Well, funk, lets just start with some general observations.
The text is full of catch-phrase statements -- things like 'so-called geological column.' This basic denial of evidence doesn't fill me with confidence. Read through it with a mind for finding the jabs at science.
Then there is the conspiracy-theory angle -- "Do they have any scientific basis for their doubts? Not really. Doubting criticism started on a large scale with G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), a German philosopher who taught that religion, like the rest of civilization, developed gradually." Read carefully. There is nothing to back up the initial statement-- that there is no scientific basis for doubt-- but instead the author just picks on Hegel. It doesn't matter who started the criticism. What matters is the issue of the scientific basis for doubt.
There are weird non sequitors like : "There is no real technical basis for not believing the Bible as it was written. Nowhere does the Biblical text mention anything that implies evolution, nor is there any Biblical incident that’s been proven definitely wrong."
Then utterly idiotic observations like this one. "The Mari archives contained actual names used in the Bible—Peleg, Terah, Abram, Jacob, Laban, and others. These cannot be linked directly with Biblical characters, but they do show that these names were in use in those early days." Surely you see the comedy in this line of reasoning? You could find millions of references to my name and have none of them point to me. Yet this is evidence? This is the kind of trick you see in court room dramas on TV. A lawyer will draw a conclusion that favors his client. The other lawyer objects that the claim is baseless. The claim gets stricken from the record, but it cannot be stricken from the jurors' memories.
And, except for the one book mentioned that the article seems intended to promote, there isn't one real citation for the 'archealogical evidence' they make such a fuss about.
The real argument of the article is that the early books of the Bible were written on clay tablets by people who witnessed the events first hand. These tablets were latter compiled into the books as they now stand.
1) There are no clay tablets. The authors criticise the documentary hypothesis because "there has never been any trace of the “documents” they refer to (Jehovist, Elohist, Deuteronomic, and Priestly)..." I level the same criticism. Also remember that the JEDP hypothesis doesn't require that there be actual documents. The hypothesis is that there were several traditions, not texts. So this criticism is a bit misleading. Whereas the clay tablets MUST have existed, and there is no evidence of them at all.
2) What eye-witness wrote Gen. 1? The authors claim that God dictated it to Adam or that God wrote it with his own fingers. This is evidence?
3) Another issue is language. Assuming a creation date of nearly 6000 years ago, and assuming the Isrealites were writing on clay tablets from the get go as they must have been, why is the earliest writing, from around 5500 bce, 1) not Hebrew and 2) in the Indus valley? It doesn't add up. Also consider, why does the earliest Hebrew script appear to be derived from Phoenician? The Hebrew should be the original.
4) Look at what the authors call tablet 3-- Gen 5:1 to Gen 6:9, supposedly written by Noah who according to the theory was an eye-witness of the events described. Isn't it then peculiar that Noah was not born until verse 5:29 and so could not have been an eye-witness of 29 verses?
5) None of these eye-witness accounts read in the first person as one would expect, or even give any internal indication that they are eye-witness accounts.
quote:That's very weak, and I'm not convinced. But that is to be expected.
The Talmud is WEAK evidence of Jewish tradition? LOL..... that speaks volumes.
Maybe you don't realize that Jewish tradition is vastely wider than the OT?
No book has been more influential in shaping the Jewish world view than the Talmud ( דומלת). Objectively speaking, even the Bible itself has not had the same degree of influence. Since the completion of the editing of the Talmud in about the year 500 CE, it has been the primary source of Jewish law, lore, theology, and philosophy. No book has served as the basis of more literature than the Talmud: commentaries, codes, responsa, theoretical treatises. No book has ever come close to the Talmud as the primary focus of Jewish education.
Guess that is weak....
quote:Babylon = Origin of the creation account?
'fraid so. Or perhaps both stem from a parent myth. It seems most likely that the chain of descent went something like Sumerian, Babylonian and then Isrealite. Of course there is bound to have been influence from the many other tribes preaching very similar mythology.
quote:The secular academic mindset is clear.
This is a bad thing?
quote:And how are you so certain it's a myth?
How? ... the same reasons you are certain that 'all those other mythologies' are mythologies. If it were anything but the Bible, there would be no question.
I looked up the verse in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the Hebrew word is "lamed, yud, lamed, yud, tau" -- or LITITH. The Brown-Driver-Briggs hebrew lexicon gives the meaning as "n.f. Lilith; name of a female night-demon haunting desolate Edom."
This doesn't quite make her Adam's first wife but she does make an appearance.
quote:I was referring to your point in this debate. That was weak.
hmmm.... Brian Johnson's post 25 started this and was a simple reference to Jewish tradition. So how exactly is pointing a finger at the primary repository of Jewish tradition weak? My point-- my only point-- was that this inclusion in the Talmud ought to qualify Lilith as part of Jewish tradition, just as, say, the idea of a horned red devil is part of Christian tradition whatever the scriptural validity of that tradition.
quote:1) Lilith was a late addition.
Perhaps... I said as much in my post. However, you should consider what you are calling a late addition. You mention that this myth was an addition aquired during the captivity under Nimrod. Jewish and Islamic tradition puts this contemporary with Abraham.
quote:2) The Talmud does not equal OT scripture, nor is it God's defining word. (Which is irrelevant to you, but relevant to me and my beliefs.)
I understand that, Satcomm. The issue really isn't about your beliefs though, but about Jewish tradition.
quote:Your point is equivalent to equating the New Testament with the Catechism and sacred traditions of the Catholic church.
Nope. I am putting both into the category of tradition, not claiming equal weight for each. I'd say Christmas is part of Christian tradition too though most of the details are not in the NT.
quote:I say stick with the scriptures and stick to Jesus Christ. There are no other absolutes.
Something I have realized is that the OT isn't as cut and dried as Christians think. The OT was written over several hundred years and other traditions arose right along side it, influencing, altering and even creating it.
quote:I admit, this is a fascinating theory among the "comparitive religion" types, but it's not what I believe. Just seems to me that secular education is trying to redefine history to fit their equation.
Sorry??? Trying to piece together history from the evidence is 'redefining history'? I can't accept that.
quote:All four Gospels make it very clear that Jesus and the desciples ate the passover meal together and did this ahead of time in the beginning stages of Preperation Day itself in the very early evening. Mt26:20, Mk.14:17, Lk.22:14, Jn.12:1.
All four Gospels make it very clear that he was betrayed and arrested in the early evening of that same day, following the last supper and of course still in the early stages of Preperation Day Mt.26:47-56, Mk14:43-52, Lk.22:47-53, Jn.18:2-11.
All four Gospels make it very clear that he was on trial for most of the late night and morning hours of the first part of Preperation day, seeing many different accusers and some (Pilate) more than once Mt.26:57-67,27:1-26, Mk.14:53-65,15:1-15, Lk.22:54-71,23:1-26 Jn.18,19:1-15.
These three paragraphs make no sense.
Paragraph 1: Jesus and the disciples eat a meal in the early evening on preparation day.
That they ate the meal in early evening automatically puts in ON passover, unless the evening to which you refer is the evening beginning the day of preparation. But then, we find in Matthew 26:19-20 ( and Mark 14:12 ) that the disciples had MADE READY the passover and then waited for evening, so this interpretation doesn't hold. The meal Christ ate was the passover meal and it appears to have been eaten on time. The references to preparation and passover don't make sense otherwise.
Paragraph 2: Christ is betrayed and arrested in the early stages of preparation day.
You have the same problems here as you had in paragraph #1. Having Christ arrested in the early evening of preparation day puts the arrest a full 24 hours before the passover meal and PRIOR to the day in which they would have prepared-- and according to the text, did prepare-- it.
Paragraph 3: Christ was on trial for most of the late night and morning hours of the first part of Preperation day.
Yet after the preparation and the meal? This is the most confusing of part of your account. Take the evening marking the beginning of the passover as a reference. The prior evening-- 24 hours back in time-- is the only possible evening in which Christ could have eaten a meal in the early evening, been on trial all night, and cruxified before passover. Yet, at the same time, all of this would have had to have happened BEFORE the preparation of the passover meal. According to the text, it all happened after such preparation. According to your rendering, even, it happened after the preparation of the passover meal.