Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
29 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, jar, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Theodoric (7 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,122 Year: 22,158/19,786 Month: 721/1,834 Week: 221/500 Day: 49/69 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible has no contradictions
Brian
Member (Idle past 3300 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 6 of 221 (33754)
03-06-2003 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Conspirator
03-06-2003 10:17 AM


Genesis 5
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

Why are Cain and Abel not mentioned here?

This is a list of the GENERATIONS of Adam, Cain should be mentioned first(Gen 4:1). In fact, neither Cain nor Abel are mentioned in this mythological genealogy. Good support for Welhausen I'd say.

------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Conspirator, posted 03-06-2003 10:17 AM Conspirator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by III, posted 02-11-2011 4:36 AM Brian has not yet responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3300 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 12 of 221 (33784)
03-06-2003 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Conspirator
03-06-2003 10:14 AM


What is the contradiction here, as the Bible doesn't specify who Cain's wife was, how can there be a contradiction to explain?

PS, Why aren't Cain and Abel listed in Adam's generations?

------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Conspirator, posted 03-06-2003 10:14 AM Conspirator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ME2, posted 03-06-2003 4:26 PM Brian has not yet responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3300 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 24 of 221 (33875)
03-07-2003 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Conspirator
03-07-2003 10:14 AM


These two myths are from different traditions.

Any luck with an explanation for the omission of Cain and Abel from Adam's generations?

------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Conspirator, posted 03-07-2003 10:14 AM Conspirator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by III, posted 02-11-2011 2:25 PM Brian has not yet responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3300 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 25 of 221 (33876)
03-07-2003 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by funkmasterfreaky
03-07-2003 3:06 PM


Just a quick suggestion, Jewish tradition suggests that Adam's first wife was called Lilith, maybe you could investigate this?

Brian

------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 03-07-2003 3:06 PM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Satcomm, posted 03-08-2003 1:28 PM Brian has not yet responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3300 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 32 of 221 (33988)
03-09-2003 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by John
03-09-2003 10:53 AM


Re: 2 or 1?
Hi John

Just an obeservation that I am sure you know about.

'The authors criticise the documentary hypothesis because "there has never been any trace of the “documents” they refer to (Jehovist, Elohist, Deuteronomic, and Priestly)..."

Welhausen's documentary hypothesis implies that the separate sources are contained within the bible as we have it today, these are names given to different accounts that were collated by editors and made into the composite accounts of the bible books we have now, the editors simply tried to bring some continuity and uniformmity to the texts, but they left some ragged edges. The four sources don't even have to be documents, they can be different oral traditions.

To say that there is no trace of the documents is to show pure ignorance of the hypothesis. The evidence is in the Bible texts, such as the various different names for God, the two different creation myths, the amalgamation of two flood stories, the different accounts given of the military conquest of Canaan, and of course the two different genealogies of Adam that Conspirator seems incapable of replying to.

Welhaussen wasn't the first person to notice these different strands woven into one account. The famous 'Astruc's Clue' of Jean Astruc (died 5 May, 1766) was a forerunner of the documentary hypothesis. He noticed in Exodus 6:2-3 that there were different names used for God:

'God also said to Moses, "I am the LORD (YHWH) I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty,(EL SHADDAI) but by my name the LORD (YWHW) I did not make myself known to them.

Also, to say that there are no original documents that have been found that come from these sources is a bit hypocritical as there are no original Bible texts in existence and hardly a book in the entire Bible that we know the author of.

As archaeology is a very large part of my research I also had to laugh at the Mari reference. I have read similar claims hundreds of times in pro-bible literature, things like 'Moses is an Egyptian name, this is evidence that the Israelites were indeed in Egypt.'

The authors seem to think that just because the names are widely used
then everything else is true, they obviously haven't read a historical fiction book, like Tranter's 'Wallace', that has authentic names and places but the events are from the author's imagination.

The link to the Tablet Theory is a great example of the desparate lengths that some people will go to in order to make the Bible something it isn't, some of the claims verge on the hysterical LOL.

My fav could be this one:

'Enough archaeological confirmation has been found so that many historians now consider the Old Testament, at least that part after about the eleventh chapter of Genesis, to be historically correct. It seems strange that seminary professors often still teach the old “doubtful criticism” theories, even though the basis on which they were started has now been thoroughly discredited.'

The author doesn't name any archaeological evidence, he mentions the finds at Mari, Ebla and Nuzi but deosn't go into any detail at all, what is the evidence and what does it CONFIRM, he says himself that the names in the Mari texts 'cannot be linked directly with Biblical characters.' He also doesn't mention who these 'many historians' are that accept Genesis 11 as historically correct.

Also I doubt that this author has ever been in a seminary to see what is taught there, and this piece of garbage he has written certainly doesn't discredit anything, except maybe the guy that wrote it.

Best Wishes.

Brian.

------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by John, posted 03-09-2003 10:53 AM John has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 03-10-2003 2:52 AM Brian has not yet responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3300 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 36 of 221 (34047)
03-10-2003 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Bible-belt
03-09-2003 7:12 PM


A Muslim friend of mine actually uses this reference to support the belief that Jesus wasn't dead when he was inthe tomb for three days (if he actually was).

My friend claims, quite correctly, that Jonah wasnt dead when he was in the whale/big fish, so as Jesus cannot lie, then Jesus wasn't dead in the tomb.

Just a thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Bible-belt, posted 03-09-2003 7:12 PM Bible-belt has not yet responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3300 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 45 of 221 (34129)
03-11-2003 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Karl
03-10-2003 3:55 PM


Re: Minor quibble
Hi Karl,

You can find Lilith in some Christian Bibles, for example,

Darby Bible

Isaiah 34:14

And there shall the beasts of the desert meet with the jackals, and the wild goat shall cry to his fellow; the lilith also shall settle there, and find for herself a place of rest.

New American Bible

Isaiah 34:14

Wildcats shall meet with desert beasts, satyrs shall call to one another; There shall the lilith repose, and find for herself a place to rest.

The KJV translates the Hebrew word 'Lilith' as 'Screech Owl'.

Best Wishes

Brian

------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Karl, posted 03-10-2003 3:55 PM Karl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by John, posted 03-12-2003 10:03 AM Brian has not yet responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3300 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 63 of 221 (34234)
03-12-2003 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Conspirator
03-12-2003 5:45 PM


Hi Conspirator

Could you clear something up for me?

It is regarding your earlier posts.

Post 1.

‘Go ahead and post a supposed "contradiction" and I'll tell you how it isn't a contradiction. This should be fun.’

Post 2

‘Next’

Post 3.

‘I know you people want to post...’

What I would like to ask is why are you not acknowledging the contradiction that I have asked you to explain several times?

Can you at least acknowledge that you have read my request?

I understand that you could be busy and don’t have time to reply, but you appeared to have time to reply to other people.

I am truly interested in your reply, as you seem very confident of clearing up any ‘contradiction’ that people may post, and this is one that should stretch you a little.

But, I maintain that if anyone thinks that the Bible is error free then they haven’t studied the Bible.

Finally, do you have any intention of addressing the contradiction I posted, or can I stop checking this thread for your reply?

------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Conspirator, posted 03-12-2003 5:45 PM Conspirator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 03-13-2003 7:56 AM Brian has not yet responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3300 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 70 of 221 (34298)
03-13-2003 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Conspirator
03-13-2003 11:00 AM


Thankyou for replying Conspirator, I thought you hadn't read my contradiction, it is a good one isn't it?

There is one thing you posted that I agree with, 'this should be fun'.

Good Luck!

Brian

------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Conspirator, posted 03-13-2003 11:00 AM Conspirator has not yet responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3300 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 77 of 221 (34402)
03-14-2003 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ME2
03-14-2003 5:21 PM


Re: me too! me too!
I think we should give Conspirator time to answer, he has, after all, thousands of sub standard academic apologetic sites to trawl through.

Give the guy a break, everyone knows that he has started of a topic that has shown that he really isn't a biblical scholar, this is no big deal, we all overestimate our capabilities at times.

What would be good would be that Conspirator would actually study the Bible in a reputable college or university and acknowledge that there is a lot more to the Bible's composition than he realises, or cares to admit.

Oh and ME2, with respect, you are beginning to sound as fanatical as the people you are agitated with, chill out, you have nothing to prove.

------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ME2, posted 03-14-2003 5:21 PM ME2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ME2, posted 03-17-2003 10:21 AM Brian has not yet responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3300 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 105 of 221 (35558)
03-28-2003 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by nator
03-28-2003 7:03 AM


Maybe he is still looking for that Bible that has no contradictions!

------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by nator, posted 03-28-2003 7:03 AM nator has not yet responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3300 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 110 of 221 (37019)
04-14-2003 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Conspirator
04-14-2003 7:06 PM


Hi conspirator,

Do you think then that maybe there could be one or two contradictions in the Bible.

I don't mean to be nasty, but if you look at how the Bible was transmitted for centuries, then perhaps an error or two may have crept in. Maybe even a translational error, but even if there are some small errors, it doesnt mean that Jesus isn't God, or that the essential message of the Bible is wrong.

Best Wishes

Brian

------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Conspirator, posted 04-14-2003 7:06 PM Conspirator has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019