Author
|
Topic: Is the bible the word of God or men?
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
Message 214 of 309 (441042)
12-16-2007 3:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 213 by Nimrod 12-13-2007 5:09 PM
|
|
Re: Political and Historical Truths.
quote: I have just about had it with IamJosephs continued accusations which falsely claim I want Jews's to be exterminated. And this is just a sliver of his endless false accusations (claiming I said Moses was a Muslim and that supporting Palestinian's rights as human beings somehow "steals Jewish heritage") He wants to smear anybody who rejects his racial theology known as dispensationalism.
Yes, all muslims speak of exterminating jews when they falsely claim jews converted to islam [sic], when all the world knows jews fastediously rejected islam, and that 1000s were massacred for this. Today, muslims exploit the traditional European antisemitism which corrupted history and sanctioned the name palestinians to Muslims: it is a placebo of genocide of Jews in their homeland, and no greater charade in the world today.
quote:
Burge Israeli historians now talk about the mass and planned expulsion of the Palestinians, an early form of 'ethnic cleansing'.
Yes - get lost to a more sacred islamic place. Why was Jordan given you? There is no possibility these two peoples can live in the same soccer field, and the arab game is to export millions to overwhelm the Jews. This is a blatantly open charade. There is no such thing as muslim sufferin' pals: they are the last peoples on earth who should wear this name, and the Arabs calling themselves this have more options than any other displaced peoples in the world today. Those who pretend not to see the arab game are - "pretending". Genocide, trivialised by your lose evokings, is never a Jewish game - nor can a people with access to 57 countries claim this as their game. I note you cannot produce any coins, national anthems or palestinians coins; nor can you produce any links about jews being the ancesters of muslim Pretend Pals before 1960: I won't report you to Admin! I note also you have not mentioned Israel's rights here: who's promoting genocide - what do you call not mentioning Israel's rights - and that jews are your ancesters? Would you just love someone telling you this - and would you also love that they accuse you of genociding them instead? say Hi to Iran's president and all those muslim clerics who tell its peoples Moses was Muslim [sic] and 9/11 is a Zionist plot. Sell it to Europe.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 213 by Nimrod, posted 12-13-2007 5:09 PM | | Nimrod has not replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
Message 219 of 309 (444064)
12-28-2007 5:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 215 by tesla 12-22-2007 10:18 PM
|
|
Re: the bible/torah
quote: i beleive that the bible was inspired by God, yet written by man.
There is no human who claimed to have stood before the creator 'presence to presence' - which is varied from visions and inspiration in kind, as opposed by degree - and this document says Moses wrote the bible - by dictation, word for word, with the command not to add or subtract anything. This command has been flaunted some - but to no avail: the five books of Moses remain the world's most harkened writings in existence: Moses is the world's most believed and revered human - by period of time, concencus and by impact.
quote: ie: jesus made the remark, when being told he was not an observer of the law: that not one tith of the law did he overlook, yet he asked, what do you say about divorce?
I find such questions quite bizarre. Jesus was a Jew, by no means a christian or muslim, and the laws relating to divorce is already given: why would he ask this - as opposed reminding the people of the law? Contrastingly, the doctrine of purposeful celibacy is what goes against the Mosaic laws, contradicting numerous commands.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 215 by tesla, posted 12-22-2007 10:18 PM | | tesla has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 220 by tesla, posted 12-28-2007 9:08 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
Message 221 of 309 (444359)
12-29-2007 1:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 220 by tesla 12-28-2007 9:08 AM
|
|
Re: the bible/torah
quote: jesus was pointing out that the pharisees were hipocrits, that they were not above sin, although they were prosecutors of the law. thats why he made the comment.
The pharisees were a million times better than Europeans, Rome to the EU. Better if JC confronted whom he did not. As I said, show me some tears for 1.1 Million Jews being massacred at the same spacetime. Obviously, there was no Moses figure here. Still the jews showed their stuff and sacrificed themselves like no NT figure could. The Pharisee deflection is a very stupid and false placebo, meant to justify the greatest crimes in humanity. The same applies to money changers performing the OT laws for 2000 years before the NT, as well as the horrific lie of disbelievers and deicide [sic]. The issue here is, christians and muslims are never wrong - because their scriptures say so. Well, they are wrong - their scriptures are wrong too. The Jews did nothing bad to Europe or the Arabs: its only and totally the other way around.
quote:
jesus not a christian: christians are beleivers in the doctrine of christ, so he wouldnt be a christian, but the christ.
Sure. But Jesus never followed the NT, nor did he call the passover as a last supper, nor did he speak aramaic or latin, and he was no christian or muslim. If you called on him, I bet he'd say: HUH! WHATS WITH THE LATIN BS!? This fact does not change because the NT says something else, and is obsessed with denial of Israel and Jews for 2000 years - to no avail. You have malligned Jesus by inferring he prophesized israel's destruction: mainly because this was a falsehood, thereby denying any spiritual mandate for him. The truth is, this has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus - he never made all those falsehoods nor did he invent the false term Palestinians [read, negation of Israel for peace], the division of jerusalem, the robeery of the temple loot now in the vatican's basement collecting dust, the blood libels, the protocols, etc, etc. These are from those who perpertrated great crimes and falsehoods. How does one resolve this irresolvable mess? This answer can only come from the OT. Neither the NT or the Quran has a mandated law not to add or subtract. The OT does. So you are free to correct your wrongs. QED.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 220 by tesla, posted 12-28-2007 9:08 AM | | tesla has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 222 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 9:33 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
Message 223 of 309 (444639)
12-30-2007 4:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 222 by tesla 12-29-2007 9:33 AM
|
|
Re: the bible/torah
quote: my point is: OT, torah, NT, any of the text, was written by man. and copied andre-written. simply saying : oooh but THIS text is mandated that if you subtract or add ytoull go to hell, does not mean that nothing was added or subtracted.
It was written by ONE man. Where is your proof of re-writings? The factor of the law not to add or subtract, is that it is vindicated today, and not seen with any other scriptures: all the OT laws, w/o exception, are active today - and no other religion or philosiphy was able to give the world a single law not contained therein. This renders the OT unique.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 222 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 9:33 AM | | tesla has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 224 by Rahvin, posted 12-30-2007 4:52 AM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
Message 225 of 309 (444644)
12-30-2007 4:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 222 by tesla 12-29-2007 9:33 AM
|
|
Re: the bible/torah
quote: im only suggesting that there is no way to prove that nothing has been added or subtracted from ancient texts. in the case of subtraction, with the book of enoch being removed from the current christian bible, it would appear that subtraction can be proven in christian instance.
There surely is a way of knowing this: another version of the OT being found, with absolute varied writings, will put PAID to this question. This has not accured, and it should have - because we have relics dating over 3000 years from Judaism, and other nation's relics and monuments - but no sign of a varied OT writings. This points to a veracity of no changes. We know also the laws of the OT are unchanged, by virtue of the wars with the romans, greeks and others, which made decrees challenging Jews from observing such laws - this is evidence of no changes. Further, the numerous books of prophetic writings, which emerged every 100 years without a break, complies with the entire narratives and laws of the OT of today - these too are evidencing factors of no changes. The Tel Dan find 15 years ago, proves King david a true historical figure, one who wrote the Psalms, which mentions Moses, the OT laws and the history of the Israelites - and this is a mere 250 years from Moses, when the Torah was introduced. When examining the issues of changes, one must check if all surrounding stats are historically accurate; here, we can see the descriptions of ancient Egypt as being authentic of its described space-time, even where diets and terrains are concerned. The stats of the numerous nations and their cultures, their kings and their wars - are also authentic, down to their datings and distances from each other. This says we are dealing with a serious document, and that the stats such as laws, would be least liable for changes. That this is a book of truth, is seen in its accurate descriptions of attrocities without holding back any punches. The Israelites are the most castigated - yet this most changeable passages remain. Consider that there is no change of today's OT with the Scrolls. Admittedly, this only proves no changes for 2300 years - but this is still the longest period of no change in all recorded works.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 222 by tesla, posted 12-29-2007 9:33 AM | | tesla has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 226 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 11:49 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
Message 227 of 309 (444841)
12-31-2007 3:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 226 by tesla 12-30-2007 11:49 AM
|
|
Re: the bible/Torah
quote: i cannot admit with absolution that no changes were made under the earlier system before survivable writing: verbatim. can you at least acknowledge my observation of the possibility?
I gave you numerous relevent reasonings which indicate no changes, as well as proof of the scrolls of no changes for the longest period of any document in existence [aside from stone etchings as in the Pyramids]; have you factored these, which has no equivalence elsewhere? You cannot admit what you have no evidence about: what is your premise based on, if anything? There is the possibility that any translations from the Hebrew to english or latin, and copies of these, may contain errors, because the translation criteria is not followed here, and are particular to the Hebrew. This refers to the hebrew alphabets also acting as numbers, which means if the total numerical quotient is different, it prompts an error, and is then corrected and passed before being given a kosher certificate. This makes it quite impossible to have errors, but not so with other languages. We can be sure there are no changes in the OT, as opposed any other document. This is how it appears. This is further evidenced by two groups who made two different versions of the Talmud, which explains every law in the OT. One was written in Jerusalem, the other in Babylon; any contradictions in these two books, which spans like 20 telephone books each series, would be picked up. The OT contains a specific law not to add or subtract, and this factor has been the cause of many wars with many nations, as well as the break with christianity, and the rejection of islam. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 226 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 11:49 AM | | tesla has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 228 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 1:01 PM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
Message 229 of 309 (445018)
12-31-2007 9:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 228 by tesla 12-31-2007 1:01 PM
|
|
Re: the bible/Torah
Enoch, Judith are not part of the OT. Nor is the NT. These two works are made one unilaterally by christianity. The intention was genuine and good, but it did not hold, unfortuantely causing much chaos and conflict for humanity. A counter history and scripture is also presented by Islam, contradicting both the OT and the NT. A bono fide OT version I like is the Artscroll series, expensive but worth the price, which contains both the hebrew and english either side of each page, with half page footnotes of each word and verse, of both ancient and contemporary historical and scientific commentary. The OT stops at the book of Malachi, the last of the Jewish prophetic writings, and is made up of the Torah [5 books of Moses] - detailing the first 2500 years of the history of humanity, and the subsequent prophetic writings, made some 100 years apart of each other, upto 100 BCE: Torah - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Prophets - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Writings - Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra / Nehemiah. The NT starts 2000 years ago; the Quran 1400 years ago. It is a rubic cube of contradictions on every possible level, rendering no means of possible allignment from any angle. This makes it all a mysterious construct outside of the hands of any of its participants. If the other religions and peoples are confused - they are on the right track; those who are not - do not understand what is occuring here.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 228 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 1:01 PM | | tesla has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 230 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 2:01 AM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
Message 233 of 309 (457393)
02-23-2008 6:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 232 by TheTruth 02-13-2008 9:32 PM
|
|
Re: almost
quote:
"The bible says God is a spirit."
I dont think so. The first time this term is used, Genesis 1/1, it says 'THE SPIRIT *OF* GD HOVERED', which renders 'spirit' one of the products of Gd. We cannot even say that Gd is a spirit or spiritual, which is alluded to in the first 4 opening words of Genesis, 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD' - meaning that at one instant, before Creation, there was only Gd and nothing else. The latter is further adduced by the verse, 'I HAVE NOT CHANGED' - which refers to the only infinite [change being the definition of infinite], which is a unique factor, even unto spiritual realms such as Heaven and spiritual/angelic beings, which were created alongside the physical universe. From a scientific/imperical premise, this is very logical: there must be one infinite, unchanging factor in the beginning, else everything goes into freefall and non-traceable to anything,culminating in a cyclical premise - the factor which evidences the wrong path. The code is, everything aside from the Creator/Infinite factor - must be a duality [the minimum origin point which can be reached]; and a duality can only be derived from a Singularity, but which cannot be within the universe.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 232 by TheTruth, posted 02-13-2008 9:32 PM | | TheTruth has not replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
Message 234 of 309 (457396)
02-23-2008 6:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 226 by tesla 12-30-2007 11:49 AM
|
|
Re: the bible/Torah
quote: i cannot admit with absolution that no changes were made under the earlier system before survivable writing: verbatim. can you at least acknowledge my observation of the possibility?
On what basis can I accept- it is not about my own pov, but what the text is saying, and what are the evidences for/against. Its not as if your asking if changes are possible in a written document per se, but rather the underlying principle of a specific document which matters here. We cannot compre this document with any other - because there is not one which exhibits the same factors. The applicable factors for any changes are not what is normative and seen elsewhere with all writings. The factors which evidence changes in a document are as follows: Proof of changes made - eg: another contemporary document which says the same but shows variances. This is not evidenced. Further,if there were changes, namely before the scrolls datings, we would still need [1] above, for why should we find consistant and constant pre-scroll references of the Torah, by numerous Prophetic writings, dated on ave some 100 years apart, and all in allignment with the scrolls, including dates, names, events, etc? There is equal chance to find a disputation as there is as a proof, yet we have evidential writings, but no antithetical writings. The above factors does make the Torah seperate from all other documents, which do not evidence such follow-up confirmations every 100 years. This applies to every historical and theological scripture, from Hamurabi to the Bagwatgita, NT & Quran: they do not evidence such contemporary allignments with specific historical references. But if you gave some examples why it can be possible, then my obligation is to consider them honestly and wisely, but you have not done that, except to pose a question relating to a specific case, by applying generic principles to it the generic reasonings cannot apply by virtue of there not being anything like the specific subject.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 226 by tesla, posted 12-30-2007 11:49 AM | | tesla has not replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
Message 264 of 309 (461356)
03-24-2008 8:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 262 by dwise1 03-08-2008 3:09 PM
|
|
Re: responsibility for ego
quote: Which also begs the question: What is Scripture?
Check this out, relating to a popular atheist scientist and food for dscussion.
quote: Excerpts: 'Why would a dot containing all matter and energy -- a dot that sat quietly for an eternity -- suddenly explode? The Law of Inertia insists that objects at rest should remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. Since all matter and energy would be contained within this dot, there could be nothing outside the dot to get things going-nothing natural, at least. What force could have ignited the initial explosion?' 'Of course Dawkins would then have to explain how to do it without having the original chemicals. Dawkins may be able to make a salad, but let's see him create the vegetables. Dawkins's insistence that religion and science contradict each other dismisses with an imperious sweep of the hand an entire body of work written by respected scientists who show that science in fact corroborates the Genesis narrative.' A Jewish rebuttal to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion Columnist and psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple, writing in the prestigious "City Journal," discloses the origins of his atheism. He was nine years old and attending prayer assembly in his British school. The headmaster Mr. Clinton commanded the children to keep their eyes shut lest God depart the assembly hall. Young Theodore wanted to test the hypothesis, so he opened his eyes suddenly so as to catch a glimpse of the fleeing God. Instead he saw Mr. Clinton praying with one eye open in order to survey the children. "I quickly concluded," recounts Dalrymple, "that Mr. Clinton did not believe what he said about the need to keep our eyes shut. And if he did not believe that, why should I believe in his God? In such illogical leaps do our beliefs often originate, to be disciplined later in life by elaborate rationalization." Over the last year and a half, such "elaborate rationalizations" of atheism have spawned a spate of books condemning God, religion, and religious believers. Christopher Hitchens's book, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything reached #1 on the New York Times bestseller list in just three weeks. Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion has sold over 1.5 million copies and has been translated into 31 languages. It was on the New York Times bestseller list for 51 weeks. The BBC produced a two-hour documentary based on the book, entitled, "Religion: The Root of All Evil?" Many critics have pointed out that the appeal of these books is less in the soundness of their arguments than in the eloquence of their prose. As Bruce DeSilva of the Associated Press wrote: "Hitchens has nothing new to say, although it must be acknowledged that he says it exceptionally well." The venom of their invective actually turns these proud rationalists into irrational hate-mongers. Five of the six books constituting the neo-atheist crusade can be dismissed as screeds, full of what Theodore Dalrymple describes as "sloppiness and lack of intellectual scruple, with the assumption of certainty where there is none." The venom of their invective against God and religious believers actually turns these proud rationalists into irrational hate-mongers. Witness Sam Harris's declaration in his book The End of Faith: "The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them." Obviously, such a diatribe does not merit a rational rebuttal. 1. THE DANGER OF RELIGION? Only The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, a professor of evolutionary biology at Oxford, merits serious discussion. Dawkins advances four basic arguments. One is that religion is dangerous. His BBC documentary begins with the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. He then shows footage of wounded Israelis after a suicide bombing. From this he pans to pictures of Hasidic Jews praying at the Western Wall, and announces, "Religious terrorism is the logical outcome of deeply held faith." Dawkins's distorted syllogism -- that because Muslim terrorists are religious and Muslim terrorists murder, therefore all religious people are potential murderers -- is enough to make a freshman student of logic go apoplectic. The obvious rebuttal of Dawkins's allegation that religion causes terrorism, wars, crusades, inquisitions, jihad, etc. is a cursory look at the genocides of the 20th century. An estimated 80,000,000 human beings were murdered in the course of the 20th century (not including war casualties), and they were all murdered by atheists: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao. Dawkins writes that this point comes up "after just about every public lecture that I ever give on the subject of religion, and in most of my radio interviews as well." He then devotes seven pages to attempting to prove that Hitler was not an atheist but a Catholic. He sums up this section: "Stalin was probably an atheist and Hitler probably wasn't; but even if they were both atheists, the bottom line of the Stalin/Hitler debating point is very simple. Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism." If Dawkins had asked Stalin or Mao, whose genocidal record makes Hitler's pale in comparison, if they were motivated by their ideology, they would certainly have contended that all their policies derived directly from their Communist principles. Even today the Communist regime of China is cutting open live Falon Gong practitioners and removing their vital organs for sale on the lucrative organ transplant market. This atrocity is consistent with their atheistic ideology that regards human beings in exclusively economic terms and denies that human life is sacred because human beings were created "in the image of God." Since Communism is an inherently atheistic system that denies both God and the Divine soul, Dawkins's contention that atheists "don't do evil things in the name of atheism" is blatantly false. It's like saying medicine is evil because Dr. Josef Mengele committed heinous acts in the name of medical research. Furthermore, to say that religion is evil because religious people have committed heinous acts in the name of religion is like saying medicine is evil because Dr. Josef Mengele committed heinous acts against the subjects of his Auschwitz experiments in the name of medical research. One can take any constructive enterprise and use it for destructive purposes. This offers no grounds for condemning the enterprise itself. One of the many distortions in which all the neo-atheist books abound is that they rant about the evil byproducts of religion without ever mentioning religion's benefits to every society throughout history. As Theodore Dalrymple observes: "The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy." Dalrymple gives as examples the Cathedral of Chartres and the Saint Matthew Passion. Judaism can point to its legacy of Western values. As Ken Spiro demonstrates in his book WorldPerfect, Judaism has given the world its core values: respect for human life, peace, justice, equality before the law, education, and social responsibility. Even Oxford University, where Prof. Dawkins enjoys tenure, was founded nine centuries ago by religious Christians, among them the Bishop of Rochester. 2. SCIENCE VS. RELIGION Dawkins contends that religion and science are irrevocably opposed. He maintains that, unlike science, faith in God is irrational:. "Faith demands a positive suspension of critical faculties." The Dawkins dogma states: "Science uses reason and evidence to reach logical conclusions. Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time." Dawkins, who was raised in the Church of England, naturally associates religion with irrational beliefs such as the virgin birth and God impregnating a human being to give birth to a God-man. This, however, has nothing to do with Judaism. Just open a page of the Talmud, read Maimonides, or spend one hour learning in a yeshiva, and you will experience Judaism's rigorous argumentation to discern the truth. The primary focus in Judaism is the study of Torah and the development, not the "suspension," of critical faculties. Judaism's perfectly rational belief in God, as enunciated by Maimonides, is that there must be a non-physical, infinite source of the physical, finite universe. As will be shown below, there is no other plausible explanation for how the universe got here. Einstein understood that the beginning of the universe implies a transcendent force that brought it into being. That's why for so long he clung to his belief in a static universe (one that had always existed, and therefore had no beginning) and resisted the mounting evidence for an expanding universe. As Lawrence Kelemen in his book Permission to Believe, explains the challenge posed by an expanding universe: Why would a dot containing all matter and energy -- a dot that sat quietly for an eternity -- suddenly explode? The Law of Inertia insists that objects at rest should remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. Since all matter and energy would be contained within this dot, there could be nothing outside the dot to get things going-nothing natural, at least. What force could have ignited the initial explosion? Faced with evidence of an expanding universe discovered by astronomer Vesto Slipher and deduced by mathematicians Willem de Sitter and Alexander Friedman, Einstein refused to accept the inevitable conclusion. "I have not yet fallen into the hands of the priests," was Einstein's famous response to the possibility of an expanding universe. Clearly he understood that an expanding universe must have a non-physical First Cause. Since then, of course, science has proven that the universe is expanding from the original event known as the Big Bang. This reality gives scientific backing to Maimonides' philosophical contention that a supernatural force must have initiated the natural universe. The respected journal Astrophysics and Space Science [issue 269-270 (1999)] states clearly that the Big Bang points to a "transcendent cause of the universe": The absolute origin of the universe, of all matter and energy, even of physical space and time themselves, in the Big Bang singularity contradicts the perennial naturalistic assumption that the universe has always existed. One after another, models designed to avert the initial cosmological singularity--the Steady State model, the Oscillating model, Vacuum Fluctuation models--have come and gone. Current quantum gravity models, such as the Hartle-Hawking model and the Vilenkin model, must appeal to the physically unintelligible and metaphysically dubious device of "imaginary time" to avoid the universe's beginning. The contingency implied by an absolute beginning ex nihilo points to a transcendent cause of the universe beyond space and time. Philosophical objections to a cause of the universe fail to carry conviction. [pp. 723-740] In a flippant two and a half pages, Dawkins dismisses Thomas Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God (Maimonides, who preceded Aquinas by two centuries, writes similar arguments). "The five 'proofs' asserted by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century don't prove anything, and are easily -- though I hesitate to say so, given his eminence -- exposed as vacuous." [p. 100] Dawkins simply fails to understand the depth of argument of philosophy, and is too arrogant to admit when he's out of his element. Dawkins's rebuttal of Aquinas would earn him a "D" in any first year philosophy course. A biologist, not a philosopher, Dawkins simply fails to understand the depth of argument of philosophy, and is too arrogant to admit when he's out of his element. The problem of "First Cause" is the knock-out argument against which Dawkins has no defense. Even if Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, could prove that human beings evolved out of some primordial soup, evolution still begs the bigger questions: Where did the elements of the primordial soup come from? What caused the first particles to come into being? What caused the Big Bang? How can you believe in a beginning without also believing in a beginner? To these classical challenges to atheism, Dawkins offers no response. Dawkins's sanguine belief that although scientists have not yet created life, someday in the future they will succeed, suspiciously resembles messianic hopes: I shall not be surprised if, within the next few years, chemists report that they have successfully midwifed a new origin of life in the laboratory. Nevertheless it hasn't happened yet, and it is still possible to maintain that the probability of its happening is, and always was, exceedingly low -- although it did happen once! [p. 165] Of course Dawkins would then have to explain how to do it without having the original chemicals. Dawkins may be able to make a salad, but let's see him create the vegetables. Dawkins's insistence that religion and science contradict each other dismisses with an imperious sweep of the hand an entire body of work written by respected scientists who show that science in fact corroborates the Genesis narrative. Although the bibliography of such books is too lengthy to list here, three excellent examples are: The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom by M.I.T. physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder, The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, who, by the way, grew up as an agnostic, and There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Anthony Flew and Roy Varghese. 3. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AS CHILD ABUSE Dawkins's third point is that indoctrinating children with religious teachings is akin to child abuse, because they prevent children from learning to think independently.. He writes that terms like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should make people flinch. Dawkins is, in fact, surprisingly tolerant of the sexual abuse of children. He writes: "We live in a time of hysteria about pedophilia ... It is clearly unjust to visit upon all pedophiles a vengeance appropriate to the tiny minority who are also murderers." [p. 354-5] He has, however, zero tolerance for what he considers the far worse crime of raising a child in a particular religion: Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place. [p. 356] While it takes a whole book to refute a book, suffice it to say that all parents, whether religious or secular, inculcate their children with their own beliefs. Does Dawkins not raise his children with a prejudice to be pro-democracy? Anti-cocaine? In the name of intellectual honesty, would he expose his children to every perverse element of society? In the name of intellectual balance, would he permit his children to study Muslim theology in a Saudi mosque for a few months? 4. DARWINIAN MORALITY Dawkins' final point is that human beings don't need religion for morality. In his BBC documentary, as a troop of chimpanzees frolics in the background, he asserts that morality is also the product of evolution. His explanation is simple: "Morality stems from altruistic genes naturally selected in our evolutionary past." Pointing to the social structures abounding in the animal kingdom, he asserts that "survival of the fittest" favored the evolutionary development of moral traits: Natural selection favours genes that predispose individuals, in relationships of asymmetric need and opportunity, to give when they can, and to solicit giving when they can't. It also favors tendencies to remember obligations, bear grudges, police exchange relationships and punish cheats who take, but don't give when their turn comes. [pp. 248-9] Here the title of Dawkins's documentary,"Religion: The Root of All Evil" turns out to be true, although not in the way he intended. Religion is indeed the root of all evil, because without religion there would be no concept of "evil." And religion is also the root of all good. Simply put, without religion determining an absolute system of values, what makes anything evil or good? If human beings were nothing but advanced monkeys, as evolutionists would have us believe, the concept of morality would be irrelevant. A lion that devours a kicking and struggling "innocent" zebra is not "evil." She is merely following her instinct, and instincts in the animal kingdom carry no moral value. Dawkins offers an example: "Vampire bats learn which other individuals of their social group can be relied upon to pay their debts (in regurgitated blood) and which individuals cheat." [p. 248] But is the bat who pays his debts "good" and the bat who cheats "evil"? Of course not. According to Dawkins, the terrorists flying into the Twin Towers are no different than the lion devouring the zebra. By taking God out of the picture there is nothing evil about evil. According to Dawkins, the terrorists flying into the Twin Towers are no different than the lion devouring the zebra. Even in the development of human civilization, social contracts were expedient rather than moral. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, prohibits stealing for the mutual protection of property rights, not because stealing is "evil." Morality could have been introduced into the world only by God, for no one else has the arbitrary right to declare universal standards of right and wrong. And much of the morality that God ordained is counter-intuitive and goes against instinct. For example, historian Paul Johnson [A History of the Jews, p. 34] has pointed out that, among all the legal codes of the ancient Near East, only the Bible declared that crimes against property are never capital, because the sacredness of human life supersedes property values. The Torah also commands people to release the debts owed to them at the end of every seven years, to return purchased land to its original owner every fifty years, to proactively intercede when another person's life is in danger, and to not carry a grudge or take revenge. (Remember Dawkins's statement, quoted above, that natural selection favors those who "bear grudges.") (1) In his duel against religion Richard Dawkins chose his weapon: rationality. While he certainly gets points for his eloquent use of the Queen's English and for his cynical wit, in terms of rational argument Dawkins wields a dull sword indeed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Most laughable is Dawkins' attempt to show the strides made in a constantly evolving morality. His "proof" that morality evolves is that a half century ago in England almost everyone was racist, and now almost no one is racist. A half century ago almost everyone was homophobic and now the majority is not. This is the apex of moral evolution in Dawkins' estimation. But what about the Holocaust? The present genocide in Darfur? The stealing of organs of live Falon Gong practitioners? The sadism that accompanied or accompanies each of these atrocities dramatically refutes any notion of moral evolution. Dawkins's fancied "moral evolution" must mean that human beings are demonstrably less barbaric with the passing of centuries, but in terms of moral level, Rudolph Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, had nothing over Genghis Khan. A few dates are still available for Sara Yoheved Rigler's May American speaking tour. If you are interested in bringing her to your community, please contact Belinda Levy at amblevy@yahoo.com. Published: Saturday, March 22, 2008 COMMENTS: 11 (1) Carmen 3/24/2008 2:31:00 AM Religion is bad..... Religion is not bad, it keeps us in line to remember God's Commandments. We are given choices, when indiviuals make a bad choice then comes trouble. Religion is good for us, we are not animals to be compared with lions eating zebras. Humans have a conscience,(judgement of right and wrong;the moral sense; morality.)this is Webster's definition. (2) Julie 3/23/2008 11:48:00 PM Has Dawkins Seen this Article? Perhaps he would re-think his foolishness. More likely, his arrogance would prevent him from doing so. Nonetheless, it would behoove him to read this. Once again, SYR, you make excellent points AND to paraphrase Bruce DeSilva, "it must be acknowledged that (you make them) exceptionally well." (3) matt 3/23/2008 3:37:00 PM Wonderful Greetings, I'm a protestant pastor and I greatly loved this article. We as Christian and Jew alike need to realize that atheist attacks are aimed at our two groups. Despite our differences we are under the great scrunity, may God bless you for writing this. Also, great comments everyone, very insightful. Page not found - aish.com
Off topic giant cut & paste hidden - AdminMod Edited by AdminModulous, : Off topic giant cut & paste hidden
This message is a reply to: | | Message 262 by dwise1, posted 03-08-2008 3:09 PM | | dwise1 has replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
Message 271 of 309 (468880)
06-02-2008 2:57 AM
|
|
|
Is the bible the word of God or men?
Why is this a legitimate question, and where/who says their scripture is not written by a man? With the OT, which has the most numerous prophetic writings, all are described as written by their authors, including the 5 books of Moses. With regard any mystery which prevails here, it would apply to being inspired, not written by God. IMHO, this mystery is well seen in the 5 books of Moses, by virtue of its references to a historicity which dates some 3000 years before its purported writing dates. I mean here, if the OT was written by Moses 3,500 years, it has mysterious elements in its descriptions of dates, names and other historically depicted events and scenarios, which could not be recalled or copied from elsewhere. That much of this pre-history is verifiable and authenticated by scientific observations [archeology] is what constitutes the mystery. The difference between the OT and other scriptures, is that the OT details are not limited to its contemporary beliefs and pholosophical depictions, but that the OT contains 1000s of historical specs and stats pervasive in its verses, related to a space-time 3000 years predating its writings dates. It begs the Q how was this performed? E.g. Genesis contains volumous pages of names of generations, with offsprings, their dod's, dob's and addresses - and these names have been proven as authentic - names being the primal means of scientific datings. It seems highly unlikely these could come from a human mind. It is very improbable even in this advanced computerized age, for anyone to recall or determine just five generations of ancestral names. This phenomenon is not seen in any other writings, including the early Greek, Indian Bagwatgita, and definitely not seen in the NT or Quran. From this pov, there is credence this scripture is mysterious.
Replies to this message: | | Message 272 by Brian, posted 06-02-2008 11:34 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
Message 273 of 309 (469009)
06-02-2008 9:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 272 by Brian 06-02-2008 11:34 AM
|
|
Re: Is the bible the word of God or men?
quote: But none of these 5 books claim to be written by Moses.
That Moses wrote, via inspired dictation, is in the OT texts itself. The same goes for all 55 prophetic authors. You proclaim as if you know or had some new proof - you do not. Only the first two of the 10 C's are mentioned as being delivered via direct audio transmission to over 3 million people simultainiously, and this was stopped after the people implored Moses to cease the voice, fearing their souls were about to leave them to cling to the source. I suspect, controversially, this is where alphabetical writings emerged, whereby image writings [a violation of the 2nd C] was transformed into abstract writings. I know most links claim phoenecian and canaanite writings immediately preceded the Hebrew, but there are no canaanite books, and the OT claims the Hebrews entered that land with the 5 books already in hand. Likewise, the first phoenecian alphabetical book, which resembles early Hebrew, dates to 850 BCE [The Tel Dan relic]. The world does not want to see these factors as truth - is the truth.
quote:
However, not a single person or event in the first five books has been verified, and almost all 'historical' events have been shown to be fictional.
The nation of Israel is verified in a 3200+ stellar from ancient Egyptian, now in a french museum - constituting a cross-nation contemporary proof; this name first appears in the book of Exodus. The claim of fiction was also applied to King David by so-called scholars - but they have never recovered from shame following the House of David discovery 15 years ago, which proved David as an historical figure, who wrote the psalms 3000 years ago, mentions Moses numerously, and which writings alligns fully with the OT narratives. David lived a mere 250 years from Moses, and his writings are totally verifiable as historical and contemporary, mentioning nnumerous wars, kings and nations. Proof of david's son Solomon is also now verified, as is the Temple he built, and the follow-up Kings who had wars with Assyria, Moab and Babylon. This is followed by 55 prophetic books, some 70 years apart, all of which alligns with the OT narratives, constituting a verifiable historical thread as no other writings in existence. Moses is not a proven figure, and the texts itself says his burial place will never be found, in a sense vindicating the texts. Moses is not mentioned in egyptian writings, because all scholars agree, the pharoahs were notorious of erasing any negativity as each Pharoah ascended - this syndrome is clearly seen emulated in Arabia's media today. But I can list a 1000 stats contained in the OT texts which are historical and contemporary, and which were impossible to have been made up later on.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 272 by Brian, posted 06-02-2008 11:34 AM | | Brian has replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
Re: Is the bible the word of God or men?
quote: The nation of Israel is verified in a 3200+ stellar from ancient Egyptian, now in a french museum - constituting a cross-nation contemporary proof; this name first appears in the book of Exodus.
My error. That should be the book of Genesis ['Your name shall no more be called Jacob but Israel'/Gen].
This message is a reply to: | | Message 273 by IamJoseph, posted 06-02-2008 9:55 PM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 277 by Brian, posted 06-03-2008 8:22 AM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
Message 278 of 309 (469054)
06-03-2008 10:20 AM
|
Reply to: Message 276 by Brian 06-03-2008 8:13 AM
|
|
Re: Is the bible the word of God or men?
quote: Where? Where in the first five books is the claim that Moses wrote them?
Numerously. E.g:
quote: Exodus 34/27 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Write thou these words, for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.'
And unlike any other writings, these are absolutely contemporary, historically verifiable stats, with specifics of names, distances and surrounds, as in aerial topography:
quote: 1 These are the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan; in the wilderness, in the Arabah, over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab. 2 It is eleven days journey from Horeb unto Kadesh-barnea by the way of mount Seir.
Mount Nebo is today a popular tourist site, offering a vista of the entire landscape of the land, as depicted here:
quote: 1 And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the LORD showed him all the land, even Gilead as far as Dan;
quote: Every single OT book is anonymous, we do not know who wrote a single one, this is basic beginners Bible study.
David wrote all the psalms subscribed to him. The details in many psalms describing the valleys are percieved when one examines the house of David site, and looks from where the terrace would be, whereby that psalm even says where it was written. The psalms scrolls did not contain a signature, if that is what you are referring to, but the contents speak for themselves more accurately than some one later signing them. David's scribes, responsible for archiving the king's writings and orders, would have applied a notation, including an authentic, historical description noting the event and time. Here, David had battles with his son, also recorded in the book of kings, which details David's victory over the original philistines - there is no record of the philistines after this date. The philistines had an underground city with tunnels and catacombs, in today's Gaza - these tunnels still exist today. Such stats are far more telling than a signature:
quote: Psalm 3/1 A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son.
quote: Apart from the ridiculousness of 470 people growing in to 3 million, which has been demonstrated beyond all doubt to be untrue, there are doubts over whether the Bible claims this number of people were involved.
I don't think so. You mentioned no time period - it is 400 years. When the hebrews left egypt, we have the world's first scientific cencus conducted, with age, tribe, families and gender sub-totals, which total is 3 million. What is ridiculous about it, and what motive to expand these numbers - it is still a small nation in relation to the others?
quote: We all know the fairytales, but my claim was that NOTHING in the first five books has been verified, this is a fact.
The reverse is the case. Nothing has been disproven, when millions of stats are seen pervasive in the verses. Almost 70% has been scientifically verified, and not a week passes without a new discovery affirming the OT narratives. There is no document in geo-history which can say the same. What's up doc?
quote: Apart from the fact that the Merneptah Stele is outside the date range for the first 5 books, there are no links AT ALL that verify that the Israel mentioned in the Stele is the same one that is mentioned in the Pentateuch. The Stele itself gives no information that verifies anything mentioned in the OT. Here is another archaeological fact, the area allocated to ”Israel’ in the Stele (if the ring cycle is correct) has yielded NOTHING at all that can be described as uniquely ”Israelite’, quite strange for a group of 3 million to be able to hide as well as that. The thing is, according to the Bible, Israel should have been settled in Canaan with all the Canaanites slaughtered and gone, and the Stele just negates this. Plus the ”Israel’ (if that’s what it says), in the Stele is not a land but a people, and certainly not 3 million.
Wrong on all counts. The stelle is from a subsequent pharoah, not the one which confronted Moses. Israel is a nation, which works contextually as a country and a people. Canaan was a satelite state of egypt, and that nation was not totally destroyed: two of the eight canaanite kingdoms sided with Joshua, and lived peaceably with the israelites. The war with canaan took 150 years to culminate, stretching throughout the period of judges, with numerous pther wars in between. Those who question the egyptian stelle come under the fringe - and these will always prevail. Today, the jerusalem temple and the holocaust - which occured only 70 years ago, are called as myths; Moses is called a muslim; jews are not jews; jesus is a palestinian - an historical impossibility since this name was only dumped on Judea 40 years after JC died. You starting to make fringe very real, so suit yourself.
quote: The Tel Dan Stele does NOT verify that David was an historical figure, there is still great controversies
No, there is not 'great' controversy, just lunatic fringe. The tel dan offers 100% historical names of people, kings, wars and nations; its datings is affirmed by almost every archeologist and scholar of history.
quote: Since authors copied each other’s writings,
There were no 'authors' in ancient times. Writing a scroll was a massive, expensive project exclusive to very few. Mighty Egypt, persia and Greece had no such developed acumen; the entire european continent, including Britain and Russia - had no writings till recently; arabic emerged only in 400 CE. What authors?
quote: We do not have any remains of Solomon’s Temple, or evidence that Solomon existed.
Of course, there are disputers of everything, but nowhere more so than when it comes to Israel:
quote:
http://graal.co.uk/houseofdavid.html The House Of David Inscription For some inexplicable reason, it has become fashionable in a current genre of Bible assailing literature for writers to make uncorroborated statements concerning a supposed lack of Old Testament evidence in certain respects. Among these assaults are those which claim there are no archaeological references concerning the Judah Kings of the Royal House of David (c. 1008-586 BC) and the Jerusalem Temple of King David's son Jedidiah - better known as King Solomon. Such statements are completely untrue and, in respect of the House of David and the Temple of Yahweh, it is worth citing some archaeological examples contemporary with the biblical period in question. In 1993 a discovery was made at Tel Dan (at the foot of Mount Hermon) which became the most significant artifact in the modern State of Israel. It is now regarded as a national treasure since it proves, irrespective of the Bible, that the House of David was an historic reality. Excavations began at Tel Dan, Northern Israel, in 1966 under the direction of archaeologist Avrham Biran. After a few years of digging, a monumental mud-brick gate was unearthed, with an arch constructed by the Canaanites in around 1850 BC - long before the Israelites arrived in the region. In those times the Dan location was called Leshem (Joshua 19:47) or Laish (Judges 18:27). The Canaanite Gate is now a conservation project of the Israeli Antiquities Authority. Also revealed, before cessation of the 33-year dig in 1999, were the city walls, an Israelite sanctuary, sacred pillars, a tomb and various artifacts. The Canaanite Gate Among the city ruins, in front of the Gate were found the remnants of a large basalt stele - the largest fragment of which is 32 x 22 cm (12.5 x 8.75 inches). On this, thirteen lines of Aramaic script are partially preserved from around 825 BC, soon after the time of King Ahab of Israel and David's lineal descendant, King Jehosaphat of Judah. The inscription was created by King Hazael of Aram-Damascus in about 825 BC, and it relates to his father, Hadad II, being victorious in battle against Jehosaphat (c. 860 BC). The most important aspect of the text, however, is that it specifically relates to Hadad defeating the "foot soldiers, charioteers and horsemen of the King of the House of David". The much prized Tel Dan Inscription now resides in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. The House of David Inscription The Moabite Stone Another kingly stele boasting of conflict with the House of David is the Moabite Stone from about 860 BC. This 42 by 24 inch black basalt monument (107 x 61 cms) was discovered in 1868 at Dhiban, 20 miles east of the Dead Sea (across from En-gedi) and is now housed in The Louvre Museum, Paris. As reported in Time Magazine, December 1995, it is the most extensive inscription ever recovered from ancient Palestine. The Moabite Stone contains 36 lines of Phoenician script which relate to the rebellion of King Mesha of Moab against King Jehoram of Israel and King Jehosaphat of Judah. This battle is recounted in the Old Testament 2-Kings 3:5-27. The Mesha Stele of Moab Discovered by the German missionary, F.A. Klein, the Moabite Stone caused another battle when the Berlin Museum expressed an interest in removing it to the West. The Jewish Encyclopedia relates that, on hearing of this, local Arabs heaved it out of the earth, lit fires around it and doused it with cold water so that it fragmented. Mediation was subsequently conducted by the French Consulate in Jerusalem, whose conservators restored the artifact, while offering enough money to purchase the House of David Moabite Stone and placate the inhabitants of Dhiban. House of the Lord The Jerusalem Temple of David's son, King Solomon, was something of an enigma until the 1970s. Prior to that, no physical evidence had been discovered in respect of the Temple itself - the House of Yahweh or House of the Lord, as it was more correctly called (1-Kings 3:1, 6:1). The Old Testament book of 1-Kings 6:2-38 gives details of the construction, which was demolished by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon 400 years later in 586 BC. A new, larger Temple was built on the same site by Prince Zerubbabel of Jerusalem from 535 BC, and this was later extended by the Seleucid Kings, the Hasmonaeans, and finally by King Herod the Great in the 1st century BC. In his 1st-century Antiquities of the Jews, Flavius Josephus described Jerusalem in the Gospel era, stating that the Herodian Temple was "incredible". Set within a complex of over 35 acres, where the El-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock now stand, it was the most magnificent construction of the era - far bigger than the Acropolis in Athens. However, the mighty edifice was demolished by the Roman legions of General Titus in AD 70. Beneath King Solomon's Temple Painted on site, 1870, for the London Illustrated News Archaeologists, working from the middle 1800s, established the foundations of the second and third Temples (those of Zerubbabel and Herod), but it was not until 1973 that a concerted attempt was made to reveal the first House of the Lord - the Temple of King Solomon. The archaeological project was led by Prof. Benjamin Mazar of the Hebrew University, with field architect Dr. Leen Ritmeyer, who wrote up the account for the Biblical Archaeology Society. With the aid of records from the Greek historian, Strabo (64 BC - AD 21), the team worked on site for five years, making many new discoveries, among which (at the lowest course level) were the original footings of King Solomon's Temple, with masonry quite different to that of the later periods. Also, to their astonishment, in the floor of the Holy of Holies above was the carved rectangular depression (48 inches by 31 inches), where the Ark of the Covenant once stood (1-Kings 8:6). It transpired that the Solomonid footings had actually been logged some time previously by the Palestine Exploration Fund, but the information had not become widely known. It was known however that, in the tunnels beneath, a British military expedition had made a significant discovery in 1894. There, in the labyrinthine complex of arched corridors and cisterns, they discovered a 12th-century Templar cross, a broken Templar sword and other related artifacts. These were remnants from the early 1100s, when the Knights Templars excavated for the Ark and the secreted treasures of Jerusalem. Ostracons and the Pomegranate There are a few archaeologically discovered artifacts from the first Temple's operative era which make specific reference to Solomon's House of the Lord. One of these is known as the Temple Ostracon, which resides in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. This pottery shard from about 800 BC (in the Jerusalem reign of King Joash of Judah) clearly mentions, in old Hebrew, the Temple of the 'Bayit Yahweh' - the Jerusalem House of the Lord. House of the Lord Inscription Another ostracon referenced by the Biblical Archaeology Review (November/December 1997) is a tax receipt written on a clay tablet in respect of a subscription of 3 shekels to the House of the Lord. It comes from much the same period as the Temple Ostracon, when the Jewish people were obliged to contribute towards the House of Yahweh's infrastructure by way of a Temple tax. A particularly interesting artifact from the Solomon Temple reign of King Uzziah of Judah, c. 750 BC, is a small ivory pomegranate - vase shaped with a long neck and petals. Around its shoulder, in an early Hebrew script, is inscribed "Sacred donation for the priests of the House of the Lord ". Like the Temple Ostracon and the David Tablet, this item is also held at the Israel Museum. The Temple Pomegranate The Joash Tablet Recently, the press and media have been discussing another inscribed tablet that was discovered in the summer of 2000 at Jerusalem's Temple Mount. The find was made by Islamic Trust renovators of the El-Aqsa mosque which occupies part of the Haram el Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) site, and the tablet is know held by an Israeli collector. Partially broken, the Arkosic Dead Sea sandstone tablet measures 31 x 24 x 7 cms, and carries 15 lines of text written in ancient Hebrew with elements of Aramaic and old Phoenician. It describes repairs to Solomon's Temple as ordered by Solomon's descendant, King Joash of Judah in the 9th century BC. Joash (Jehoash) reigned about 839-799 BC and, in accord with this, carbon-14 dating by Israel's Geological Institute, under Shimon Ilani, has authenticated the inscription as being around 2,800 years old. The Institute's director, Amos Bean, reported that they had discovered flecks of gold burnt into the stone, indicating that it was probably in the Temple when the building was destroyed by invading Babylonians in about 586 BC. In line with the Bible text of 2-Kings 12:1-6 and 11-17, the tablet describes how the King instructed the priests to "take holy money . to buy quarry stones and timber and copper and labour to carry out the duty with faith." The Joash Tablet The Vessel and the Vine In the header graphic of this page are two Jerusalem coins from the distant BC years - one which bears a chalice, and the other a bunch of grapes. From around 3500 BC, a chalice (or ceremonial cup) was the hereditary symbol of the Mesopotamian "Gra-al" - the royal bloodline of the ancient kings and queens. In subsequent Israelite times, the descending family line (which became the dynasty of the House of David) was classified as The Vine. Psalm 80:8 reads, 'Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it'. In the New Testament Gospel of John 15:1 Jesus states, "I am the true vine". Hence it was that, the concept of the Grail (Gra-al) bloodline was romantically symbolized as the Vessel (female) and the Vine (male). The fruit of the vine is the grape - and from the grape comes wine. In this respect, the symbolic elements of the chalice and the vine coincide, and this tradition sits at the very heart of the Eucharist (Holy Communion) sacrament. From Mesopotamian and Israelite foundations the Grail customs moved westwards into both Pagan and Christian lore, but notwithstanding this it is interesting to note that following the latter-day reinstatement of the State of Israel in 1948, these old emblems of the Royal House of Judah - the dynasty of David and Solomon - were brought back into play on newly introduced coins that replicated their originals in times long before.
quote:
The House of David Inscription The House of David Inscription The House of David Inscription (also known as the “Tel Dan Inscription”) was discovered in 1994 during excavations at the ancient city of Dan. It is considered by many to be the first reference to the "House of David" discovered outside the biblical text. The House of David Inscription appears to be a fragment of a victory monument erected by a king of Damascus (Aram) during the 9th century BC, some 250 years after King David’s reign. The fragment specifically mentions victories over a “king of Israel” (probably Joram) and a king of the “House of David” (probably Ahaziah). The House of David Inscription (Tel Dan Inscription) currently resides in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 276 by Brian, posted 06-03-2008 8:13 AM | | Brian has replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
Message 281 of 309 (469455)
06-05-2008 5:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 280 by Brian 06-05-2008 3:40 PM
|
|
Re: Is the bible the word of God or men?
quote:
Moses copying the commandments on to tablets is not a reference to Moses writing anything that appears in the Torah.
Yes it is. Try to copy and extend on Shakespear or Byron - it will soon be deemed a forgery. The OT is a greater prose, and a greater historical work, and would be far less likely to copy - seeing that writings in ancient times was a far greater indulgence, and when most people could not perform this task. You are in a state of unremedial denial. The Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans - who conquered many nations and had extensive library archives, did not find anything in the OT as non-historical; there are numerous burial places of prophets in those countries [Ezekiel, Esther, Mordecai, King Ahab, etc], as well as their own writings {Babylon; Persia.
quote: The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over. How did Moses know that the Israelites grieved thirty days?
Duh! The final passage is epitaphical [what else - the text has already declared Moses has died!], written by Joshua, who was handed the next role, and who also is described as the writer of the book of Joshua - which contains, as with Moses' writings - contemporary descriptions not possible by another source. This does make it a non-disprovable factor. Saying you don't except it is hardly a disproof or even a responsa to this issue, and your arguements are bordering on blatant folly.
quote: How about this? Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, who did all those miraculous signs and wonders the LORD sent him to do in Egypt”to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel. How long AFTER Moses died must this passage have been written? It must have been a very long time since we are told in Deut.34:6 that He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. To what day? A week later, a year, ten years? None of these is a very impressive claim. However, if it is a few hundred years or even a thousand, then that is a bit more impressive. How could Moses write this . Genesis 36:31 These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned He quite simply couldn’t have.
I recall exchanging many posts on this with you, and I won't do that again. Your grammatical premise is faulty, as shown in my first response, and as with the last response here in this post. Grammar, which was introduced in the OT, says one must take the most logical meaning - if you are told a writer is dead, and find a final concluding verse of description about him - it does NOT mean the dead person wrote it.
quote: Or.. Exodus 13:17 When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, "If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt." Philistines hundreds of years before there were Philistines in the region!
Yes, the philistines entered Arabia shortly after Joseph landed in Egypt, but not when Abraham entered Canaan. Prior to the exodus with Moses, the Benjamite tribe tried to escape Egypt, travelling via the king's highway [coastal route], because then none ventured via the desert hinterlands. The benjamites were massacred by the philistines, who left their bones on the road as a Roman style warning to others attempting to come to Gaza - their underground city; Gaza was an easy take at that time, egypt being too involved elsewhere to attend the canaanite plight. The Israelites thus took another, longer route, so they would not witness this massacre of their kin and turn back. The philistines introduced iron in arabia, and no nation could conquer them, till David did 300 years later. So Ex 13/17 is a remarkable historical verse - the tunnels built by the philistines is still seen today. The philistines were contemporary to the Minoans.
quote:
What about this howler . Numbers 12:3 Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth. The most humble man in the world brags about being humble!
Your howler. I note that Moses never claimed any power of himself, attributing everything to God throughout. He never proclaimed himself a king, and delegated power to tribaal heads and captains, making the laws the ruling instrument. He could have easily assumed pomp and power, even deityship, considering he conquered the greatest super power: but he did not. He was thus challenged by many other Israelites - signifying his humbleness. That this greatest of all 'humans' would not behold any power or merit for himself - is real 'humble', and the antithesis of bragging: compare Moses wth other scriptures' revered figures, who never gave the world .01% of what Moses did - and you can soon get a howler. The issue of Moses taking dictations was already dealt with - even according to your own admission with the 10 C's. So at best, you are taking incidental stray verses, distoring them, omitting 1000s of other undeniable factors, and then making blanket conclusions. What a howler.
quote:
Afraid not mate. The names of individuals and locations in the Pentateuch are a real nightmare for the inerrantist, with hardly a place known for certain. For example, look at Ex. 1:11, no one even knows for certain where these two cities are, or even what they were called. How many of the sites mentioned on the Exodus routes have been found for sure?
Hm. So Rameses and Pithom are not contemporary and authentic egyptian names and cities, nor is Goshen? What about Ur - maybe the Mesopatamian nation copied this from the OT, seeing they still use this name today? Was Nimrod the first recorded king, and the Tigris the first recorded river? Which writings first said the Nile never runs dry - and why? Is Moses an ancient egyptian name - but not seen again in Egypt after the humulating Exodus? Is Hagar an egyptian name - as stated in the text?
quote:
You keep falling into the same trap as the fundy Xian ”apologists’ do. You seem to think that because a site is mentioned that can be identified then that means that anything associated with that site automatically becomes true!
Correct. Validated, contemporary names, dates and events are better proof even than C14, which is not accurate. Incidently, 99% of archeology is based on 'names' first; second on writing style; third on cross-nation reportings.
quote: Just because there is a Mount Nebo DOES not mean that Moses was anywhere near it, nor does it even mean that there ever was a Moses, you are back in the world of circular reasoning. What evidence do you have that the biblical ”event’ concerning Moses at Nebo is true? Will I answer for you?
The validated text, which also contains 100s of other surrounding contemporary items. Moab [today's Jordan], and Ruth [a Moabite princess] was first introduced in the OT. The Mt Nebo account does not just give a panoramic vista of this entire land - this can be copied by anyone much later, but it also records other contemporary details. The entire genealogy of Ruth is recorded, down to her great grandson David, and then many centuries beyond that. Can you tell us who Alexandar's great, grand mother was - or any other figure even 1000 years ago?
quote:
David wrote all the psalms subscribed to him. You know this because? Some evidence would be nice.
The descriptive, historically vindicated items in the psalms' verses is the evidence. The verse I gave gives the name of his rebelling son Absalom, the wars with numerous nations, including Assyria [Tel Dan] and the Philistines [which people do not exist after David's war with them]. Your arguements are not historical, but semantical - and also full of omissions and distortions to an unreasonable extremity. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 280 by Brian, posted 06-05-2008 3:40 PM | | Brian has replied |
|