|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ark of the Covenant | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No problem. Just pointing out that when you said "The bible is a historical document that's proven itself reliable for its historical value." you were just making stuff up.
There appears to be no more reason to believe that the Ark of the Covenant is real or exists in Ethiopia than so many other "historical" things mentioned in the Bible. Something may very well be hidden away in Ethiopia, but until iit is opened up to scientific examination it is just another myth. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
enjoy every one of these topics listed immensely, Yet you continue to use the erroneous argument that the Bible is this great accurate document! Then you have the audacity to tell Jar to open other threads on these topics when I and others are still awaiting responses to the posts that have shown you how greatly limited your knowledge of the ANE actually is!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus, only fundy can be so dense. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But that's not what you stated originally. What you, in essence, wrote was that the people who call the Bible a "bunch of tales" are missing the forest for the trees, and that some of the tales in the bible are likely to be true simply because there are so many of them. The point I was making is that just because there are a lot of tales in the Bible doesn't mean that any of them are true. The number of tales in any religious text has nothing at all to do with the truth of any of those tales. The reason I brought up the Hindu holy text was because, being a Christian, you, by definition, reject them since they are not part of the Christian mythos. However, if we are to apply your logic, you must accept at least a few of the Hindu myths as true, simply because there are so many of them in the book. It is a debate techniqe known as reductio ad absurdum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Anyone interested in a new forum on Bible textual criticism? The present one covers a vast range of topics and the TC forum would concentrate solely on the validity or otherwise of scripts, versions, early Christian writings, etc.
I had an exchange with Truthlover over early Father`s writings and went after extant copies of such. Couldn`t track down much on the `net and thought we might have members with knowledge of other sources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
There appears to be no more reason to believe that the Ark of the Covenant is real or exists in Ethiopia than so many other "historical" things mentioned in the Bible. Well, this apart of the thread that I was hoping would come up. My concern is, even supposing the Ethiopians have the Ark, would any one here believe was the actual Ark or just a replica based on the description provided by Moses? What would it take in order for you to believe that it was actually the Ark?
Something may very well be hidden away in Ethiopia, but until iit is opened up to scientific examination it is just another myth. For face value I certainly agree. But I have to wonder how it is they've become so dedicated. Whether they have the Ark or not doesn't take away from the fact that they seem to genuinely believe it. The "Guardian" is completely devoted to something. Something of great value is in that Church. I can't help but wonder what it is. "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
you continue to use the erroneous argument that the Bible is this great accurate document! I'm making a declaration that the Bible has stood up to scrutiny. If you want to challenge that as it relates to the Ark, by all means discuss it here, as its the appropriate thread. If you want to contest the bible in any other capacity, then open a new thread.
Then you have the audacity to tell Jar to open other threads on these topics when I and others are still awaiting responses to the posts that have shown you how greatly limited your knowledge of the ANE actually is Awaiting responses? I've answered every one on this thread. And what exactly makes you come to the conclusion that my knowledge of the Ark is limited when most of what we've been talking about is on anything but the topic of discussion?
Jesus, only fundy can be so dense. *turns the other cheek* "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What would it take in order for you to believe that it was actually the Ark? Well we have a vague description of what it looked like and the materials used. Any wooden components could be tested by a variety of methods, radio-carbon dating, possible ring dating, species of wood, whether it was worked by hand, remaining tool marks. The metal parts could also be examined to find exact components, the make up of alloys used, presence of trace minerals, workmanship, correlations with other works from the same period. If, as they claim, they also have document of provenance, those too could be examined. There is a wealth of information that could be gathered as to the possible origin of the object during the right period, but whether it is the original Ark of the Covenant or a copy might be beyond absolute verification.
For face value I certainly agree. But I have to wonder how it is they've become so dedicated. Whether they have the Ark or not doesn't take away from the fact that they seem to genuinely believe it. The "Guardian" is completely devoted to something. Something of great value is in that Church. I can't help but wonder what it is. Not really. The fact of their belief says nothing about either the value or reality of what they have, only that THEY believe it is of value. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'm making a declaration that the Bible has stood up to scrutiny. Yes you have yet you also exclude any challenge to that unsupported assertion. If you are not going to support such a sweeping assertion or allow challenges to it, why introduce it? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
What you, in essence, wrote was that the people who call the Bible a "bunch of tales" are missing the forest for the trees, and that some of the tales in the bible are likely to be true simply because there are so many of them. I'm just asserting that many of them wouldn't really know either way because they fly by the seat of their pants. Many critics of the bible often don't have a good grasp on it in order to speak authoritatively on the matter. And because I know little about the Hindu religion, I'm trying to lead by example by not flaming something I know little about.
The reason I brought up the Hindu holy text was because, being a Christian, you, by definition, reject them since they are not part of the Christian mythos. I don't question the historicity of any objects or places in the Hindu religion. I would have to compare or contrast before I could fairly speak for or against it. As for this topic, I haven't even given my opinion on whether the Ark comes from God or if it has supernatural power. All I am asking is whether or not any one believes that the Ark is in Ethiopia, and if not, to provide reasons for the incredulity. Some have chosen to question whether or not such an Ark ever existed, which is perfectly applicable to the topic. I've yet to hear any real reasons for why, however.
However, if we are to apply your logic, you must accept at least a few of the Hindu myths as true, simply because there are so many of them in the book. I'm not pleading with any one to believe anything that I do about the Ark. I'm asking the opinions of others and to find out the reason for the belief or disbelief. Soon, if we can stay focused, I will provide my own belief on this matter. "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
NJ: Many critics of the bible often don't have a good grasp on it in order to speak authoritatively on the matter. My experience is otherwise. Many 'critics' of the Bible know the book much better than almost all the people who make extreme claims for it. Inerrantists often only know their sect's pet prooftexts. Question whether the book of Nahum, for exmaple, is really an infallible, inerrantly inspired book and watch them go to the mat insisting that it is. But ask them what Nahum is about and they can't tell you. They've never read it. ___ Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
NJ: Many critics of the bible often don't have a good grasp on it in order to speak authoritatively on the matter. My experience is otherwise. Many 'critics' of the Bible know the book much better than almost all the people who make extreme claims for it. Inerrantists often only know their sect's pet prooftexts. Question whether the book of Nahum, for exmaple, is really an infallible, inerrantly inspired book and watch them go to the mat insisting that it is. But ask them what Nahum is about and they can't tell you. They've never read it. ___ Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i charge a lot of people with not reading, but really i don't think that's the problem. it's not the reading, it's the comprehension. speaking as a former fundamentalist, there's something that gets in the way. the book is treated as holy and infallible and the word of god, but for some reason it's dry and boring for the most part. people like the prooftexts because those are the only things they see as exciting or pertinant. and something gets lost between the eyes and the brain.
perhaps this view of divine authorship sucks all the humanity and personality of the text. perhaps it's just the translations people like (ie: why high schoolers don't like shakespeare). perhaps it's that the text is just so intricate and gigantic that it's a daunting task to even approach. or perhaps people just don't pay much attention when they read, as they skate through looking for things that confirm their beliefs and ignoring all else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
There appears to be no more reason to believe that the Ark of the Covenant is real or exists in Ethiopia than so many other "historical" things mentioned in the Bible. "was it real?" "is it real?" and "is it in ethiopia?" are all separate questions. i would actually gamble that it was real at one point, though i cannot answer the other two. it seems reasonable to me to assume that at least some parts of the more historical books of the bible (ie: king) are grounded in factual information, and that the temple in jerusalem presumably existed and had holy objects associated with it. there might be reason to doubt the story invented to explain where the ark came from (moses et al), but i don't see any reason to doubt that it was a real object.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
There is no indications so far that there was ever a Kingdom of Israel or Judah as described in the Bible. uh, that's not true. maybe the emphasis is on "as described," but judah and israel certainly existed. we have records from other invading empires that say so. i'm sure there's archaeological evidence as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The emphasis is on as described.
I think a good example is listening to Americans talk about "The War of 1812". Sure there was fighting between the British and Americans that is the basis for our view and traditions of the War of 1812, but for the rest of the World, the 1812 Overture refers to a far different set and series of events. The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah as described in the Bible are much like the American view of the War of 1812, far larger and more important than the reality. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024