Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Anything Divine in the Bible?
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 16 of 406 (489656)
11-28-2008 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
11-28-2008 5:02 PM


Re: Mosaic Law is derived from ancient Babylonnian and Sumerian Codes of Law
Hammurabi’s code has notable differences to the mosaic law. It does not set out principles like the mosaic law for instance, opting for straight out rules and punishments. There existed in Hammurabi’s code a “sympathetic” punishment. One of the rules states: “If [a builder] has caused the son of the owner of the house to die [because the house is faulty and collapses], one shall put to death the son of that builder.” God’s law through Moses, to the contrary, stated: “Fathers should not be put to death on account of children, and children should not be put to death on account of fathers.” (De 24:16)
These scriptures seems to contratadict your premise:
Exodus 21:29-31 writes:
28 If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall go unpunished.
29 If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.
30 If a ransom is demanded of him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is demanded of him.
31 Whether it gores a son or a daughter, it shall be done to him according to the same rule.
Exodus 34:6-7 writes:
6 Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth;
7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, VISITING THE INIQUITY OF FATHERS ON THE CHILDREN AND ON THE GRANDCHILDREN TO THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATIONS.
However, this seems to be a minor difference between the two. Both advocate an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth type of jurispudence. It makes sense that the Hebrew law derived from the older Sumerian laws would build on them and modify them. Hebrew law still advocates treating women, children, servents and slaves as property not much different than cattle as shown here:
Exodus 21:20-22 writes:
20 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.
21 If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
22 If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.
also
Exodus 21:7 writes:
7 If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
Why is it so difficult to see how Mosaic law derived from the of ancient Sumerian laws passed down from generation to generation from the time Abraham left Ur of the Chaldeas i.e. Sumeria.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 11-28-2008 5:02 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 4:44 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 17 of 406 (489695)
11-29-2008 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
11-28-2008 5:02 PM


Re: Mosaic Law is derived from ancient Babylonnian and Sumerian Codes of Law
Peg writes:
Hammurabi’s code has notable differences to the mosaic law. It does not set out principles like the mosaic law for instance, opting for straight out rules and punishments. There existed in Hammurabi’s code a “sympathetic” punishment. One of the rules states: “If [a builder] has caused the son of the owner of the house to die [because the house is faulty and collapses], one shall put to death the son of that builder.” God’s law through Moses, to the contrary, stated: “Fathers should not be put to death on account of children, and children should not be put to death on account of fathers.” (De 24:16)
Here are some more scripture that underminds your premise. Yaweh deliberately killed the child of David as a result of David's actions as seen here:
II Samuel 12:9-14 writes:
9 Why have you despised the word of the LORD by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon.
10 Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.
11 Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
12 Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"
13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD " And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
14 However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."
18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they said, "Behold, while the child was still alive, we spoke to him and he did not listen to our voice. How then can we tell him that the child is dead, since he might do himself harm!"
19 But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David perceived that the child was dead; so David said to his servants, "Is the child dead?" And they said, "He is dead."
So Yahweh (God) according to your Bible does practice "sympathetic" punishment and in fact caused the child to suffer for 7 days before killing him. God enacted infantcide.
How about God killing all the Egyptian firstborn including infants and small children (and God hardened Pharoes heart)? Wiping out the Amalikites including infants and small children.
I Samuel 15:3 writes:
3 Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"
also
Hosea 13:16 writes:
16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.
Ezekiel 9:4-6 writes:
Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it." As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark.
Isaiah 14:20-21 writes:
The offspring of the wicked will never be mentioned again. Prepare a place to slaughter his sons for the sins of their forefathers; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities.
and finally
Exodus 20:5-6 writes:
You shall not bow down to them [other gods] or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 11-28-2008 5:02 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 5:04 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 18 of 406 (489804)
11-30-2008 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by DevilsAdvocate
11-28-2008 10:41 PM


Re: Mosaic Law is derived from ancient Babylonnian and Sumerian Codes of Law
DevisAdvocate writes:
Why is it so difficult to see how Mosaic law derived from the of ancient Sumerian laws passed down from generation to generation from the time Abraham left Ur of the Chaldeas i.e. Sumeria.
because not only were they completely different nations, they served completely different Gods and there is also no proof that moses copied from Babylonian laws
moses didnt live in Babylon, nor did he ever live there... he was born and bred in egypt and then spent 40 years in the desert regions of Midian before returning to Egypt again to free the hebrews from slavery
the miracles Moses was able to perform where given him by the Creator, whom also inspired and directed his writings including the Mosaic laws
hence, because of these facts, its most illogical to assume that he took the laws from the babylonians

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-28-2008 10:41 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-30-2008 4:18 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 22 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-30-2008 4:24 PM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 19 of 406 (489807)
11-30-2008 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by DevilsAdvocate
11-29-2008 10:28 AM


Re: Mosaic Law is derived from ancient Babylonnian and Sumerian Codes of Law
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Yaweh deliberately killed the child of David as a result of David's actions as seen here:
the scriptures dont really say that God killed the child. David had lived for years with Gods protection...God saved him from hunger and near death experiences on many occasions. But at this time in Davids life he wasnt really acting as he should. He killed a good man to hide his adulterous affair with the mans wife and because of this God removed his protection from David and yes, the child died not because God killed it, but because it had no divine protection.
in those other scriptures you quote, its not really fair to condemn God for fighting against his enemies or killing them. He knew the circumstances, we may not.
You may recall the account in Jonah about his visit to the Ninevite city. That city had been condemned to death and God had sent Jonah in to tell them in advance...when the whole city pleaded for mercy, God gave it to them and turn away from destroying them.
So he is obviously fair, and mets out punishment only in circumstances that warrant it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-29-2008 10:28 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-30-2008 4:30 PM Peg has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 20 of 406 (489813)
11-30-2008 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
11-28-2008 5:02 PM


read again
but these verses at least show that he does not approve of it
Can you tell me how anyone can arrive at your conclusion regarding the quoted verses:
Exodus 21:20-21 NASB writes:
20 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.
21 If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
There are two completely different conclusions here, one that God advocated punishment for, and the other that He declares that there is no punishment for.
To say that God does not approve of one person hitting another when God specifically claims that it is okay to beat a slave almost to death is cognitive dissonance of the highest order.
Read verse 21 again, and this time take of your mind altering Jesus spectacles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 11-28-2008 5:02 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 10:42 PM Brian has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 21 of 406 (489883)
11-30-2008 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Peg
11-30-2008 4:44 AM


Re: Mosaic Law is derived from ancient Babylonnian and Sumerian Codes of Law
moses didnt live in Babylon, nor did he ever live there... he was born and bred in egypt and then spent 40 years in the desert regions of Midian before returning to Egypt again to free the hebrews from slavery
You are right, Moses never lived in Babylon. However, Abraham, Moses ancestor, did originate from Ur of the Chaldees, a city-state in Old Babylonia. Thus the stories of Genesis would most certainly have been passed down from generation to generation (being altered along the way) to the time of Moses. From tradition, Moses is assumed to have penned these oral transmitted traditions into what we now know as the Torah. It is not a far stretch to see how Abraham took many of his Babylonian religious beliefs with him i.e. the Biblical Flood=Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. We can also see how the Israelites being enslaved in Egypt could have picked up their monotheist beliefs from the Egyptians (i.e. Pharaoh Akhenaten 1364-1347 B.C. support of the monotheist cult of the sun god Ra) and have backfilled the Genesis stories to match this monotheist belief.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 4:44 AM Peg has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 22 of 406 (489884)
11-30-2008 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Peg
11-30-2008 4:44 AM


Re: Mosaic Law is derived from ancient Babylonnian and Sumerian Codes of Law
the miracles Moses was able to perform where given him by the Creator, whom also inspired and directed his writings including the Mosaic laws
hence, because of these facts, its most illogical to assume that he took the laws from the babylonians
These are not facts, these are ancient writings from an unknown author. I could write that I am Joan of Arc reincarnated, that does not mean it is true. Don't confuse religious belief with facts or credible evidence. They are not synonomous.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 4:44 AM Peg has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 23 of 406 (489885)
11-30-2008 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Peg
11-30-2008 5:04 AM


Re: Mosaic Law is derived from ancient Babylonnian and Sumerian Codes of Law
Peg writes:
the scriptures dont really say that God killed the child. David had lived for years with Gods protection...God saved him from hunger and near death experiences on many occasions. But at this time in Davids life he wasnt really acting as he should. He killed a good man to hide his adulterous affair with the mans wife and because of this God removed his protection from David and yes, the child died not because God killed it, but because it had no divine protection.
This is pure speculation. Bend and twist the scripture to however you want to interpret it.
in those other scriptures you quote, its not really fair to condemn God for fighting against his enemies or killing them. He knew the circumstances, we may not.
You may recall the account in Jonah about his visit to the Ninevite city. That city had been condemned to death and God had sent Jonah in to tell them in advance...when the whole city pleaded for mercy, God gave it to them and turn away from destroying them.
It makes no difference to me how you want to interpret this as I do not believe that a. god exists and b. the bible is the inerent word of god. However, to any non-christian these words are pretty indicative of a malevolent and evil god who kills innocent children and babies as well as a host of other attrocities. Not much different than the Babylonian gods in my opinion.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 5:04 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by bluescat48, posted 11-30-2008 5:28 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 10:49 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 24 of 406 (489890)
11-30-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by DevilsAdvocate
11-30-2008 4:30 PM


Re: Mosaic Law is derived from ancient Babylonnian and Sumerian Codes of Law
However, to any non-christian these words are pretty indicative of a malevolent and evil god who kills innocent children and babies as well as a host of other attrocities. Not much different than the Babylonian gods in my opinion.
It seems to me that Israel simply combined the Babylonian Gods in to One.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-30-2008 4:30 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 25 of 406 (489929)
11-30-2008 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Brian
11-30-2008 6:00 AM


Re: read again
Its no good blaming God for the actions of people.
he sees the way people behave, but he does not try to control them
if he did, then we wouldnt behave the way we do.
a fatal stike was much worse then a non fatal strike, and the fatal strike warranted punishment... it was a deterrent against such conduct and shows that God disapproves
the fact that a non fatal strike did not warrant punishment shows that God makes allowances for our imperfection and our tendency to do wrong
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Brian, posted 11-30-2008 6:00 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 11-30-2008 10:46 PM Peg has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 26 of 406 (489932)
11-30-2008 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Peg
11-30-2008 10:42 PM


Re: read again
What does the fact that god didn't denounce slavery say, that he approved of slavery?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 10:42 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 10:51 PM subbie has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 27 of 406 (489933)
11-30-2008 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by DevilsAdvocate
11-30-2008 4:30 PM


Re: Mosaic Law is derived from ancient Babylonnian and Sumerian Codes of Law
you have interpreted the scripture yourself anyway lol
sure, if you read only parts of the bible that reference punishment and retribution, you could easily come to the conclusion you have
but there is so much more in terms of forgiveness & mercy on Gods part to a rebellious and outright nasty people ... if you read them, you'd think that God was more a pacifist then an evil child killer
but anyway, seeing you dont believe, why do you bother debating the semantics of the bible???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-30-2008 4:30 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 28 of 406 (489934)
11-30-2008 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by subbie
11-30-2008 10:46 PM


Re: read again
no,
it shows that he does not control human actions
besides, in those days slavery was being employed. People were selling themselves into slavery in order to have work and the necessities of life, so why would he condemn it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 11-30-2008 10:46 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by subbie, posted 11-30-2008 10:58 PM Peg has replied
 Message 39 by Brian, posted 12-01-2008 6:33 AM Peg has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 29 of 406 (489936)
11-30-2008 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Peg
11-30-2008 10:51 PM


Re: read again
quote:
a fatal stike was much worse then a non fatal strike, and the fatal strike warranted punishment... it was a deterrent against such conduct and shows that God disapproves
quote:
it shows that he does not control human actions
Whoa! Cognitive dissonance much?
So, he wanted to show his disapproval of beating slaves to death, but not beating the living shit out of them so long as they survived one day after the beating, and didn't want to show his disapproval of slavery.
It's been a very long time since I've seen such irrational commitment to an obviously flawed system of morality. I'd hoped it was because it had disappeared. Oh well.
quote:
besides, in those days slavery was being employed. People were selling themselves into slavery in order to have work and the necessities of life, so why would he condemn it?besides, in those days slavery was being employed. People were selling themselves into slavery in order to have work and the necessities of life, so why would he condemn it?
Seriously. Are you so naive or uninformed to actually believe that slavery was entirely, or even mostly, a voluntary institution?
Really?!?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 10:51 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Peg, posted 11-30-2008 11:05 PM subbie has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 30 of 406 (489940)
11-30-2008 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by subbie
11-30-2008 10:58 PM


Re: read again
Joseph was a slave in egypt, and he was the 3rd highest ruler in the land
the original words also mean a 'servant' or one who pays tributes to a king, or one who holds a position beneath someone else
sadly our understanding of 'slave' comes from that dreadful history of the slave trade... but for many ancient people, being a slave was not as terrible as it was for the black africans in america

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by subbie, posted 11-30-2008 10:58 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by subbie, posted 11-30-2008 11:10 PM Peg has replied
 Message 36 by anglagard, posted 12-01-2008 12:42 AM Peg has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024