|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4538 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for the Biblical Record | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4538 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: There's a third option, Huntard, which I go by which is that Jesus knew what they would be but since the readers up until our times knew no terminology relative to air travel and particularly space flight etc, the only terminology relative to space would be stars. Actually, you just might have had a crackerjack of a prophecy there, Buz, if Jesus had called them sky-ships or metal bowls from beyond the sky or something like that. As it is, you have a figure of speech ("falling stars" for meteors) that's perfectly consistent with the understanding of astronomy 2000 years ago and has absolutely nothing to do with sattelite technology. Now get off the prophecy twaddle, and get back to discussing what this thread is about - corroborating evidence for factual claims in the Bible. You can't corroborate something that hasn't happened yet. ABE: Oh, and I still haven't heard any counterarguments from you regarding my rebutal in Message 136.
quote: Edited by ZenMonkey, : Major addendum to try to get the thread back on topic. I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: After the exile, of course. You should know that much by now.
quote: Well I don't try to twist any of it into meaninglessness. If Luke 21:32 means that gthe generation AFTER the events won't pass until AFTER the events then it says nothing of any worth - it's just an empty truism. The BEST interpretation of Like 21:32 is that the generation alive at the time Jesus (allegedly) spoke would not pass until ALL the predicted events had occurred. Even if we take the questionable interpretation preferred by apologists, that the generation that sees the signs will not pass until they have all ocurred, the siege and exile are still among the signs and therefore the rest must all occur within a timescale of a single generation. Can you come up with an interpretation that is both meaningful, and lets you keep a siege and exile in the distant past as part of the prophecy ? Because if you cannot then you need a future siege, a future exile - and therefore a future return. You would lose the one scrap of success that you claim. And still you do not address the fact that Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse is quite different from that found in Matthew and Mark - and that Matthew and Mark do not mention an exile or a return. Or even the fact that a proper study and comparison of the accounts reveals that Luke identifies the Tribulation as occurring at the time of the siege - an event that you hold to be in the future. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Statman Junior Member (Idle past 5065 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
Excellent reply to Icant, Lynx. I thought of the same counter example Unfortunately, Icant doesn't see his msg is not remotely logical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
It was hardly desolate, and hardly empty (if it were just desert, why would the arabs live there or care?), but this is besides the point - this thread was supposed to be about evidence for the biblical record, and I don't think you've yet shown anything that could even remotely be construed as "definite evidence".
One or two sunken "cartwheels" certainly doesn't indicate an army, and that's even IF the mock-ups are going to be believed (which I don't, those pictures are all but fake - and seriously? You think cartwheels were ever made from gold and silver in a working cart? Don't you know what gold and silver are like?) one pillar, of dubious origin, admittedly centuries after the fact, which doesn't really prove anything but that there's a pillar... Split rocks - like that's anything new. and...no destruction of Egypt, no records of drought and famine, no records of plagues, no mass graves of dead first-born sons, no wheel tracks, no middens, no...nothing. where's the evidence, Buz?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
'critics' will always suggest an opposing view whether they are right or not.
I dont know how they get 'dod' from 'dwd' The waw in DWD is pronounced in hebrew as a V. But who knows how the critics reason. I believe they throw objections around for the sake of disagreeing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: Israel was not a nation at the time of the alleged tower. It predates Abraham who was a Babylonian, born in Ur, which at the time was a Babylonian city. All of the "Nations" you talk about are derived from Babylon, who controlled all of Mesopotamia at the time. quite correct, but i was speaking of them as a nation from the time of their biblical writings....not back when they were living as small family tribes. Abraham was not a babylonian. He was born from the family of Noahs son Shem who continued to speak the hebrew language after the confusion at Babel. It doesnt matter that he was born in Ur, he was still a hebrew and spoke hebrew. The babylonians came from the decendents of Noahs son Ham.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
anglagard writes: Please allow me to clarify: You said "Modern linguists have also created a chart of human language and they've found there there are parent languges from which all other languages are derived." That is a false assertion, as I clearly showed. However instead of dealing with the matter at hand you try to palm the pea, shift the goalposts. its not my problem if you highlight the word 'all' in my sentence rather then the word that shows i was speaking about multiple parent languages. Let me highlight it correctly for you.
peg writes:
Modern linguists have also created a chart of human language and they've found there there are parent languges from which all other languages are derived. This is in harmony with the bible account.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4538 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
quote: Again, so what? The fact that modern languages have older parent languages is also in harmony with the theory that Hermes or Coyote created different languages for people as a practical joke. I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2438 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
buz writes: Huntard, it's like any history book or text book. For the most part, there's nothing to interpret. You read the words and they mean what they say. You mean like this:
buz writes: 9 And from among the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations do men look upon their dead bodies three days and a half, and suffer not their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb. ...refers to modern day television? For pete's sake, Buz, even Peg shot you down on that one. Peg! Admit, please, that interpretation is in the eye of the beholder and let's be done with this rot. Sheesh. "My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
The babylonians came from the decendents of Noahs son Ham. The Babylonians were semetic and spoke the language from which Hebrew was later derived. Your descendant from Ham's son is folklore just as the Moabites & Ammonites as alleged descendants of Lot. These were hated peoples of Israel and were given antecedants to match. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Peg writes: Modern linguists have also created a chart of human language and they've found there there are parent languges from which all other languages are derived. You stated this as a matter of present fact. I pointed out that there is at least one language to which no parent language is remotely agreed upon by modern linguists. They have not agreed on the identification of the parent language spoken by some Basques, therefore your assertion is at best misleading. However, I think you are either playing at being dense, or are actually too dense to even begin to understand the objection. I find it a waste of time to try to communicate with someone who has a mental block against understanding what I am saying. So forget it. May as well be taking to the cat. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I dont know how they get 'dod' from 'dwd' Basic Hebrew 101. The only disclaimer I should issue here is that I'm remembering this from my one year of studying Hebrew at university nearly 40 years ago. The Hebrew alphabet consists only of consonants, including two silent letters which are pronounced differently from each other. It has no letters for vowels. Traditionally, you just knew which vowel sounds needed to be applied. Now that works when everytbody speaks and reads the language every day, but then Jewish communities were established in foreign lands where they no longer spoke Hebrew all the time. It is my understanding that such communities led to the system of points, diacritical markings placed beneath the letters to indicate the vowels. In the point system, the letter vav could have one of three sounds:1. As a vav, sounding like a "v". 2. As a kholem, sounding like a long "o", indicated by a dot above the vav. 3. As a shuru, sounding like a long "u" (as in Spanish or German, not a diphthong as in English), indicated by a dot midway up to the side of the vav. So, the three-letter word in question, daleth-vav-daleth, could have any one of three pronounciations, depending on which word you meant:1. "David", being a man's name (my own name, BTW) 2. "dod", meaning "uncle" 3. "dud", meaning a pot. So when my foreign-language-student friends had their first children (twins) and I became known as "Uncle David" to the boys, my friends would laughingly call me "Dod David". The joke being that both words ("Dod" and "David") are spelled exactly the same in Hebrew. PS This really is very basic knowledge of Hebrew. This would cast some doubt on your ability to understand linguistics, especially as historical linguistics applies to Hebrew, the primary language in question in these discussions. Edited by dwise1, : PS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2358 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
Peg writes: The story of Babel most certainly is based on fact which is confirmed by history, archaeology and folklore. Peg, if you're going to assert historical fact for this story, then you should clarify the chronology. How long ago did this happen? That is, what (approximate) date is associated with the specific tower that was so offensive to God as to cause him to do something to all humanity that is so patently nonsensical? No need to get into the specific location of said tower, but a specific chronology -- with evidence to support it -- is what the current thread is asking for. Now, whatever date you come up with, there are two different sources of conflicting evidence: biblical and factual. The conflicting evidence from the bible is of course amenable to "re-interpretation" for the sake of religious apologetics (that's how it goes for all things in the bible), and the issues are summarized nicely in the wikipedia article on the Tower of Babel:
quote: (I seem to recall that you've been in on discussions about that point in other EvC threads...) But the more important factual evidence involves the time-depth of recorded linguistic history from diverse languages. The main limitation on this source of evidence is the durability of the medium used for writing. It's really hard to get parchment and papyrus to last more than a thousand years. Even stone does poorly beyond a couple thousand, when it's exposed to the elements. But this is a case where our favorite adage is especially apt: "absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence." For example, tortoise shells found in Jiahu, China, dated about 6600 years BCE, bear 11 distinct inscribed symbols that strongly resemble characters found in the earliest confirmed Chinese writings, which date from about 1700 BCE (see both the wikipedia article on Written Chinese and a separate BBC news item. This is actually just circumstantial evidence for a continuous lineage of writing conventions in China over a span of about 5000 years. Until more inscriptions on durable media are found, it will remain circumstantial. But it's considerably more substantial that whatever "corroboration" you might find for the Tower of Babel myth. Then there's the linguistic and archeological evidence regarding the language represented by the oldest Egyptian hieroglyphics (3300 BCE), and the older written symbols from which that system developed (starting as early as 4000 BCE). It's important to note that when these oldest instances of Chinese and Egyptian writing were created, they were already distinct languages (and were not the language used by the Hebrews). And then, since you've referred to the trees that historical linguists have hypothesized as the lines of descent for known languages, you should also be aware of the observed facts about how all human languages naturally change over time. A lot of research has been done on the mechanisms, effects and rate of linguistic change, and it has been firmly established how the Romance languages developed from Latin, the various Germanic and Scandinavian languages developed from Proto-Germanic, how Latin, Germanic, Greek, Russian, Sanskrit and many others developed from Proto-Indo-European, and so on. The Tower of Babel myth makes sense as an ancient fable that tried to account (in a very simplistic way) for the observation that people from disparate regions tend to speak disparate languages, but it makes no sense as an historical account. Based on what we now know for certain about human language, there's no need to posit a cataclysmic supernatural event to account for language diversity -- it's a natural attribute that is built into the overall system, such that when a population splits geographically, their respective speech patterns will gradually change in different directions until eventually they become distinct (mutually unintelligible) languages. It's really very much like the process of biological evolution, on a much shorter time scale -- just dozens or a few hundred generations, rather than thousands (but still not directly observable within a single life time). You have not presented anything even close to establishing a single chronology that fits both the temporal sequence of events in the bible and the observed evidence involving the migration patterns and linguistic histories of people spread over the habitable continents of the globe. If you try, you'll find that it's impossible to do that. autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Apothecus writes: For pete's sake, Buz, even Peg shot you down on that one. Peg! Admit, please, that interpretation is in the eye of the beholder and let's be done with this rot. Yes thats quite true and its why there are so many differing interpretations about the same passage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
ZenMonkey writes: Again, so what? The fact that modern languages have older parent languages is also in harmony with the theory that Hermes or Coyote created different languages for people as a practical joke. what it shows is that the account in the bible (written almost 4,000 years ago) has details about language which are in harmony with known facts. Again the bible has shown that it is a book of reliable information in harmony with todays knowledge It provides us with a version of how the languages of the human race became so diverse. You dont have to believe it, but please dont deny that the book provides information in harmony with known fact.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024