
07-24-2003 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Brian
07-23-2003 2:49 PM


Thank you for the references and additional info. Brian.
quote:
I think most people are really trying to discover how and why the Bible was written and that perhaps we need to change our perception of the text.
I believe that describes my motivation pretty well.
On the one hand, I had it drilled into me. On the other hand, I was in love with it. Well, still am, sort of. Now, however, it's more like proving to myself that its "bogy man" and its "Lord" are objectifiable; literary examples of the eternal cast of characters found in politics and religion. Even so, reading it can give me both: nightmares and inspiration. Bible study is one of the few intellectual pursuits in which I can confess a modicum of expertise.
------------------
Are you a Sunday School graduate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Brian, posted 07-23-2003 2:49 PM Brian has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 20 of 95 (47237)
07-24-2003 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by doctrbill
07-23-2003 11:42 AM


doctrbill responds to me:
quote:
quote:
And the covenant is with Abraham...over a thousand years later. We shouldn't apply the covenant of Abraham to Adam or Noah or anybody who came before.
I agree that we shouldn't apply the covenant to previous generations but the covenant is irrelevant here. The custom of recognizing manhood at age thirteen precedes the covenant. Ishmael is thirteen when Abram proposes to make him heir of the estate. Genesis 17:18,25.
Um, you do realize that Genesis 17 is the establishment of the covenant of circumcision with Abraham, yes?
Genesis 17:10: This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
So you're absolutely right about Ishmael being 13...that was the establishment of the covenant. God told Abraham that he was establishing a covenant right there, right now, so Abraham did what he was told to do with his son Ishmael, who happened to be 13, and that is the origin of the tradition.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by doctrbill, posted 07-23-2003 11:42 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by doctrbill, posted 07-24-2003 12:50 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 21 of 95 (47293)
07-24-2003 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rrhain
07-24-2003 2:03 AM


Rrhain writes:
God told Abraham that he was establishing a covenant right there, right now, so Abraham did what he was told to do with his son Ishmael, who happened to be 13, and that is the origin of the tradition.
I don't understand why you are going on about circumcision.
  • Boys are circumcised on the eighth day of life, according to Jewish law.
  • Boys become "men" at age thirteen, according to Jewish Law (barmitzva).
  • Circumcision is not barmitzva.
It seems you haven't read the short page on this subject. It was recently edited to include more evidence, and improve readability.
Please read the whole thing: 900 y/o man?
db
------------------
Does anyone graduate Sunday School?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 07-24-2003 2:03 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Culverin
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 95 (47315)
07-24-2003 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
06-23-2003 10:14 AM


Exhaustive Argument
I wanted to respond to Post #66 but will have to spend some time compiling some information.
Please allow me to itemize and test my references since I have only recently joined this forum.
Your argument is exhaustive but interesting and certainly does compel the Bible believer to question his/her foundations. This may take some time but I will assume that given your zeal for trying to prove the Bible wrong, that you are at least in search for answers. You may end up being pleasantly surprised or I may end up frustrated.
If you want to email me in the interim, it is rmcronal@bm.ibm.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 06-23-2003 10:14 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by zephyr, posted 07-24-2003 3:42 PM Culverin has replied
 Message 24 by Brian, posted 07-27-2003 8:02 AM Culverin has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 23 of 95 (47319)
07-24-2003 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Culverin
07-24-2003 3:05 PM


Re: Exhaustive Argument
quote:
I wanted to respond to Post #66 but will have to spend some time compiling some information.
Please allow me to itemize and test my references since I have only recently joined this forum.
Your argument is exhaustive but interesting and certainly does compel the Bible believer to question his/her foundations. This may take some time but I will assume that given your zeal for trying to prove the Bible wrong, that you are at least in search for answers. You may end up being pleasantly surprised or I may end up frustrated.
If you want to email me in the interim, it is rmcronal@bm.ibm.com
Zeal for proving the Bible wrong? I call it a dogged pursuit of the truth. Having a conclusion before research is done is exactly what science (including archaeology) avoids. Pre-existing belief taints scientific inquiry and tends to render its results less trustworthy. But I don't see evidence thereof when I read the post in question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Culverin, posted 07-24-2003 3:05 PM Culverin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Culverin, posted 07-28-2003 10:52 AM zephyr has not replied

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


Message 24 of 95 (47561)
07-27-2003 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Culverin
07-24-2003 3:05 PM


Re: Exhaustive Argument
I wanted to respond to Post #66 but will have to spend some time compiling some information. Please allow me to itemize and test my references since I have only recently joined this forum.
Sure, take as long as you need to compile a reply, there’s no hurry and I understand that people have other things in their lives to attend to, I look forward to your reply.
Your argument is exhaustive but interesting and certainly does compel the Bible believer to question his/her foundations.
I hope that when my research is finished that it may compel the believer NOT to question their actual faith, but to question if they are reading the Bible the way in which it was meant to be read.
This may take some time but I will assume that given your zeal for trying to prove the Bible wrong, that you are at least in search for answers.
My zeal is not for proving the Bible wrong, my ‘zeal’ is for discovering the historical origins of Ancient Israel, and the Hebrew Bible is simply one source that is used in the investigation.
The point I was trying to make in post 66 is that modern day historians have various reasons for doubting the credibility of the Bible. Prior to around 1970, and the advent of the ‘New Archaeology’, many historians did take the Bible’s account of Israel’s origins as being plausible, some, such as Albright, Wright, Glueck, and Rainey all, at some stage of their careers thought that the Bible was 100% accurate in its reporting. However, with advances made in archaeological methodology and the employment of more advanced instruments, modern day scholars who are involved in the search for Ancient Israel’s historical origins have abandoned the biblical narrative to varying degrees.
The most vociferous and prolific writer on the subject is Bill Dever, he has went from his early stance of an accurate Bible narrative to one where he either rejects parts of the accounts or he reinterprets the text to fit the archaeological evidence. The evidence against the Exodus is so overwhelming that Bill Dever has told a symposium on the Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence that :
Until about a decade ago, this attempt at archaeological confirmation (of the Exodus) was still being pursued. Today, however, all that has changed, as I shall show. And with the new models of indigenous Canaanite origins for early Israel, there is neither place nor need for an exodus from Egypt. page 67.
And:
The implication of the new picture of indigenous Late Bronze Age Canaanite origins for the majority of the early Israelite population is clear. Not only is there no archaeological evidence for an exodus, there is no need to posit such an event. We can account for Israelite origins, historically and archaeologically, without presuming any Egyptian background. As a Syro-Palestinian archaeologist, I regard the historicity of the Exodus as a dead issue, despite this symposium’s raising it again. page 81
Quotes from: William G. Dever Is the any archaeological evidence for the Exodus in Ernest S Frerichs and Leonard H. Lesko Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana 1997. (p. 67-87)
I would like you, and some others here, to realise that I am NOT out to try and destroy the Bible, credit me with the sense that I know I could never actually do that anyway, but my apparent ‘attacks’ on the credibility of the Bible is purely from the angle of historical investigation. Part of my intent is to evaluate whether the Bible contains accurate historical information, or are most historical claims merely ideological?
A final note on this. The belief that the Bible contains 100% accurate historical accounts really is only confined to the layperson. Sure you may find one or two modern day ‘scholars’ who try to defend the Bible’s credibility as an historical source, Bryant Wood for example or Nahum Sarna, but these people are the ‘Kent Hovinds’ of the archaeological world.
Bryant Wood’s claims about Jericho, and its dating by Kathleen Kenyon, had the maximalists whooping for a short time, but Wood’s thesis has been totally discredited and even if his claims were true, his understanding of archaeological data is embarrassingly poor. A quick example of Wood’s poor understanding is that he obviously knows that all radiocarbon dating results have a plus and minus window, in this case Wood’s was 3080 + or — 40 years. It is unacceptable to use only one radiocarbon assay for dating an archaeological event, and it is also unacceptable to ignore the dating methods deviation for dating precisely an archaeological event.
Anyway, his argument has been binned as the radiocarbon assay he used has been identified as being part of a large series of systematically defective dates.
You may end up being pleasantly surprised or I may end up frustrated.
If you want to email me in the interim, it is rmcronal@bm.ibm.com
I will make one prediction, only one of us will ignore the evidence and plod on regardless
I look forward to hearing from you, I will be off-line from the 31st of July until the 10th of August as I will be on holiday, so I will be unable to reply during that period.
Best Wishes.
Brian.
[This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 07-27-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Culverin, posted 07-24-2003 3:05 PM Culverin has not replied

  
Culverin
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 95 (47702)
07-28-2003 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by doctrbill
07-23-2003 12:24 AM


Re: Live Long And Prosper
"[I find it interesting that the hundreds of pages these people invested in moral lessons regarding the miraculous aspects of their history contain absolutely no comment regarding these lifespans! People today are buzzing with excitement about it but the biblical authors don't even seem to notice. No reiteration. No moralization. No object lesson. No comment at all. You would think that at least one of the two dozen authors would have penned a short verse exclaiming ...
"Gee! These guys lived ten times longer than we do!"]"
Please excuse my inability to present your quote properly at present. I think we need to be looking at the bigger picture here. You need to be able to look at this from the perspective of those that lived at the time. Just imagine that the Patriarch did live a long time. I know it is difficult but simply imagine. It would be abnormal to not live as long. There would be no real issue to record in the Bible except the fact that "gee....we guys are not living as long as we should". However, just for you, the Lord left a few words to help you in Genesis chapter 6:
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
So not only is there a reference to "me which were of old" but God also makes a stipulation that his days would come to a limit.
But the bigger picture lays in pagan history. Those historians that have opted to throw out the table of nations as a reputable family tree, have robbed you of the information to trace lineages down through the ages of all of humankind. Believe it or not, there are not only agnostic and atheist historians. Many very skilled and knowledgeable historians are Christian and have been able to tie together much of the early generations that have given birth to the countries and cultures of the earth.
What we see in the myth of most cultures, especially from the meditarranean area, is simply ancestor worship. because these forefathers lived for such a long time, they were able to leave a legacy that lingered in pagan renderings of the reality that then was.
For example, Japheth was "the progenitor of many nations". The early Greeks worshipped him as "IAPETOS, or IAPETUS, whom they regarded as the son of heaven and earth, and the father of many nations." Look to to the pagan mythology and instead of putting the cart before the horse and presupposing that the Bible was a product of pagan ideology, realize that it was the other way around. In the ancient Sanskrit vedas of India, Japheth is remembered as "PRA-JAPATI, the sun and ostensible Lord of Creation." the Romans assimilated him into there pantheon as "IUPATER, which eventually became that of Jupiter." It is commonly held by most historians that these names are not of Greek, Indian or Latin origin so why not recognize that they are: "mere corruptions of the Hebrew name of Japheth. Similarly, the early Saxon races perpetuated his name as Sceaf, (Pr. 'sheef,' or 'shaif,') and recorded his name in their early genealogies as the son of Noah, the forebear of their various peoples."
There are extensive studies to show how the table of nations ties into our early histories. Secular, agnostic and atheist disbelief have worked wonders on those that need to find any way to doubt the authenticity of the Bible. If they can do this, then they do not have to live up to the fact that the Bible is right and therefore they will be judged by a righteous God that has appointed a day and an hour. Don't let your own pride keep you from the truth.
------------------
Heb 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by doctrbill, posted 07-23-2003 12:24 AM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Admin, posted 07-28-2003 10:19 AM Culverin has replied
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 07-28-2003 11:28 AM Culverin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 26 of 95 (47704)
07-28-2003 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Culverin
07-28-2003 10:10 AM


Re: Live Long And Prosper
Culverin writes:
Please excuse my inability to present your quote properly at present.
When typing a message in to the little message box you'll notice two links just off to the left. One is for HTML, the other is for UBB codes. If you click on the link for UBB codes it will open a page telling you, among other things, how to quote.
------------------
--Percy
 EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Culverin, posted 07-28-2003 10:10 AM Culverin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Culverin, posted 07-28-2003 10:59 AM Admin has not replied

  
Culverin
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 95 (47711)
07-28-2003 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by zephyr
07-24-2003 3:42 PM


Re: Exhaustive Argument
And you would be correct given what is written in the post.
However, an unbelief never has to defend its own belief because it is automatically opposed to anything that it chooses to be opposed to. Make no mistake that just because there is no expressed stand on any one platform/belief/idiology, doesn't mean that a particular master is not served. The unbeliever simply has the benefit in cases like this of throwing their hands in the air and saying "...but I am simply seeking the truth without any former bias or prejudice".
Archaeology that goes out in search of the truth without any prior bias to what it expects to find, will have to place its faith in something. In most cases today, it will be in the equipment used to date sand/rock/bone/ceramics that well meaning scientists use. We all know that these methods and methodologies are infallible right? Just look at Piltsdown man and Lucy.
I bow to your observation and recognise that my statement was more of an attempt to attack character than argument. The good news is that I'll consider my error and do humbly apologize.
------------------
Heb 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by zephyr, posted 07-24-2003 3:42 PM zephyr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coragyps, posted 07-28-2003 11:02 AM Culverin has not replied
 Message 31 by Brian, posted 07-28-2003 11:38 AM Culverin has replied

  
Culverin
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 95 (47714)
07-28-2003 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Admin
07-28-2003 10:19 AM


Re: Live Long And Prosper
quote:
If you click on the link for UBB codes it will open a page telling you, among other things, how to quote.
If you click on the link for UBB codes it will open a page telling you, among other things, how to quote.
Now I truly am blessed.....
Thanks
------------------
Heb 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Admin, posted 07-28-2003 10:19 AM Admin has not replied

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


Message 29 of 95 (47716)
07-28-2003 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Culverin
07-28-2003 10:52 AM


Re: Exhaustive Argument
Just look at Piltsdown man and Lucy.
Subject for a different thread, I know:
The fraud that was Piltdown Man was exposed by those scientific methods, fluoride diffusion to be precise.
And what is your beef with "Lucy?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Culverin, posted 07-28-2003 10:52 AM Culverin has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 30 of 95 (47723)
07-28-2003 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Culverin
07-28-2003 10:10 AM


Re: Live Long And Prosper
I am not aware of any reputable studies that place any credence in the "table of Nations" as representing actual history.
Do you have any references ?
(And, BTW, you do realise that "mighty men which were of old" simply means "heroes who lived a long time ago" ? If so can you explain why you find the "men who were of old" to be at all significant ?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Culverin, posted 07-28-2003 10:10 AM Culverin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Culverin, posted 07-28-2003 12:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024