Nephilim: Angels, giants, or God's eugenics program? [Archive] - Page 2

Radrook

11th February 2008, 02:46 AM

I don't know of any that date from the same period as the Genesis fragment.

Thanks for the relevant feedback! : )

Odd that you should refer to the book of Genesis as a fragment. OR is it some archeological fragment I am unaware of? In any case, believers in the Bible consider the whole Bible interrelated and accept that one part sheds light on another. Based on that assumption there are Bible scholars who do hold the view that the Nephilim were half angel half human.

You disagree, OK. but Jude, Jesus' half brother, doesn't agree with you, neither does Peter, the Catholics first Pope and one they believe to be the foundation of the Church. Which of course is irrelevant to you but which is relevant to me. So I guess we differ there due to our differences of opinion about the Bible itself.

Of course, in later writings, you get all kinds of opinions on all sorts of subjects, but these are irrelevant to the question of what the original texts mean. They're more a reflection of the theology of their day than anything else.

I see them as buttressing and agreeing wholeheartedly with what the scriptures tell us. Also, modern challenges to Hebrew viewes concerning of Genesis scriptures is like challengng Hindue understanding of one of their basic texts, or Buddhist understanding of what Bhuda said, or Moslem understanding of who Mohammed was and substituting our own.

Indeed they would, but we are in a better position now to dissect the old texts than the later Hebrews were, despite the intervening loss of material. Generally, you find that their primary interest is in using old texts to justify their current beliefs. Lots of shoehorning.

Your opinion.

I was responding to the subject line of the OP and the OP's unjustified assertion that Nephilim are half angels. So I am on topic.

Not saying you are off-topic.

There is something very disturbing about modern scholarship. It is it's penchant for constantly striving to disprove anything and everything written in the Bible as an outright lies or inaccuracies. Such an approach of course is based on what the scholars involved consider good scholarship based on healthy skepticism. But when we scratch the veneer of such a claim, what we find instead is outright hostility to anything biblical which forces these same supposedly sincere ethical scholars to jump to conclusions and make wild declarations in vain attempts to discredit-only later to be faced with evidence of their mistake. Then the seek other faults only to come up later against evidence showing them to have been wrong again, Whereupon the whole tongue in cheek mess starts again. This has happened repeatedly in reference to geographical locations, and people mentioned in the Bible who were declared to never have existed but who later were confirmed as having existed. Such a dubious modus operandi speaks volumes about the unethical sloppy scholarship that very often is used in reference to anything and everything biblical by atheistic scholars.

In short, there is nothing about their so-called modern approach which indicates honesty and which in my view should force anyone to accept their wild anti biblical declarations as undeniable truths In fact, their modus operandi as evidenced by their sloppy record demand quite the opposite-a very cautious suspicion of anything and everything negative they say about the Bible.

As for science and reason not being able to disprove God, I'm on record (ad nauseam, some would say) in this forum as disagreeing with that assertion. But I will not attempt to rehash all that here.

It would be interesting to see that attempt. But I guess we will simply have to disagree and leave it at that.

BTW

Here is just a little sample of things which science still doesn't know:

excerpt

> What Is the Universe Made Of?

> What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?

> Why Do Humans Have So Few Genes?

> To What Extent Are Genetic Variation and Personal Health Linked?

> Can the Laws of Physics Be Unified?

> How Much Can Human Life Span Be Extended?

> What Controls Organ Regeneration?

> How Can a Skin Cell Become a Nerve Cell?

> How Does a Single Somatic Cell Become a Whole Plant?

> How Does Earth's Interior Work?

> Are We Alone in the Universe?

> How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?

> What Determines Species Diversity?

> What Genetic Changes Made Us Uniquely Human?

> How Are Memories Stored and Retrieved?

> How Did Cooperative Behavior Evolve?

> How Will Big Pictures Emerge from a Sea of Biological Data?

> How Far Can We Push Chemical Self-Assembly?

> What Are the Limits of Conventional Computing?

> Can We Selectively Shut Off Immune Responses?

> Do Deeper Principles Underlie Quantum Uncertainty and Nonlocality?

> Is an Effective HIV Vaccine Feasible?

> How Hot Will the Greenhouse World Be?

> What Can Replace Cheap Oil -- and When?

> Will Malthus Continue to Be Wrong?

So Much More to Know . . .
A roundup of 100 additional problems that should keep researchers busy for years to come.

http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/

So if science doesn't know these things in our dimension and our universe to which it has sensory access, how in heaven's name can it claim to know what is and isn't possible in those possibly infinite others to whichit has no sensory access? Answer? It doesn't.

Sure there is. If one throws valid scholarship out the window, one can make up anything one wants about the scriptures. And if one can do that, discerning truth from falsehood becomes impossible.

Which is exactly the result when science is believed to be able to prove what lies beyond its jurisdiction or present scope. Since you seem to believe this-then pray tell what the exact nature of the presently hypothesized twelve dimensions are. What laws apply in those branes or dimensions? Tell me how each differs or is similar to ours? Prove to me also that there aren't other universes such as where the laws of our physics don't apply.

Just being skeptical.

excerpt]

A multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including our universe) that together comprise all of reality. The different universes within a multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes. The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered.
Multiverses have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, philosophy, theology,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Or prove to me without a doubt that anything enering a
black hole remains in our universe and doesn't reappear in another totally different one. Actually, it can't even known whether such
matter reemerges in our own universe via a white hole.

In short, science cannot speak tongue in cheek about what lies beyond such boundaries. To claim that it can, and that therefore it can by extension declare angels and a being fitting the description of God an impossiblily is not a scientifically supported belief-it is a belief of nonscientists who are not familiar with the boundaries of science or who wish that such boundaries were not existent in order to reject what the Bible tells us.

The truth of the matter, no matter how unpalatable it might seem to atheists, is that their atheistic believe is merely a personal opinion unsupported by science. Declaring such a belief a fact supported by science-which is an impossibility as scientsts themselves would readily tell us, doesn't make it so.

So if we are going to discuss the meaning and implications of Biblical texts, we need to bring in textual scholarship, archaeology, and so forth.

That's based on the assumption of biblical dishonesty. Since I have no doubts about the honesty of the biblical record both historically and factually, I find no need for having to refer to archeology to confirm such doubts. If I did, I would have probably realized by now that I should refrain from making wild accusations or accepting accusations of biblical dishonesty because of the danger of archeological evidence to the contrary embarassing me
as it has repeatedly embarassed others who had been motivated by anti-biblical agendas..

Archology Proves Bible Historically Accurate
http://www.s8int.com/page34.html

Actually, it is not very difficult to refute solipsism.

It depends on what your definition of "refute" is. Care please to provide one in order to avoid equivocation and proceed in a logical manner?

Nogbad

11th February 2008, 03:31 AM

There is something very disturbing about modern scholarship. It is it's penchant for constantly striving to disprove anything and everything written in the Bible as an outright lies or inaccuracies. Such an approach of course is based on what the scholars involved consider good scholarship based on healthy skepticism. But when we scratch the veneer of such a claim, what we find instead is outright hostility to anything biblical which forces these same supposedly sincere ethical scholars to jump to conclusions and make wild declarations in vain attempts to discredit-only later to be faced with evidence of their mistake. Then the seek other faults only to come up later against evidence showing them to have been wrong again, Whereupon the whole tongue in cheek mess starts again. This has happened repeatedly in reference to geographical locations, and people mentioned in the Bible who were declared to never have existed but who later were confirmed as having existed. Such a dubious modus operandi speaks volumes about the unethical sloppy scholarship that very often is used in reference to anything and everything biblical by atheistic scholars.

There may be such scholars although I am not aware of them although it is true that there are no end of sensationalist badly researched books that pass themselves off as historical insights in the "Did Jesus Smoke Waccy Baccy"? ilk. However, this stuff gets even less credence amongst serious archaeologists and historians than the off the wall stuff that some of the more fundamentalist creationist books generate. There is no reason to doubt that the Israeli list of kings and key characters in their history existed. There may be exaggerations in numbers killed in battles and the like but this is not unusual and often such information is merely symbolic in ancient writings. That a battle occurred is still more probable than not. Where scholars and those who treat the Bible as "literal" diverge is in the interpretation of events. To those writing the records, the Assyrians came and conquered because it was God's will and as a punishment for Israel's naughtiness. To the historian the Assyrians came because they were expanding their empire and were in competition with the other major powers. Israel was one of a great many small states that were simply trodden over to assert authority in the international pecking order. During the Cold War the US and the SU were at each other's throats. In the process a lot of small countries were treated like footballs. It may that the people of Laos see what happened in relation to their own religion and failure to obey set rules - historians are unlikely to see it that way. Israel is no different. The people of Israel interpretated world events from a purely ethnocentric perspective. People that read the Bible from a standpoint of religious faith share that perspective but they should not be surprised that others read it simply as a record of events in accordance with the bigger picture of events happening in other countries.

The history contained in the Bible prior to Abraham is little more than mythology in my opinion - thousands of years are dealt with in a few lines and we have generated pages of comment over a couple of sentences in this thread. Every indiction and every science (dendrochronology, ice core sample, sea bed core sample, radio carbon dating, palaeontology, archaeology etc.) points to an old earth, no flood and an origin of the human species in Africa. I do not think these sciences have been embarrassed in the slightest by the Bible. I would agree that the writers of spurious books based on half baked notions regarding Jesus and other Biblical characters have embarrassed themselves (or would have if capable of embarrassment - coining in cash from the gulible would ease the blushes I imagine) but that is quite different from serious archaelogical and historical research. In the case of the latter, the Bible is actually a useful source document.

Piggy

11th February 2008, 06:02 AM

Thanks for the relevant feedback! : )

Odd that you should refer to the book of Genesis as a fragment. OR is it some archeological fragment I am unaware of?

No problem.

By "fragment", I mean the Genesis 6 fragment, which is not an artifact, but a textual fragment.

Genesis and Exodus are compilations of many threads of tradition, some older, some newer. Using textual analysis, evidence from archaeology, etc., it's often possible to determine which bits are from which era.

And that bit is way old.

In any case, believers in the Bible consider the whole Bible interrelated and accept that one part sheds light on another. Based on that assumption there are Bible scholars who do hold the view that the Nephilim were half angel half human.

Unfortunately, the evidence shows quite clearly, beyond doubt, that this assumption is incorrect. Therefore, conclusions based on it are in error and have no value.

I do not consider commentators who use such an approach to be legitimate "scholars" because they are using methods known to be invalid.

If you choose to trust their conclusions anyway, then we have nothing to talk about, I'm afraid, because we will always disagree.

But I'm glad I was able to post here and add my thoughts.

Cheers.

Piggy

11th February 2008, 06:08 AM

Piggy

11th February 2008, 06:14 AM

I see them as buttressing and agreeing wholeheartedly with what the scriptures tell us. Also, modern challenges to Hebrew viewes concerning of Genesis scriptures is like challengng Hindue understanding of one of their basic texts, or Buddhist understanding of what Bhuda said, or Moslem understanding of who Mohammed was and substituting our own.

Your opinion.
If you see them that way, you have (A) not read your Bible with due care and attention, and (B) not read the legitimate scholarship.

As for challenging a Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim tradition regarding their texts when the evidence clearly shows the traditions to be wrong, there is no problem with that.

And no, it's not merely my opinion that there's a lot of shoehorning going on. That conclusion is based on careful cross-textual analysis of the texts themselves and in the context of other writings, as well as close analysis of the texts to determine editorial traditions, intentional rewritings, and such.

Piggy

11th February 2008, 06:22 AM

That's based on the assumption of biblical dishonesty. Since I have no doubts about the honesty of the biblical record both historically and factually, I find no need for having to refer to archeology to confirm such doubts.

It is not at all based on any assumption of Biblical dishonesty.

If we could make such an assumption, we could just slap a label of "False" on the whole shebang and go home.

It is based on a practice of assuming nothing and coming to conclusions based only on evidence. As Nogbad pointed out, much in the Bible has been confirmed.

However, by ignoring the archaeological evidence and textual evidence, and simply assuming factual truth at the outset, you are beginning with invalid means -- assuming your conclusions.

You are also doing a disservice to the Bible, my friend.

The Bible has many genres in it: parables, histories, genealogies, songs, jokes, contracts, ecstatic visions, building specs, etc etc etc. By lumping them all together as something you have decided in advance that you want them to be, rather than, in a sense, asking the text what it is, you replace the actual text with a notion in your head.

You also fail to see the authors of the Biblical texts as real people, actual human beings.

Suppose someone 2,000 years from now took your approach to, say, the texts used in a contemporary Christian church. They would conclude, for instance, that John Newton -- author of "Amazing Grace" -- had had his sight restored and recovered from blindness. They would be wrong.

Radrook

11th February 2008, 06:59 AM

To add to Nogbad's post #252:

I absolutely concur that I have never encountered legitimate Biblical scholarship which was intent on disproving everything in the Bible.

Radrook, if you're reading any of that stuff, just put it aside. Read, say, Ted Lewis instead.

Also, a "Bible-believing" approach, or a unitary approach such as the one you described to me in your last reply, is untenable on its face because varying accounts are preserved in the various books, which often contradict one another.

As an exercise, you might try reading Joshua and Judges very closely, and taking notes on their accounts of the conquest of Canaan. Jot down what the books say happened to the cities, for example. You'll find that there is one storyline which depicts total victory start to finish, and another storyline (of the same events, mind you) which depicts a mix of wins and losses.

They cannot both be true. Therefore, the unitary approach is invalid.

First, I'm not sure what you mean by the unitary approach. but I will assume you mean that the Bible is thought of as being in full harmony within itself-correct? About the supposed contradiction of total victory as opposed to battles which led to total victory-the Bible often gives a synopsis and then proceeds to give details further on. Don't you think that if deception was intended the Hebrewes would hve covered their tracts before anyone could detectr it? The reason they disdn't is precisely because they understood such passages as complemeting each other. Ever occur to you?

All the objections and supposed contradictions I come across have logical explanations and have been due to either wrenching a scriptures out of its imeiate or greater context.
Others have been due to unfamiliarity with the culture existing at that time. Still others based on the person's not having even read the Bible and assuming that anything that appears to be contradictory is automatically contradictory. Such as the double mention of Goliath assumed to be the same man but actually two different individuals with two different lineages. At other times what are intended as complementary accounts are viewed as contradictory-such as the supposed double account of creation of Genesis. Still at other times a garbled twisted account of the flood written by devil worshipers is claimed to be the model for the Genesis account of the flood regardless of the incompatibility of the two accounts. In short, before after this therefor because of this logic which is fallacious reasoning but which is expoected tpo be axxepted as cogent reasoniung because they say so. That has been my experience with these so-called contradictions and supposed discrepancies.

BTW
If had not read the Bible carefully I would not be speaking about it since that lead to statements which would constitute my personal opinion and not what the Bible really teaches. Ort it might result in misrepresentation of basic doctrinal matters which is inexcusable.

Radrook

11th February 2008, 07:10 AM

It is not at all based on any assumption of Biblical dishonesty.

If we could make such an assumption, we could just slap a label of "False" on the whole shebang and go home.

It is based on a practice of assuming nothing and coming to conclusions based only on evidence.

And that's exactly what you don't do in reference to the existence or non existence of a being described as God-you choose to assume nonexistence despite the fact that science has no way of knowing what lies beyond its reach.

As Nogbad pointed out, much in the Bible has been confirmed.
However, by ignoring the archaeological evidence and textual evidence, and simply assuming factual truth at the outset, you are beginning with invalid means -- assuming your conclusions.

I am in agreement with the confirmed-obviously. What I disagree is assuming that what hasn't been as yet confirmed is an outright lie. That has been the general approach. Assume guilty until proven innocent. And I will not ask why because its quite obvious why.

You are also doing a disservice to the Bible, my friend.

The Bible has many genres in it: parables, histories, genealogies, songs, jokes, contracts, ecstatic visions, building specs, etc etc etc. By lumping them all together as something you have decided in advance that you want them to be, rather than, in a sense, asking the text what it is, you replace the actual text with a notion in your head.

I am doing the Bible a disservice by defending what it claims to be-God's Word? Isn't that a bit of a stretch of the imagination? Like saying that a person does the Constitution of The USA a disservice because he defends what it claims to say about itself.

[b]BTW[b]
I never claimed that the Bible didn't have parables, as used in Mathew Mark Luke and John, or poetry, as evidenced in Psalms proverbs, Ecclesiates, and Song of Solomon. Or historoes as written in Genesis and Exodus. That I view these as inspired does not in any way devalue their function.

You also fail to see the authors of the Biblical texts as real people, actual human beings.

Quite to the contrary. I view them as fully human. The only main difference is that you view them as uninspired and wrtiiten by possible liars and I view them as inspired conveyers of truth.

someone 2,000 years from now took your approach to, say, the texts used in a contemporary Christian church. They would conclude, for instance, that John Newton -- author of "Amazing Grace" -- had had his sight restored and recovered from blindness. They would be wrong.

Of course they would be wrong. But the analogy is false.

Radrook

11th February 2008, 07:27 AM

If you see them that way, you have (A) not read your Bible with due care and attention, and (B) not read the legitimate scholarship.

It's exactly because I have read with due care that I have the opinion I have my friend. As for legitinate scholarship, is a belief that science can say with absolute certainty what lies beyond its reach legitimate scholarship? You seem to think so. Which makes me wonder what your notion of legitimate scholarship is in view of it.

As for challenging a Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim tradition regarding their texts when the evidence clearly shows the traditions to be wrong, there is no problem with that.

Sure! Go tell a Muslim that Mohammed was a liar, as you do with reference to Jesus and see what his reaction will be. Better, yet, do so in one of their Mosques. : )

And no, it's not merely my opinion that there's a lot of shoehorning going on. That conclusion is based on careful cross-textual analysis of the texts themselves and in the context of other writings, as well as close analysis of the texts to determine editorial traditions, intentional rewritings, and such.

And the ones doing that are impervious to shoehorning? That's not what their record shows. It shows a propensity to tag things not yet discovered in reference to the Bible as lies or fantasies. Then several years later, to their utter consternation, they have to eat crow but don't.

An example is the Hittites repeatedly mentioned in Genesis. Before archeological evidence was found these were tagged as figments of the writer's imagination. Later these same archeologists which you classify as excellent scholars, had to deal with the archeological finds proving that not only were the Hittites real, but that they had established an empire in that region which brought them into direct military conflict with Egypt.

Jericho was tagged as myth. Then lo and behold! It was discovered with its walls lying flat as if toppled by some power. Again the eating of crow.

Sodom and Gommorah were initially tagged as fictional. Then again archeology discovered their ruins along with evidence that indeed some great catastrophe similar to the one described in Genesis had stricken the area.

excerpt

References to many people once regarded as myths by archeologists--such as Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the high priest, and others--have since been discovered in archeological inscriptions.

http://www.pytlik.com/observe/deliverus/word-03.html

And on and on it goes!

BTW
Many of the anti-binblical statements I read, in fact, don't even make leeway for the literary devices common to all literature. Making one suspect bias as a consequence.

Belz...

11th February 2008, 08:04 AM

Even if 80% is a hoax or an honest mistake some might just be real.

Argument from ignorance.

Based on our laws that where based on the commandments

Actually, it's a safe bet that it's the other way around.

Hammurabi, anyone ?

Nogbad

11th February 2008, 08:21 AM

An example is the Hittites repeatedly mentioned in Genesis. Before archeological evidence was found these were tagged as figments of the writer's imagination. Later these same archeologists which you classify as excellent scholars, had to deal with the archeological finds proving that not only were the Hittites real, but that they had established an empire in that region which brought them into direct military conflict with Egypt.

Jericho was tagged as myth. Then lo and behold! It was discovered with its walls lying flat as if toppled by some power. Again the eating of crow.

Sodom and Gommorah were initially tagged as fictional. Then again archeology discovered their ruins along with evidence that indeed some great catastrophe similar to the one described in Genesis had stricken the area.

excerpt

And on and on it goes!

OK I'll bite - is it possible to see pictures of these 100 foot texts at Wadi Sidri? and if so can you point me in their direction?

As to Jericho - its existence could hardly be in question as it is one of the longest continually inhabited cities there is with archaelogical evidence going back 11,000 years.

I didn't think Sodom and Gommorah had actually been discovered yet but rather that there were thriving Canaanite settlements in that region.

calebprime

11th February 2008, 08:48 AM

...
Sodom and Gommorah were initially tagged as fictional. Then again archeology discovered their ruins along with evidence that indeed some great catastrophe similar to the one described in Genesis had stricken the area.
...

I'm curious about this one, for starters. Source?

Are you talking about Ron Wyatt and Jonathan Gray?

Radrook

11th February 2008, 08:55 AM

OK I'll bite - is it possible to see pictures of these 100 foot texts at Wadi Sidri? and if so can you point me in their direction?

That's the first I hear about these wadi texts so I am just as unfamiliar with the details are you are. But I will try to see what I can find.

No, actually, I had seen a recent discussion on this before on TV.
The article provides photos of the wall and inscriptions:

excerpt

Compare Moses' description in the Bible below about the events surrounding the escape from Egypt, with the following 8 ancient inscriptions found on different cliffs in the Wadi Sidra area of the Sinai....

Inscriptions BEGIN:
"The wind blowing, the sea dividing into parts, they pass over"

"The Hebrews flee through the sea; the sea is turned into dry land."

"The waters permitted and dismissed to flow, burst rushing unawares upon the astonished men, congregated from quarters banded together to slay treacherously being lifted up with pride."

"The leader divideth asunder the sea, its waves roaring. The people enter, and pass through the midst of the waters."

"Moses causeth the people to haste like a fleet-winged she-ostrich crying aloud; the cloud shining bright,
a mighty army propelled into the Red sea is gathered into one;
they go jumping and skipping.
Journeying through the open channel,
taking flight from the face of the enemy.
The surge of the sea is divided."

"The people flee, the tribes descend into the deep.
The people enter the waters.
The people enter and penetrate through the midst.
The people are filled with stupor and perturbation.
Jehovah is the keeper and companion."

"Their enemies weep for the dead, the virgins are wailing.

The sea flowing down overwhelmed them.
The waters were let loose to flow again."

The people depart fugitive.
A mighty army is submerged in the deep sea,
the only way of escape for the congregated people."
Inscriptions END

http://www.bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm

As to Jericho - its existence could hardly be in question as it is one of the longest continually inhabited cities there is with archaelogical evidence going back 11,000 years.

I should have said that the incident of its wall falling flat was questioned and then verified archelogically.

Jrericho's Walls
http://www.biblicalarcheology.net/DiggingsOnline/Jericho.html

I didn't think Sodom and Gommorah had actually been discovered yet but rather that there were thriving Canaanite settlements in that region.

I should have said that compelling evidence of the incident described in Genesis in reference to the region has been found. The following website provides further info.

excerpt

REMAINS OF CITIES DESTROYED BY FIRE:

The site of Bab-edh-Dhra was discovered by Melvn Kyle in 1924 on the Lisan Peninsula in the southern Half of the Dead Sea. It has been excavated by others, including Wm. Albright. All the evidence points to a Cannanitish city dating from the time of Abraham which was burned and left uninhabited for several hundred years (Pfeiffer p.543). Several ancient historians also mention having seen the ruins: Tacitus History 5.7. Josephus Wars 4.4 (Unger's p.1201), and Strabo (Wilson p.66). The Ebla tablets also mention the names of the five cities, naming one of their kings as "Birsha," matching the Bible account (Wyatt).

http://home.att.net/~nathan.wilson/sodom.htm

Tricky

11th February 2008, 09:07 AM

London exists. Therefore Harry Potter is non-fiction.

bokonon

11th February 2008, 09:18 AM

All the objections and supposed contradictions I come across have logical explanations and have been due to either wrenching a scriptures out of its imeiate or greater context.
I have yet to hear a logical explanation for the contradictions found in the accounts of the four gospels for what is presumably a defining moment in Christianity -- the discovery of the empty tomb.

Among the differences in those accounts is the detail of who was at the tomb to greet the discoverers. One writer says it was an angel, one says it was a man, a third says it was two men, and the last says it was two angels. While it might be logical to mistake a man for an angel (especially if I'm the man), how can one logically confuse one being with two?

Ocelot

11th February 2008, 10:07 AM

First, there was the accusation that what Jehovah's Witnesses believe makes them a cult.

An interesting diversion - perhaps a new thread if it takes off but for now I'll post here and if there's more responses ask the moderators to move it.

It's not what the witnesses believe with regard to the bible that cause some of their critics to regard them as a cult. It's their practices.

If you take a look at How Cults Work (http://www.howcultswork.com/) you see a number of techniques used to exert psychological control over recruits and existing members.

Whether there are sufficient similarities between the way the Jehovah’s Witnesses work and the way an undisputed mind control cult works is an open question and largely down to subjective interpretation. However the pieces of evidence alone is cause for concern however you decide to label the group in the end.

The techniques listed by How Cults Work are as follows.

Deception

In large part the Jehovah’s Witness who have knocked on my door have been honest about their bizarre departures from mainstream Christian belief. No soft sell was required regarding their fatal prohibition on blood transfusions, their equally fatal dilly dallying on organ transplants or their objection to evolution. (This is the UK where creationist ideas are commonly laughed at) With regard to their apocalyptic predictions. however they did repeat lies (http://www.carm.org/jw/false_prophecies.htm) to me telling me that the Armageddon was not predicted for 1914. It may however be that the foot soldiers knew less about the subject than I did and were under the honest belief that the prophesy had always been phrased as it is now.

The main source of deception in the Jehovah's Witnesses is the exercise of power within the organisation. It is not their spiritual beliefs that are shielded from public scrutiny but their organisational principles. As a non member I'd be hard pressed to obtain a copy of "Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry" even were I a member I'd be equally hard pressed to read the Elders manual "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock."

As such I have no way of verifying claims (http://www.watchman.org/jw/1404-1.htm) of what they contain. It is unsurprising that the Watchtower's detractors view the book in a very unfavourable light and if their criticisms are justified then they open a whole new can of worms. They certainly seem in to concur with other anecdotes painting a picture of a controlling and oppressive organisation.

However it is the mere secrecy of this information that you might think qualifies the Witnesses for a tick against this element of the How to Spot a Cult checklist. Alternatively you may feel that The Jehovah's Witnesses are comparatively honest with regard to the beliefs and choose to save this tick for the later category of information control.

Exclusivism

In practice it seems to many Jehovah's Witnesses only they are to be saved. Others with faith in Jesus will be barred from resurrection during the end times. They discourage independent Bible Study or study lead by other groups. Apparently Knowing the Bible is only possible through the Watchtower Organisation. (http://www.carm.org/jw/watchtower.htm) Those that stray may be dissfellowshipped (http://www.watchtower.org/e/19880415/article_01.htm), shunned by their former friends and even family.

I for one would be willing on the basis of my interaction with Jehovah's Witnesses to place a tick in this particular checkbox.

Fear and Intimidation

Above I linked to a Jehovah's Witness resource on dissfellowship. Here is an abstract from A Jehovah's Witness Finds the Truth (http://www.freeminds.org/sales/eason.htm). Which reports the fear of dissfellowship instilled in members.

Disfellowshipping is a very humiliating experience to any Witness. For one thing the fear of it has been ingrained deep within. They've been told that it's the worse thing that can happen to them, that one is lost forever, with no hope of a resurrection, unless he repents and returns to the organization. A division occurs among JW family members, for they must be shunned. One cannot get out with dignity.

Another book available on that same site The Four Presidents of the Watchtower Society (http://www.freeminds.org/sales/4presintro.htm) uses contribution from anonymous informants. The web page records why anonymity was desired.

Such is the methodology of the Watch Tower Society, whose members serve in fear of saying or doing anything without first thinking, "Will the leadership approve?"
In order to deprive the Watch Tower leadership of their passion for character assassination and the ruining of lives, the three Informants and author chose to remain anonymous.

If true this is certainly enough to place a tick in the Fear and Intimidation Checkbox.

Love Bombing and Relationship Control

Well, like most of us I've been doorstepped by the Jehovah's Witnesses. I often take time to talk to them and discuss their beliefs. The fake smile (all mouth no eyes) and the forced friendliness, it's all there. However no more so than the door to door kitchen hardware salesman. A brief browse of forum serves up some anecdotal evidence from former JW's of Love Bombing techniques but then again what do I expect from a Google Search for the phrase in question. I am also told that marriage outside the organisation is frowned upon, perhaps though no more so than many mainstream Christian churches.

Certainly disfellowshipping lends some credence to relationship control.

I'm fifty-fifty on this one.

Information Control

The aforementioned secrecy about "Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry" and"Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" are enough for me to raise warning flags about Information control. Add this to restrictions on who may lead people in Bible Study - only those trained by the Watchtower and certainly not a dissfellowshipped family members. The main source of information is in practice the Watchtower magazines. I don't have any hard evidence that access to other sources of information is forbidden or discouraged except by the sheer weight of Watchtower material one is expected to read and comprehend.

I'm inclined to place a tick in this box too.

Reporting Structure

Do the walls have ears in the Jehovah’s witnesses. Are members afraid of other members reporting them to their leadership for minor infractions. Certainly the organisations runs local patriarchal Judicial Committees investigating claims of serious sins such as drunkenness and offering counselling and discipline. Searching for the judicial Committee turns up more cases of sexual abuse going unpunished and being covered up than typical transgressions being reported and punished.

I'm 50-50 on this one too.

Time Control

The burden of Missionary Work and Guided Bible Study is reportedly so huge that followers are encouraged to avoid higher education and engage in low skilled labour so as not to distract them from their duties.

The Jehovah's Witnesses Website gives us a flavour (http://www.watchtower.org/e/20060801/article_01.htm)of their attitude toward keeping their followers busy. And here (http://www.jw-media.org/people/worship.htm) we see a full program of events being outlined. I suspect that the reports are true.

Tick.

Summary

As far as JWs spiritual beliefs go, many such as the non-virgin birth, or the prohibition of blood products are matters of opinion to which I’m happy to adopt a live and let live attitude. With regard to deliberate distortions of fact such as quote mining in anti-evolutionist polemics and other anti science counter knowledge I find their beliefs repellent though it is a repugnance shared by many of a mainstream religious bent. However it is their organisational structure and this undue influence they hold over their members that most disgusts me.

For me it's not quite enough to qualify a comparison to the most dangerous of mind control cults such as the Moonies or scientologists. It's certainly enough however to warrant serious concern at the undue level of influence the organisation exerts over its members whether it merits the label of cult or not.

An alternative cult test can be found here.

http://www.insolitology.com/rationally/culttest.htm (http://www.insolitology.com/rationally/culttest.htm)

edge

11th February 2008, 10:47 AM

London exists. Therefore Harry Potter is non-fiction.

But yet the actor is real.

Mongolia and Italy are real too.

http://www.omniology.com/BigBoys.html

In the Nature article announcing his latest findings, JunYuan Chen and his colleagues reported dryly that the ancient fish "will add to the debate on the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertebrate." But the new fossils have become nothing less than a challenge to the theory of evolution in the hands of Chen, a professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology. Chen argued that the emergence of such a sophisticated creature at so early a date shows that modern life forms burst on the scene suddenly, rather than through any gradual process.

According to Chen, the conventional forces of evolution can't account for the speed, the breadth, and onetime nature of "the Cambrian explosion," a geologic moment more than 500 million years ago when virtually all the major animal groups first appear in the fossil record.

Rather than Charles Darwin's familiar notion of survival of the fittest, Chen said he believes scientists should focus on the possibility that a unique harmony between forms of life allowed complex organisms to emerge. If all we have to depend upon is chance and competition, the conventional forces of evolution, Chen said, "then complex, highly evolved life, such as the human, has no reason to appear."

http://www.omniology.com/A-LittleFish.html

But, for the last three years, Chen's discoveries at Precambrian fossil sites with Taiwanese biologist ChiaWei Li have magnified this mystery. While sifting through the debris of a phosphate mining site, Chen and Li eventually discovered the earliest clear fossils of multicellular animals. They found sponges and tiny sponge embryos by the thousands but nothing resembling the fishlike Haikouella or forerunners of other Cambrian creatures, such as trilobites.

Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: "No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena."

Belz...

11th February 2008, 10:51 AM

If they say so, it must be true.

edge

11th February 2008, 11:15 AM

If they say so, it must be true.
That’s what I say too.

JACK-A-LO-PIAN RECONSTRUCTIVE ANATOMY DEFINED
1. The imagines of Metaphysical Macro-Evolutionary Dogma
2. The fabrication of un-verifiable anatomic reconstructions of extinct, incomplete and fragmentary fossil remains.
3.a The application of imagination & artistic license to promote a specific doctrine; example- the Metaphysical Macro-Evolutionary world view.
b. The artistic exaggeration of incomplete or non-existent empirical scientific evidence.
4. Also called JACKALOPIAN EVOLUTIONISM.

http://www.omniology.com/Jackalopianism.html

The Geographic's art department gave casts of 7 incomplete bone fragments (left) to 4 "candidates" who would be competing for a very prestigious, possibly lucrative, position with a highly respected and well known magazine.

These "candidates" were told that the bones were from a "female", (how they know this is a mystery) Homo habilis fossil. They were also told that "she" is a two-million year old (using falsified radiometric dating methods) evolutionary ancestor of man and that they were looking for a "realistic-looking hominid".

Wanting to please their possible future employer, these artists "independently" produced the 4 very "different" ancestors you see here

http://www.omniology.com/Jackalopianism.html

[quote] THE ARTISTS WERE GIVEN DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS AS TO HOW THEIR END PRODUCT SHOULD LOOK!
ONE ARTIST WAS TOLD THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL HAD A "MODERN LOOK" AND WAS
"CLEARLY A RELATIVE OF TODAY'S MAN."
THE OTHER ARTIST WAS TOLD THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS
"A CREATURE MORE APE THAN MAN."

http://www.omniology.com/NeanderRecons.html

YOU ARE FREE TO PUT YOUR "FAITH" IN THIS METAPHYSICAL "PATRON SAINT" OF HUMAN EVOLUTION, BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE!

THE EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD REQUIRES PHYSICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO PROVE OR DISPROVE A GIVEN THEORY OR HYPOTHESIS.

THIS IS MANUFACTURED, NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE IT IS NOT EVIDENCE AT ALL!
http://www.omniology.com/LucySkeletons.html

http://www.omniology.com/Evolucyism.html

RobRoy

11th February 2008, 11:17 AM

I find it odd that anyone is identifying the nephilim as children of angels.

Finally, a post that actually tried to address the question and explore the history of the mythology. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Quick peice of advice, don't try to debate Radrook too much, he'll only take you well off from the path of real discussion.

I don't find any support for the existence of the concept of angels in that time. Even when we get into the later priestly period, entities such as seraphim and cherubim bear precious little resemblance to modern conceptions of "angels".

Weren't the angels in this tradition simply messengers from God (or the gods) later given greater powers and then a back-story of creation?

But to this end, we do have divinity and man mixing in other cultures, and yeilding both heroes and monsters. Wouldn't it stand that this is, anthropologically speaking, something of a universal? Mans attempt to try to touch the divine through the mytho of demi-humans?

In fact, El is sometimes described as the head of a Heavenly Council, and the stars were his hosts.

The idea that these beings could -- in a time ancient even to the people who told these myths -- physically descend to earth and mate with women wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.

So are you saying that the Nephelim could have been directly related to God(s), and that the intermediaries of angels were a later insertion in order to veer away from the previous concept of multiple dieties into a single diety?

Radrook

11th February 2008, 11:46 AM

I have yet to hear a logical explanation for the contradictions found in the accounts of the four gospels for what is presumably a defining moment in Christianity -- the discovery of the empty tomb.

First, thanx for the relevant response.

]Among the differences in those accounts is the detail of who was at the tomb to greet the discoverers. One writer says it was an angel, one says it was a man, a third says it was two men, and the last says it was two angels. While it might be logical to mistake a man for an angel (especially if I'm the man), how can one logically confuse one being with two?

The angels at Jesus' tomb

Matthew 28:1-7
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. "The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

Only one angel appears to the guards-frightens them, and rolls away the stone. Wecan assume that he then entered the tomb to wait for the women since that's where they find him when they arrive. The women probably also were about to become frightened when they saw him.

Mark 16:2-7
Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.'"

The angel's appearance is that of a man true. But he wasn't being confused as being a mere man since they were frightened of his apperance just as the guards had been. Since no other angel is mentioned, that other one could have arrived a a little later and still be included in the narrative as having been there when they arrived.

Actually, this way of expressing things is not unusual.

Example

You ask me: Who was at the party when I got there yesterday. I say, Joe and John. Never mind that Joe met me at the door while John appeared a little later. You wouldn't accuse me of lying since when others are asked they would say the same thing-that both Joe and John were there when i arrived.

Luke 24:1-8
On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.'" Then they remembered his words.

The description of angels as men is nothing unusual since they were described the same way in the OT. Daniel and Abraham are two examples.

Here we have two angels instead of one said to have brought the message. So there seems to be an insurmountable numerical contradiction. However, if one considers that both could have been credited with the message though only one spoke, then the discrepancy vanishes. For example, lets suppose that two FBI men visit you. One delivers the spoken message while the other stands by is doing paperwork.

You tell me about it in this way: "

"These two agents came to my home and warned me!" Another person who was there might tells it to me this way: "He's right. The agent did warn him warn him.

Both accounts are correct. The message was delivered by both agents but only one spoke while both are credited for delivering the message.

As for the word "stood", this could used to convey the concept of appearing
beside them. Or it is possible that they could have briefly sat and then have suddenly
stood beside the women in a twinkling of an eye.

Also consider the possibility that one angel "beamed down" first and then after the message was delivered the other appeared. Remember, this possibly silent one [angel in training?] hadn't appeared to the guards at all.

John 20:11-13
Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

This account of Mary is a separate event from the others. She obviously arrived at a different time. So she could have likely gone back to get Peter and John before the other women encountered the angels.

[b]BTW
The reason why fdaithful angels assume human appearance is to better interact with humans. Unfortunately, the unfaitful ones did so for the wrong reasons.

Hebrews 13:2
Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

edge

11th February 2008, 12:45 PM

THOMAS JEFFERSON EXPLAINED THE BIASED NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES IN A 1787 LETTER TO HIS FRIEND, CHARLES THOMPSON, WHEN HE SAID;
"The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees, in every object,
only the traits which favor that theory."

http://www.omniology.com/NASA-NonRockOfLife.html

[quote] NOW BEFORE YOU DISMISS THIS EVIDENCE AS IMPOSSIBLE AND CLOSE YOUR MIND, READ EVERYTHING FIRST.

THERE IS A VERSE IN THE BIBLE THAT IS FOUNDATIONAL TO ANYONES SEARCH FOR TRUTH. IT STATES; "ON THE EVIDENCE OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES A MATTER (OR EVERY FACT) SHALL BE CONFIRMED."

THE OMNIOLOGICAL SOCIETY USES HISTORICAL RECORDS, EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IN THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.

THE HARD PART IS NOT FINDING THE TRUTH. THE HARD PART IS IN ACCEPTING IT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT MEANS YOUR PRESENTLY HELD VIEWS ARE PROVEN WRONG.
[quote]

http://www.omniology.com/Joe+GiantLeg.html

ARE THESE LIVING TRILOBITES?

http://www.omniology.com/Apus-LivingTrilobite.html

Foster Zygote

11th February 2008, 12:54 PM

ARE THESE LIVING TRILOBITES?

No, they are isopods. They are relatives of what are commonly known as woodlice or pill bugs.

Nogbad

11th February 2008, 01:27 PM

Piggy

11th February 2008, 03:15 PM

First, I'm not sure what you mean by the unitary approach. but I will assume you mean that the Bible is thought of as being in full harmony within itself-correct?
One does not even need to go that far.

A unitary approach treats the Bible as a unit, a cohesive whole. But, of course, it is not. It is a collection of books which, in many cases, were totally unrelated at the time of their authorships. In fact, some of the books are themselves pastiches of earlier writings and traditions.

The unitary approach ignores this, and so leads to false conclusions.

About the supposed contradiction of total victory as opposed to battles which led to total victory-the Bible often gives a synopsis and then proceeds to give details further on. Don't you think that if deception was intended the Hebrewes would hve covered their tracts before anyone could detectr it?

The books describing the conquest do not, by any stretch of the imagination, consist of synopsis-then-detail.

You have not read them with care if you think that could be the case.

The language is clear. You are deluding yourself with this transparent excuse, which is all too common among those who wish to impose their vision upon the Bible rather than let the Bible tell them what it is saying.

Piggy

11th February 2008, 03:18 PM

All the objections and supposed contradictions I come across have logical explanations and have been due to either wrenching a scriptures out of its imeiate or greater context.

But my friend, you are not in any position to make that claim because you have no clue what that context was.

By your own admission, you are willfully ignoring textual scholarship, archaeology, etc.

The "explanations" you find -- such as the ones you are offering here -- are not at all "logical". In fact, they are absurd.

Piggy

11th February 2008, 03:24 PM

Others have been due to unfamiliarity with the culture existing at that time. Still others based on the person's not having even read the Bible and assuming that anything that appears to be contradictory is automatically contradictory. Such as the double mention of Goliath assumed to be the same man but actually two different individuals with two different lineages. At other times what are intended as complementary accounts are viewed as contradictory-such as the supposed double account of creation of Genesis. Still at other times a garbled twisted account of the flood written by devil worshipers is claimed to be the model for the Genesis account of the flood regardless of the incompatibility of the two accounts. In short, before after this therefor because of this logic which is fallacious reasoning but which is expoected tpo be axxepted as cogent reasoniung because they say so. That has been my experience with these so-called contradictions and supposed discrepancies.

BTW
If had not read the Bible carefully I would not be speaking about it since that lead to statements which would constitute my personal opinion and not what the Bible really teaches. Ort it might result in misrepresentation of basic doctrinal matters which is inexcusable.

This mismash of unsupported, after-the-fact justifications and unfounded accusations is a gross insult to legitimate scholars who have put in thousands upon thousands of painstaking -- and generally thankless -- hours studying sources, piecing together ancient manuscripts, cataloging ancient languages, and excavating sites with excruciating care.

People like you dismiss their work and cast baseless aspersions on it, instead choosing their own armchair philosophy which cares nothing for the facts, but has only 1 criterion: Does this theory justfy my pre-existing belief?

It's shameful. Selfish and shameful.

Piggy

11th February 2008, 03:32 PM

Radrook, I can't be bothered to slog through your self-serving, uninformed nonsense any more.

I've contributed what I had to contribute to the topic.

Y'know, it's sad when people are deluded by others. When we delude ourselves, however, it's a tragedy.

Of course, you're free to believe what you will.

By that same token, I'm free to believe, if I so choose, that manatees can fly.

When others point out that they live in water and have no anatomical structures to support flight, I am free to assert that such talk is science, and science has nothing to say about it.

I am free to hurl insults at anyone who disagrees with me, accusing them of being bent on spreading lies in order to discredit my ideas.

I am free to do this, but it is utter folly.

So is your willful ignorance of the book you claim to believe in.

It saddens me to see someone like yourself, who obviously is not stupid, hiding out in the cardboard box of religion, hurling rocks at the unfinished mansions of science (to paraphrase a post on another board).

But if you will not see, no one can see for you.

At least you seem perfectly at home in the darkness.

Piggy

11th February 2008, 03:37 PM

An example is the Hittites repeatedly mentioned in Genesis. Before archeological evidence was found these were tagged as figments of the writer's imagination.

This is a lie.

Piggy

11th February 2008, 03:40 PM

I should have said that the incident of its wall falling flat was questioned and then verified archelogically.

This is a lie.

I'm not saying you're inventing these lies, btw, just passing them on.

RobRoy

11th February 2008, 03:48 PM

RadrookI've contributed what I had to contribute to the topic.

I hope you don't leave this discussion before answering my questions. I'm legitimately interested in your thoughts.

Piggy

11th February 2008, 04:02 PM

Finally, a post that actually tried to address the question and explore the history of the mythology. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

You're quite welcome. I'm glad someone cares. :)

Quick peice of advice, don't try to debate Radrook too much, he'll only take you well off from the path of real discussion.

I know. I know his kind. I'm done with him.

Weren't the angels in this tradition simply messengers from God (or the gods) later given greater powers and then a back-story of creation?

The history is complex, and there are huge gaps in what we know or can reasonably deduce.

Although we think of Judaism as a monotheistic religion, it has its roots in henotheism (there are many gods, but ours is the most powerful) and before that in polytheism.

Yahweh was a henotheistic god. The relationship between Yahweh and the Hebrews was a relationship between one god among many and one people among many.

When you go back to the days of El worship, to the earliest texts -- which are preserved as bits and pieces of scripture within what we now know as the Torah -- you're dealing with something akin to ancient Egyptian religion, a host of divine beings of various sorts, ruled by a supreme god.

The Hebrews were unusual in that they preserved a written tradition. But this practice caused problems as their religion evolved, because sometimes the current dogma contradicted the previous dogma. So if your tradition demands that you preserve the old scriptures, but these have come to be, in a sense, heretical, you've got a real problem.

Various means were used to reconcile the old and new texts. In some cases, we can tell that they went in and made changes -- for example, removing references to El and replacing them with references to Yahweh. In other cases, elaborate commentaries were drawn up to attempt to align the conflicting texts with roundabout explanations (which is what Radrook and his cohorts are still doing today).

So what we have, actually, is a sort of recasting, or repurposing of the old tradition to fit new beliefs.

When it comes to beings such as cherubim and seraphim, which are obviously influenced by pre-existing Mesopotamian and Canaanite deities, we find the priestly tradition (this is after the nomadic period, when Israel and Judah were established and the literary culture flourished) looking back and finding references to divine beings other than god, and positing a complex hierarchy of divine attendants to the throne of God in order to erase the tracks of the earlier polytheism, that sort of thing.

But to this end, we do have divinity and man mixing in other cultures, and yeilding both heroes and monsters. Wouldn't it stand that this is, anthropologically speaking, something of a universal? Mans attempt to try to touch the divine through the mytho of demi-humans?

Oh, indeed. We tend to think of Judaism as unique because of what it became under the priestly and rabbinical traditions.

But the old stuff has parallels all over the ancient near east. The nomadic tribes were very much like their neighbors in what they believed. They shared the same myths.

For example, if you can find a decent translation of the epic of Gilgamesh, look up the story of Utnapishtim. It's Noah under another name.

Today, the notion of gods coming down to earth and impregnating women seems bizarre, but it was par for the course back then.

So are you saying that the Nephelim could have been directly related to God(s), and that the intermediaries of angels were a later insertion in order to veer away from the previous concept of multiple dieties into a single diety?

Yes and no.

Although we don't have enough evidence to say who the Nephilim were, there would have been no problem at all, during the time when the myth originated, with the notion of a divine being siring semi-human offspring.

It is only in retrospect that these divine beings came to be identified as angels. If you could go back in time to that day, you would have to explain what you meant by angels. No one would know what you were talking about.

Piggy

11th February 2008, 04:11 PM

Btw, Rob Roy, if you want a really fascinating and controversial topic, look into the textual and archaeological evidence that child sacrifice was practiced by the ancient Hebrew tribes, and was eventual supplanted by "redemption" of the firstborn son via animal sacrifice.

It gets people worked up, but it's very difficult to explain the existing evidence any other way.

Keep in mind, though, we're talking about very, very ancient peoples and practices here. In fact, it may not even make sense to call these people "Hebrews" at that point.

Achán hiNidráne

11th February 2008, 07:53 PM

Foster Zygote

11th February 2008, 08:12 PM

Well, that certainly puts the myth of Abraham and Issac into perspective.:boggled:

Yes, it certainly does. I plan to look into that too. It would make the purpose of the Abraham/Isaac story (namely reinforcing the new tradition over the old) much more clear.

Piggy

11th February 2008, 08:34 PM

Well, that certainly puts the myth of Abraham and Issac into perspective.:boggled:

Precisely. This is the most likely reason why that story was preserved.

We can detect the progression in some of the older passages from Exodus, e.g. Ex23 on the rites of sacrifice:

"You shall not delay to offer from the fulness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me."

There is no doubt, based on the other texts, both contemporary and later, what "give to me" means in the context of the first fruits of the field and the press and the first born of the cattle. We're talking about sacrifice. This stuff was all offered to God as a burnt offering.

There is no reason to believe that the commandment meant anything different with reference to the first-born sons.

Yet we find this variation on the commandment in a later (chronologically) passage from Exodus 34:

"All that opens the womb is mine, all your male cattle, the firstlings of cow and sheep. The firstlings of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the first-born of your sons you shall redeem."

Notice how this later language has become more complex (see the context for more of that) and conditional. Not only has the commandment to give the first-born sons to God been replaced by a command to redeem them (sacrifice an animal in their place) but the less prolific animals now also can be redeemed with a sacrifice of a more prolific animal.

This is what makes Exodus so complex and difficult from a textual point of view. All sorts of passages from many eras (which can be identified by variations in language, references, etc.) are spliced together, not always in chronological order.

But it certainly seems that at some point the very ancient rite of child sacrifice -- probably from the pre-conquest days -- became an abomination.

Nevertheless, later in the old testament, we find certain Hebrews reverting to it in times of crisis in an attempt to appease God. This is blamed on the influence of the Canaanites, but it's more likely that it's a revival of the old religion.

The Abraham/Isaac story explains why children are no longer sacrificed to God, but lambs are offered up instead.

Foster Zygote

11th February 2008, 08:39 PM

ARE THESE LIVING TRILOBITES?

To go into further detail: Isopods and Trilobites are both classified in the same phylum, arthropoda, but they belong to different classes. Isopods are in the class malacostraca while trilobites are in the class trilobita. Just because they look superficially similar does not make them the same thing. As an example take ichthyosaurs and dolphins. Both look remarkable similar and both belong to the phylum chordata, but ichthyosaurs belong to the class sauropsida while dolphins belong to the class mammalia. Asking if a marine isopod is a living trilobite is like asking if a dolphin is a living ichthyosaur. In either case the answer is "no".

bokonon

11th February 2008, 08:45 PM

The angels at Jesus' tomb

Matthew 28:1-7
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. "The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

Only one angel appears to the guards-frightens them, and rolls away the stone. Wecan assume that he then entered the tomb to wait for the women since that's where they find him when they arrive. The women probably also were about to become frightened when they saw him.
Why would we assume that he entered the tomb to wait for the woman, when the text clearly says he sat on the stone he'd rolled away? Why does only Matthew mention a "great earthquake"? Matthew doesn't even have the two Marys entering the tomb.

Mark 16:2-7
Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.'"

The angel's appearance is that of a man true. But he wasn't being confused as being a mere man since they were frightened of his apperance just as the guards had been. Since no other angel is mentioned, that other one could have arrived a a little later and still be included in the narrative as having been there when they arrived.
He is characterized here as a man, not as an angel. The fact that they are frightened by his appearance is no reason to conclude he is an angel; they're expecting a dead man who's presumably not there. A live man whose intentions are unknown could certainly be frightening to two women all alone in a dark sepulchre.

But wait, it isn't just two women, is it? You've left out Mark 16:1, which makes it clear that in addition to the two Marys recounted in Matthew, a woman named Salome is accompanying them to the tomb. Another inconsistency.

Luke 24:1-8
On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.'" Then they remembered his words.

The description of angels as men is nothing unusual since they were described the same way in the OT. Daniel and Abraham are two examples.

Here we have two angels instead of one said to have brought the message. So there seems to be an insurmountable numerical contradiction. However, if one considers that both could have been credited with the message though only one spoke, then the discrepancy vanishes. For example, lets suppose that two FBI men visit you. One delivers the spoken message while the other stands by is doing paperwork.
No, that doesn't resolve the inconsistency. Matthew doesn't say they HEARD an angel, it says they SAW an angel. Mark doesn't say they HEARD a man, it says they SAW a man. If two angels were there, the only excuse Matthew and Mark have for not specifying two is not that one was silent, it's that one was invisible.

Oh, and Luke 24:10 raises the inconsistency count, by adding to the two Marys and Salome, someone called "Joanna" and at least one other woman.

[b]As for the word "stood", this could used to convey the concept of appearing beside them. Or it is possible that they could have briefly sat and then have suddenly stood beside the women in a twinkling of an eye.The point is, the first two gospels say the beings were seated when first seen, while this one has them standing.

Also consider the possibility that one angel "beamed down" first and then after the message was delivered the other appeared. Remember, this possibly silent one [angel in training?] hadn't appeared to the guards at all.
He didn't appear to the eyewitnesses either in Matthew and Mark. And your account fails to coincide with what is clearly written in these chapters: the beings were seen, and then the message was delivered. You're not writing your own Bible, are you?

John 20:11-13
Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

This account of Mary is a separate event from the others. She obviously arrived at a different time. So she could have likely gone back to get Peter and John before the other women encountered the angels.
In fact, this account doesn't mention any other women. John 20:1 has Mary Magdalene going to the tomb alone, and being frightened away not by any glowing robes but simply by the stone's having been moved.

When she returns, with Peter and Simon Peter (but no women), she doesn't go inside the tomb, though the two disciples enter and see nothing. As Mary stands alone outside, she peeks in and sees two (sitting) angels.

So these accounts can't agree on who the eyewitnesses were, or how many of them there were. Each and every one of them has a different number of people coming to the tomb that morning; the only consistent character is Mary Magdalene.

We have one story with an earthquake, and three stories without earthquakes.

One angel, sitting outside.

One man, sitting inside.

Two angels, standing inside.

Two angels sitting inside.

About the only variation that's not covered is being met at the tomb by a talking snake. It was a valiant effort, but I still haven't heard a logical explanation for the discrepancies that makes more sense than "the storytellers weren't infallible, and the stories are inconsistent."

Piggy

11th February 2008, 08:50 PM

And this is why the unitary approach to the Bible stands in the way of a true, more profound understanding of what the Bible is and who these people were.

One of my favorite examples has to do with the construction of altars. Listen to these very early, and extremely simple, instructions from the nomadic period, before God had come to "tabernacle" with His people (note the reference to God coming to them, not living among them):

"An altar of earth you shall make for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you. And if you make an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stones; for if you weild your tool upon it you profane it. And you shall not go up by steps to my altar."

That's it. That's the entire commandment regarding the altar.

Compare that with this from the post-nomadic priestly period (apologies for the headers and notation marks, but I can't type all this stuff, it's that long):

Exodus 25
Contributions for the Sanctuary
1The LORD said to Moses, 2(A) "Speak to the people of Israel, that they take for me a contribution. From(B) every man whose heart moves him you shall receive the contribution for me. 3And this is the contribution that you shall receive from them: gold, silver, and bronze, 4(C) blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen, goats’ hair, 5tanned(D) rams’ skins, goatskins,[a] acacia wood, 6(E) oil for the lamps,(F) spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense, 7onyx stones, and stones for setting, for the(G) ephod and for the breastpiece. 8And let them make me a(H) sanctuary, that(I) I may dwell in their midst. 9(J) Exactly as I show you concerning the pattern of the(K) tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it.
The Ark of the Covenant
10(L) "They shall make an ark of acacia wood. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height. 11You shall overlay it with(M) pure gold, inside and outside shall you overlay it, and you shall make on it a molding of gold around it. 12You shall cast four rings of gold for it and put them on its(N) four feet, two rings on the one side of it, and two rings on the other side of it. 13You shall make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. 14And you shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry the ark by them. 15The(O) poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it. 16(P) And you shall put into the ark the(Q) testimony that I shall give you.

17(R) "You shall make a mercy seat[c] of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. 18And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of(S) hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. 19Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end.(T) Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. 20(U) The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. 21And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. 22(V) There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from(W) between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.
The Table for Bread
23(X) "You shall make a table of acacia wood. Two cubits shall be its length, a cubit its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height. 24You shall overlay it with(Y) pure gold and make a molding of gold around it. 25And you shall make a rim around it a handbreadth[d] wide, and a molding of gold around the rim. 26And you shall make for it four rings of gold, and fasten the rings to the four corners at its four legs. 27Close to the frame the rings shall lie, as(Z) holders for the poles to carry the table. 28You shall make the poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold, and the table shall be carried with these. 29And you shall make its plates and(AA) dishes for incense, and its flagons and bowls with which to pour drink offerings; you shall make them of pure gold. 30And you shall set the(AB) bread of the Presence on the table before me regularly.
The Golden Lampstand
31(AC) "You shall make a lampstand of pure gold. The lampstand shall be made of hammered work: its base, its stem, its cups, its calyxes, and its flowers shall be of one piece with it. 32And there shall be six branches going out of its sides, three branches of the lampstand out of one side of it and three branches of the lampstand out of the other side of it; 33three cups made like almond blossoms, each with calyx and flower, on one branch, and three cups made like almond blossoms, each with calyx and flower, on the other branch—so for the six branches going out of the lampstand. 34And on the lampstand itself there shall be four cups made like almond blossoms, with their calyxes and flowers, 35and a calyx of one piece with it under each pair of the six branches going out from the lampstand. 36Their calyxes and their branches shall be of one piece with it, the whole of it a single piece of hammered work of pure gold. 37You shall make seven lamps for it. And the lamps(AD) shall be set up so as(AE) to give light on the space in front of it. 38Its tongs and their trays shall be of pure gold. 39It shall be made, with all these utensils, out of a talent[e] of pure gold. 40And(AF) see that you make them after the pattern for them, which is being shown you on the mountain.
Exodus 26
The Tabernacle
1"Moreover,(AG) you shall make the(AH) tabernacle with ten curtains of(AI) fine twined linen and blue and purple and scarlet yarns; you shall make them with cherubim skillfully worked into them. 2The length of each curtain shall be twenty-eight cubits,[f] and the breadth of each curtain four cubits; all the curtains shall be the same size. 3Five curtains shall be coupled to one another, and the other five curtains shall be coupled to one another. 4And you shall make loops of blue on the edge of the outermost curtain in the first set. Likewise you shall make loops on the edge of the outermost curtain in the second set. 5Fifty loops you shall make on the one curtain, and fifty loops you shall make on the edge of the curtain that is in the second set; the loops shall be opposite one another. 6And you shall make fifty clasps of gold, and couple the curtains one to the other with the clasps, so that the tabernacle may be a single whole.

7"You shall also make(AJ) curtains of goats’ hair for a tent over the tabernacle; eleven curtains shall you make. 8The length of each curtain shall be thirty cubits, and the breadth of each curtain four cubits. The eleven curtains shall be the same size. 9You shall couple five curtains by themselves, and six curtains by themselves, and the sixth curtain you shall double over at the front of the tent. 10You shall make fifty loops on the edge of the curtain that is outermost in one set, and fifty loops on the edge of the curtain that is outermost in the second set.

11"You shall make fifty clasps of bronze, and put the clasps into the loops, and couple the tent together that it may be a single whole. 12And the part that remains of the curtains of the tent, the half curtain that remains, shall hang over the back of the tabernacle. 13And the extra that remains in the length of the curtains, the cubit on the one side, and the cubit on the other side, shall hang over the sides of the tabernacle, on this side and that side, to cover it. 14(AK) And you shall make for the tent a covering of tanned(AL) rams’ skins and a covering of goatskins on top.

15"You shall make upright frames for the tabernacle of acacia wood. 16Ten cubits shall be the length of a frame, and a cubit and a half the breadth of each frame. 17There shall be two tenons in each frame, for fitting together. So shall you do for all the frames of the tabernacle. 18You shall make the frames for the tabernacle: twenty frames for the south side; 19and forty bases of silver you shall make under the twenty frames, two bases under one frame for its two tenons, and two bases under the next frame for its two tenons; 20and for the second side of the tabernacle, on the north side twenty frames, 21and their forty bases of silver, two bases under one frame, and two bases under the next frame. 22And for the rear of the tabernacle westward you shall make six frames. 23And you shall make two frames for corners of the tabernacle in the rear; 24they shall be separate beneath, but joined at the top, at the first ring. Thus shall it be with both of them; they shall form the two corners. 25And there shall be eight frames, with their bases of silver, sixteen bases; two bases under one frame, and two bases under another frame.

26"You shall make bars of acacia wood, five for the frames of the one side of the tabernacle, 27and five bars for the frames of the other side of the tabernacle, and five bars for the frames of the side of the tabernacle at the rear westward. 28The middle bar, halfway up the frames, shall run from end to end. 29You shall overlay the frames with gold and shall make their rings of gold for(AM) holders for the bars, and you shall overlay the bars with gold. 30Then you shall erect the tabernacle(AN) according to the plan for it that you were shown on the mountain.

31(AO) "And you shall make a veil of blue and purple and scarlet yarns and(AP) fine twined linen. It shall be made with cherubim skillfully worked into it. 32And you shall hang it on four pillars of acacia overlaid with gold, with hooks of gold, on four bases of silver. 33And you shall hang(AQ) the veil from the clasps, and bring(AR) the ark of the testimony in there within the veil. And the veil shall separate for you the Holy Place from the Most Holy. 34(AS) You shall put the mercy seat on the ark of the testimony in the Most Holy Place. 35And(AT) you shall set the table outside the veil, and the(AU) lampstand on the south side of the tabernacle opposite the table, and you shall put the table on the north side.

36"You shall make a(AV) screen for the entrance of the tent, of(AW) blue and purple and scarlet yarns and(AX) fine twined linen, embroidered with needlework. 37And you shall make for the screen five pillars of acacia, and overlay them with gold. Their hooks shall be of gold, and you shall cast five bases of bronze for them.
Exodus 27
[B]The Bronze Altar
1"You shall make the(AY) altar of acacia wood, five cubits[g] long and five cubits broad. The altar shall be square, and its height shall be three cubits. 2And you shall make(AZ) horns for it on its four corners; its horns shall be of one piece with it, and(BA) you shall overlay it with bronze. 3You shall make pots for it to receive its ashes, and shovels and basins and(BB) forks and fire pans. You shall make all its utensils of bronze. 4You shall also make for it a grating, a network of bronze, and on the net you shall make four bronze rings at its four corners. 5And you shall set it under the ledge of the altar so that the net extends halfway down the altar. 6And you shall make poles for the altar, poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with bronze. 7And the poles shall be put through the rings, so that the poles are on the two sides of the altar when it is carried. 8You shall make it hollow, with boards.(BC) As it has been shown you on the mountain, so shall it be made.
The Court of the Tabernacle
9(BD) "You shall make the court of the tabernacle. On the south side the court shall have hangings of fine twined linen a hundred cubits long for one side. 10Its twenty pillars and their twenty bases shall be of bronze, but the hooks of the pillars and their fillets shall be of silver. 11And likewise for its length on the north side there shall be hangings a hundred cubits long, its pillars twenty and their bases twenty, of bronze, but the hooks of the pillars and their fillets shall be of silver. 12And for the breadth of the court on the west side there shall be hangings for fifty cubits, with ten pillars and ten bases. 13The breadth of the court on the front to the east shall be fifty cubits. 14The hangings for the one side of the gate shall be fifteen cubits, with their three pillars and three bases. 15On the other side the hangings shall be fifteen cubits, with their three pillars and three bases. 16For the gate of the court there shall be(BE) a screen twenty cubits long, of blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen, embroidered with needlework. It shall have four pillars and with them four bases. 17All the pillars around the court shall be filleted with silver. Their hooks shall be of silver, and their bases of bronze. 18The length of the court shall be a hundred cubits, the breadth fifty, and the height five cubits, with hangings of fine twined linen and bases of bronze. 19All the utensils of the tabernacle for every use, and all its pegs and all the pegs of the court, shall be of bronze.
Oil for the Lamp
20(BF) "You shall command the people of Israel that they bring to you pure beaten olive oil for the light, that a lamp may regularly be set up to burn. 21(BG) In the tent of meeting,(BH) outside the veil that is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall tend it from evening to morning before the LORD. It shall be a statute forever to be observed throughout their generations by the people of Israel.

It's a shame that so many people dismiss the Bible and don't care to study it because they're not religious, on the one hand, or approach it with a closed mind like Radrook does, on the other, because they are religious.

When you put all that aside, and dive into it, it's utterly fascinating, and has a lot to tell us about history, psychology, and so much more.

HghrSymmetry

12th February 2008, 01:29 AM

volatile

12th February 2008, 02:19 AM

An interesting diversion - perhaps a new thread if it takes off but for now I'll post here and if there's more responses ask the moderators to move it.

It's not what the witnesses believe with regard to the bible that cause some of their critics to regard them as a cult. It's their practices.

If you take a look at How Cults Work (http://www.howcultswork.com/) you see a number of techniques used to exert psychological control over recruits and existing members.

Whether there are sufficient similarities between the way the Jehovah’s Witnesses work and the way an undisputed mind control cult works is an open question and largely down to subjective interpretation. However the pieces of evidence alone is cause for concern however you decide to label the group in the end.

The techniques listed by How Cults Work are as follows.

Deception

In large part the Jehovah’s Witness who have knocked on my door have been honest about their bizarre departures from mainstream Christian belief. No soft sell was required regarding their fatal prohibition on blood transfusions, their equally fatal dilly dallying on organ transplants or their objection to evolution. (This is the UK where creationist ideas are commonly laughed at) With regard to their apocalyptic predictions. however they did repeat lies (http://www.carm.org/jw/false_prophecies.htm) to me telling me that the Armageddon was not predicted for 1914. It may however be that the foot soldiers knew less about the subject than I did and were under the honest belief that the prophesy had always been phrased as it is now.

The main source of deception in the Jehovah's Witnesses is the exercise of power within the organisation. It is not their spiritual beliefs that are shielded from public scrutiny but their organisational principles. As a non member I'd be hard pressed to obtain a copy of "Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry" even were I a member I'd be equally hard pressed to read the Elders manual "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock."

As such I have no way of verifying claims (http://www.watchman.org/jw/1404-1.htm) of what they contain. It is unsurprising that the Watchtower's detractors view the book in a very unfavourable light and if their criticisms are justified then they open a whole new can of worms. They certainly seem in to concur with other anecdotes painting a picture of a controlling and oppressive organisation.

However it is the mere secrecy of this information that you might think qualifies the Witnesses for a tick against this element of the How to Spot a Cult checklist. Alternatively you may feel that The Jehovah's Witnesses are comparatively honest with regard to the beliefs and choose to save this tick for the later category of information control.

Exclusivism

In practice it seems to many Jehovah's Witnesses only they are to be saved. Others with faith in Jesus will be barred from resurrection during the end times. They discourage independent Bible Study or study lead by other groups. Apparently Knowing the Bible is only possible through the Watchtower Organisation. (http://www.carm.org/jw/watchtower.htm) Those that stray may be dissfellowshipped (http://www.watchtower.org/e/19880415/article_01.htm), shunned by their former friends and even family.

I for one would be willing on the basis of my interaction with Jehovah's Witnesses to place a tick in this particular checkbox.

Fear and Intimidation

Above I linked to a Jehovah's Witness resource on dissfellowship. Here is an abstract from A Jehovah's Witness Finds the Truth (http://www.freeminds.org/sales/eason.htm). Which reports the fear of dissfellowship instilled in members.

Another book available on that same site The Four Presidents of the Watchtower Society (http://www.freeminds.org/sales/4presintro.htm) uses contribution from anonymous informants. The web page records why anonymity was desired.

If true this is certainly enough to place a tick in the Fear and Intimidation Checkbox.

Love Bombing and Relationship Control

Well, like most of us I've been doorstepped by the Jehovah's Witnesses. I often take time to talk to them and discuss their beliefs. The fake smile (all mouth no eyes) and the forced friendliness, it's all there. However no more so than the door to door kitchen hardware salesman. A brief browse of forum serves up some anecdotal evidence from former JW's of Love Bombing techniques but then again what do I expect from a Google Search for the phrase in question. I am also told that marriage outside the organisation is frowned upon, perhaps though no more so than many mainstream Christian churches.

Certainly disfellowshipping lends some credence to relationship control.

I'm fifty-fifty on this one.

Information Control

The aforementioned secrecy about "Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry" and"Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" are enough for me to raise warning flags about Information control. Add this to restrictions on who may lead people in Bible Study - only those trained by the Watchtower and certainly not a dissfellowshipped family members. The main source of information is in practice the Watchtower magazines. I don't have any hard evidence that access to other sources of information is forbidden or discouraged except by the sheer weight of Watchtower material one is expected to read and comprehend.

I'm inclined to place a tick in this box too.

Reporting Structure

Do the walls have ears in the Jehovah’s witnesses. Are members afraid of other members reporting them to their leadership for minor infractions. Certainly the organisations runs local patriarchal Judicial Committees investigating claims of serious sins such as drunkenness and offering counselling and discipline. Searching for the judicial Committee turns up more cases of sexual abuse going unpunished and being covered up than typical transgressions being reported and punished.

I'm 50-50 on this one too.

Time Control

The burden of Missionary Work and Guided Bible Study is reportedly so huge that followers are encouraged to avoid higher education and engage in low skilled labour so as not to distract them from their duties.

The Jehovah's Witnesses Website gives us a flavour (http://www.watchtower.org/e/20060801/article_01.htm)of their attitude toward keeping their followers busy. And here (http://www.jw-media.org/people/worship.htm) we see a full program of events being outlined. I suspect that the reports are true.

Tick.

Summary

As far as JWs spiritual beliefs go, many such as the non-virgin birth, or the prohibition of blood products are matters of opinion to which I’m happy to adopt a live and let live attitude. With regard to deliberate distortions of fact such as quote mining in anti-evolutionist polemics and other anti science counter knowledge I find their beliefs repellent though it is a repugnance shared by many of a mainstream religious bent. However it is their organisational structure and this undue influence they hold over their members that most disgusts me.

For me it's not quite enough to qualify a comparison to the most dangerous of mind control cults such as the Moonies or scientologists. It's certainly enough however to warrant serious concern at the undue level of influence the organisation exerts over its members whether it merits the label of cult or not.

An alternative cult test can be found here.

http://www.insolitology.com/rationally/culttest.htm (http://www.insolitology.com/rationally/culttest.htm)

I was going to compose my own response to Radrook, but it wouldn't be half as clear, cogent and wise as this. Hear, hear, frankly.

Radrook

12th February 2008, 05:28 AM

I was going to address some of the classic distortions regarding the multi-verse, dimensions, and black holes mentioned earlier.
That may not be needed given the efficient way Pigg's exegesis has leveled the area.

I'll just knock back a cold one and wait to counter that "argument" at another time.

;)

All he did was say that there is a difference between what the Nation of Israel practiced after they came into a covenant relationship with God was not what there ancestors, who wrere not under a covenant relation with God practiced. I fail to see what's so levelling about that. Care to tell me?

On second thought, Nahhh! I have a better idea.

bokonon

12th February 2008, 05:30 AM

Radrook

12th February 2008, 05:31 AM

Why would we assume that he entered the tomb to wait for the woman, when the text clearly says he sat on the stone he'd rolled away? Why does only Matthew mention a "great earthquake"? Matthew doesn't even have the two Marys entering the tomb.

He is characterized here as a man, not as an angel. The fact that they are frightened by his appearance is no reason to conclude he is an angel; they're expecting a dead man who's presumably not there. A live man whose intentions are unknown could certainly be frightening to two women all alone in a dark sepulchre.

But wait, it isn't just two women, is it? You've left out Mark 16:1, which makes it clear that in addition to the two Marys recounted in Matthew, a woman named Salome is accompanying them to the tomb. Another inconsistency.

No, that doesn't resolve the inconsistency. Matthew doesn't say they HEARD an angel, it says they SAW an angel. Mark doesn't say they HEARD a man, it says they SAW a man. If two angels were there, the only excuse Matthew and Mark have for not specifying two is not that one was silent, it's that one was invisible.

Oh, and Luke 24:10 raises the inconsistency count, by adding to the two Marys and Salome, someone called "Joanna" and at least one other woman.

The point is, the first two gospels say the beings were seated when first seen, while this one has them standing.

He didn't appear to the eyewitnesses either in Matthew and Mark. And your account fails to coincide with what is clearly written in these chapters: the beings were seen, and then the message was delivered. You're not writing your own Bible, are you?

In fact, this account doesn't mention any other women. John 20:1 has Mary Magdalene going to the tomb alone, and being frightened away not by any glowing robes but simply by the stone's having been moved.

When she returns, with Peter and Simon Peter (but no women), she doesn't go inside the tomb, though the two disciples enter and see nothing. As Mary stands alone outside, she peeks in and sees two (sitting) angels.

So these accounts can't agree on who the eyewitnesses were, or how many of them there were. Each and every one of them has a different number of people coming to the tomb that morning; the only consistent character is Mary Magdalene.

We have one story with an earthquake, and three stories without earthquakes.

One angel, sitting outside.

One man, sitting inside.

Two angels, standing inside.

Two angels sitting inside.

About the only variation that's not covered is being met at the tomb by a talking snake. It was a valiant effort, but I still haven't heard a logical explanation for the discrepancies that makes more sense than "the storytellers weren't infallible, and the stories are inconsistent."

You disagree? That's OK. As expected. Actually, all your objections can be easily refuted. But I trust that those reading with an unbiased eye will see the logic as well as the refusal to reason and conclude based on it despite your vehement protestations to the contrary.

Piggy

12th February 2008, 05:35 AM

The Abraham/Isaac story explains why children are no longer sacrificed to God, but lambs are offered up instead.

Now here's the real bombshell....

Just as the story of Isaac's reprieve justifies the transition from child sacrifice to animal sacrifice, and the story of Ezekiel's vision justifies the transition from a God who abides in the sanctum sanctorum within temple to a God who is spirit and everpresent, the story of Christ justifies the transition from a Jewish religion to a world religion and from animal sacrifice to no sacrifice.

Of course, that was not the original purpose of the tales of Jesus, and the transition didn't happen immediately. In fact, there was intense conflict within the young Jesus movement about all this.

But thanks in large part to Paul (as opposed to James and Simon Peter) the stories came to signify just this as the relgion expanded outside of Judaism -- and if it hadn't, it likely would have gone the way of all the other countless sects (such as the Essenes, one of the few that the general public are familiar with now).

For non-Xians, language such as "redemption" and "lamb of God" and "washed in the blood of the lamb" are cryptic and bizarre.

But the premise here was that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb by which God redeemed the world (his own children) forevermore, thereby obviating the need for animal sacrifice ever again.

The gospel of John even places the time of Jesus' crucifixion simultaneous with the slaughter of the passover lambs. He has to actually move the day of the event (he disagrees with Matthew, Mark, and Luke) in order to accomplish this.

Of course, the vast majority of Jews (and many early Xians) weren't buying it. But what it did was to allow non-Jews, who did not keep kosher or make the required sacrifices to God, to call themselves Xians.

If Paul had not won that debate, it is highly unlikely that Xianity would even exist. But the odds were in his favor b/c that doctrine allowed him to recruit among the gentiles.

Piggy

12th February 2008, 05:44 AM

you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen and blue and purple and scarlet yarns
And herein may lie the answer to one of those oft-cited oddities of Levitical law: The prohibition against wearing garments of more than one type of textile.

The Levites were the priests (one of 2 sects of priests) and their status was marked by fine garments which, like the curtains bokonon had a little fun with, were ornate.

It was a sin for those outside the priestly caste to enter the sanctum sanctorum, perform priestly rites, wear priestly garments, etc.

As I've mentioned before, the rabbinical tradition (especially the Masoretes) developed various means to "build a hedge around the law" -- that is, to find ways to prevent people from sinning even accidentally.

Can't swear a false oath on the name of God if you never speak the name of God. Cant' accidentally heat the meat of a goat in anything containing milk which came from its mother if you never mix meat and dairy.

Suddenly, given all that, we can see how a prohibition against wearing priestly vestments may evolve into a prohibition against wearing garments of more than one textile. If you never do that, you will never break the Law in this regard, even accidentally.

bokonon

12th February 2008, 05:45 AM

Actually, all your objections can be easily refuted.
Easier said than done.
But I trust that those reading with an unbiased eye will see the logic as well as the refusal to reason and conclude based on it despite your vehement protestations to the contrary.
I trust they will.

BTW: Even I couldn't keep all the versions straight. My summary should have read:

These accounts can't agree on who the eyewitnesses were, or how many of them there were. Each and every one of them has a different number of people coming to the tomb that morning; the only consistent character is Mary Magdalene.

We have one story with an earthquake, and three stories without earthquakes.

One angel, sitting outside.

One man, sitting inside.

Two men, standing inside.

Two angels sitting inside.

About the only variation that's not covered is being met at the tomb by a talking snake. It was a valiant effort, but I still haven't heard a logical explanation for the discrepancies that makes more sense than "the storytellers weren't infallible, and the stories are inconsistent."

Radrook

12th February 2008, 05:45 AM

It's a shame that so many people dismiss the Bible and don't care to study it because they're not religious, on the one hand, or approach it with a closed mind like Radrook does, on the other, because they are religious.

When you put all that aside, and dive into it, it's utterly fascinating, and has a lot to tell us about history, psychology, and so much more.

Ad hominem? You disappoint me my friend. In any case, a blind faith in what science is able to prove doesn't inspire confidence in any other conclusion that the blind-faither in science
reaches or expounds about, So in my book everything you say is to be suspected of irrationality based on that irrational belief alone.

BTW
Fascination with a subject doesn't guarantee that we understand a subject. The fascination, in fact, could be very well based on the pleasure which the person derives from making things up as he goes along or the sense of power it gives him as he proceeds to write his own version of the book. Now that's a real shame. In any case, since you seem to be gradually slipping into the pernicious ad hominem mode, your commentary is no longer relevant. At least from where I sit, and it's not on a stone. : )

BTW

Thought I'd say that before saying sianara!

Ah! Pax dulce Pax!

Piggy

12th February 2008, 05:49 AM

But of course the most eggregious error of those of Radrook's view is to assert, as Radrook did, that we should consider that the Bible may be "what it claims to be, the Word of God".

Trouble is, the Bible doesn't claim to be this.

Paul's letters claim to be the word of Paul. He does not claim to be channeling God.

Many of the Psalms claim to be songs written by David. No mention of authorship by God.

Only the fiction of a unitary Bible -- which is debunked by textual analysis of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts -- allows one to look at one section of one book which claims to be the Word of God and generalize that to the whole shebang.

As I've said before, the unitary approach is a means of projecting modern religious ideas onto ancient texts, and in doing so robs its adherents of a true appreciation of the books.

Piggy

12th February 2008, 05:50 AM

sianara!

Game. Set. Match.

Belz...

12th February 2008, 05:53 AM

The history is complex, and there are huge gaps in what we know or can reasonably deduce.

We can always go off the deep end and make up the rest like good Christians!

Belz...

12th February 2008, 06:00 AM

You disagree? That's OK. As expected. Actually, all your objections can be easily refuted.

Go right ahead.

Radrook

12th February 2008, 06:03 AM

Easier said than done.

I trust they will.

BTW: Even I couldn't keep all the versions straight. My summary should have read:

You really believe I'm hell bent on convincing you? Apparently you haven't understood clearly my repeated explanations concerning my motive in participation on this forum.
But for your edification let me again repeat myself. My participation isn't motivated by a desire nor a need to debate nor by a messianic sense that I must need convert you nor anyone else. Neither is my participation motivated by a need to prove you wrong and prove myself right. My participation is to try to familiarize people with what the Bible really says in order to minimize misrepresentation and strawmnan arguments which repeatedly crop here.

Truer. I did respond to your statement about the discrepancies which you are unable to resolve to your satisfaction. But my response was provided for those who are seeking a viable explanation. Not viable you say? Well, it's an explanation which is viable for millions who disagree with you-all of which you consider deluded but all of which equally consider you as misguided and intellectually deficient. Not due to any fault of your own, of course. But perhaps due to not deserving to understand due to your general hateful disrespectful approach which broaches no explanation as long as the explanation defends the Bible-or perhaps, and maybe more probably, because of being under certain influences known to cause that condition. In whatever case, there is nothing either here in this forum or in the Bible that obligates me to continue a fruitless exchange nor to expose myself unnecessarily
and continuously to what essentially constitutes drivel. So with all due respect:

Bye

Radrook

12th February 2008, 06:04 AM

Deleted Double Post

Radrook

12th February 2008, 06:05 AM

Deleted double post

bokonon

12th February 2008, 06:29 AM

My participation is to try to familiarize people with what the Bible really says in order to minimize misrepresentation and strawmnan arguments which repeatedly crop here.
Cool. So we've pretty definitively established that the bible really says four different things with respect to the events of Easter morning. Maybe the intelligent designer formerly known as God could make a case against Kurosawa for appropriating the technique in Rashomon.

BTW, I'm entertained by your signature style of insincere appreciation for someone's point, followed by four largely irrelevant bible quotes.

Well, it's an explanation which is viable for millions who disagree with you-all of which you consider deluded but all of which equally consider you as misguided and intellectually deficient. Not due to any fault of your own, of course.
Of course not. God made me perfect, and some of us just picked the "perfectly stupid" straw. It's my cross to bear.

But perhaps due to not deserving to understand due to your general hateful disrespectful approach which broaches no explanation as long as the explanation defends the Bible-or perhaps, and maybe more probably, because of being under certain influences known to cause that condition.
Drunk on demon logic. Hey, maybe I should get me one a those "custom tagline" thingies, so people would know I'm not responsible for my words.

In whatever case, there is nothing either here in this forum or in the Bible that obligates me to continue a fruitless exchange nor to expose myself unnecessarily and continuously to what essentially constitutes drivel. So with all due respect:

Bye
I thought he'd never leave.

bokonon

12th February 2008, 06:30 AM

You really believe I'm hell bent on convincing you?
Deja vu.

bokonon

12th February 2008, 06:32 AM

You really believe I'm hell bent on convincing you?
Now you're just ranting.

Foster Zygote

12th February 2008, 06:33 AM

I see Radrook is still choosing to run from debate rather than admit that his arguments are being dismantled before his eyes. That way he can feign indignation and still avoid addressing uncomfortable points. Heck, he can even be caught in a bald faced lie and pretend that it is he who is being dishonored by others.

Or maybe he and T'ai Chi simply have a bet.

Radrook

12th February 2008, 06:40 AM

Had a look at the Bibleprobe site and found it quite interesting. I will have a delve and see if I can find other stuff on Sinai carvings. I wasn't wholly convinced by the Bibleprobe style and comments though - for example

"A detailed examination of seven hundred of the actual Sinai inscription sites reveal only ten symbols that could reasonably be mistaken for the crosses that Prof. Stanley and other critical scholars refer to. And each of these can be easily explained as an example of the Egyptian cross-form..."

bold mine

Generally speaking in academic circles this is akin to calling Prof Stanley an incompetent - fine if he was, unspeakably rude if he wasn't.

I would agree with them that Ron Wyatt was remarkable but probably for not the same reason. :)

I was also intrigued by the claim that Tutankhamen was Ramses' son as it has always been considered he was the son of the heretic monotheist Akhenaten. It doesn't say who the many others are that are considering him to be Ramses' son but I guess at this point I don't think I am one of them. Given the mortality rates in the ancient world any number of Pharaohs would have had a first born son die young. However, Tutankhamun was Pharaoh which meant his father died before him. Minor point I know but it is little things like this that make one raise an eyebrow at what a site will include and what level of credibility they are pitching at.

The data I mentioned was in reference to Sodomn and Gommorah and Jericho, The site about tha Wadi was in response to your request concerning some mention of that Wadi. I googled, got a response, and provided the link as requested without even reading the info since that Wadi subject was not my original point. However, sorry if it turned out unsatisfactory for the reasons you mention.

BTW
The best ones qualified to respond to accusations of deceit or deceptive scholarshp are the accused who are most famliar with their own declarations and system they used to reach the conclusions you mention. Such sites usually provide an email llink for feedback purposes. Perhaps if you question these persons they can provide an adequate response to your concerns.

Nogbad

12th February 2008, 07:04 AM

The data I mentioned was in reference to Sodomn and Gommorah and Jericho, The site about tha Wadi was in response to your request concerning some mention of that Wadi. I googled, got a response, and provided the link as requested without even reading the info since that Wadi subject was not my original point. However, sorry if it turned out unsatisfactory for the reasons you mention.

BTW
The best ones qualified to respond to accusations of deceit or deceptive scholarshp are the accused who are most famliar with their own declarations and system they used to reach the conclusions you mention. Such sites usually provide an email llink for feedback purposes. Perhaps if you question these persons they can provide an adequate response to your concerns.

Fair point - and the link was appreciated. It does at least give me some leads to work on. There are less than rigorous web sites on every side of an argument and ancient history has its fair share (possibly even an unfair share).

Tricky

12th February 2008, 07:49 AM

BTW

Thought I'd say that before saying sianara!
As long as you post here, you're not really saying "sayonara". All those people can read and reply to everything you say so all you are really doing is losing your ability to counter them. As such, it doesn't seem like a really effective technique.

I mean, what good is shunning someone if they don't care if you shun them and behave exactly the same? Sweet peace? That's one way of saying it. But see if you can fill in the blank: "_________ is bliss". Is that really a good peace?

Belz...

12th February 2008, 08:01 AM

My participation is to try to familiarize people with what the Bible really says

Unfortunately for you, the Bible "really" says things that are very different from what you claim it says.

calebprime

12th February 2008, 08:33 AM

You're quite welcome. I'm glad someone cares. :)

...

posts by Piggy almost always:

1) are clearly written
2) demonstrate a real knowledge of the subject
3) are interesting in themselves
4) contain relatively little squabbling

always a pleasure, Mr. Piggy

All he did was say that there is a difference between what the Nation of Israel practiced after they came into a covenant relationship with God was not what there ancestors, who wrere not under a covenant relation with God practiced. I fail to see what's so levelling about that. Care to tell me?

On second thought, Nahhh! I have a better idea.

notice the proliferation of "not, fail, nahhh"

advice: assert. don't deny or quarrel.

You disagree? That's OK. As expected. Actually, all your objections can be easily refuted. But I trust that those reading with an unbiased eye will see the logic as well as the refusal to reason and conclude based on it despite your vehement protestations to the contrary.

more of the same

You really believe I'm hell bent on convincing you? Apparently you haven't understood clearly my repeated explanations concerning my motive in participation on this forum.
But for your edification let me again repeat myself. My participation isn't motivated by a desire nor a need to debate nor by a messianic sense that I must need convert you nor anyone else. Neither is my participation motivated by a need to prove you wrong and prove myself right. My participation is to try to familiarize people with what the Bible really says in order to minimize misrepresentation and strawmnan arguments which repeatedly crop here.

Truer. I did respond to your statement about the discrepancies which you are unable to resolve to your satisfaction. But my response was provided for those who are seeking a viable explanation. Not viable you say? Well, it's an explanation which is viable for millions who disagree with you-all of which you consider deluded but all of which equally consider you as misguided and intellectually deficient. Not due to any fault of your own, of course. But perhaps due to not deserving to understand due to your general hateful disrespectful approach which broaches no explanation as long as the explanation defends the Bible-or perhaps, and maybe more probably, because of being under certain influences known to cause that condition. In whatever case, there is nothing either here in this forum or in the Bible that obligates me to continue a fruitless exchange nor to expose myself unnecessarily
and continuously to what essentially constitutes drivel. So with all due respect:

Bye

more of the same

HghrSymmetry

12th February 2008, 01:45 PM

If Paul had not won that debate, it is highly unlikely that Xianity would even exist. But the odds were in his favor b/c that doctrine allowed him to recruit among the gentiles.

Indeed. Imagine if Paul pushed for keeping all the original requirements including slicing the foreskin. Infection was no trivial matter in that period (or long after for that matter).

What would have happened if Constantine ordered mass publication of Mithric dogma and modified it to mimic the more successful marketing techniques used by the early xian's?

A relatively obscure Jewish/paganized sect based on an mostly unknown (even by contemporary writers) failed prophet/cult leader, probably wouldn't have attained a large size.
Perhaps it would be the size of the John the Baptist cult that survived further east.

Foster Zygote

12th February 2008, 01:56 PM

The best ones qualified to respond to accusations of deceit or deceptive scholarshp are the accused who are most famliar with their own declarations and system they used to reach the conclusions you mention. Such sites usually provide an email llink for feedback purposes. Perhaps if you question these persons they can provide an adequate response to your concerns.

We questioned Radrook after he was caught in a clear lie in another thread, yet he has never responded.

RobRoy

12th February 2008, 02:59 PM

You're quite welcome. I'm glad someone cares. :)

No worries, and thanks for your answer. THis is certainly a topic that I'm interested in discussing and exploring.

Yahweh was a henotheistic god. The relationship between Yahweh and the Hebrews was a relationship between one god among many and one people among many.

I knew that Judaism had gone from pantheistic to monotheistic, and truly one of the only monotheistic religions in the world, but I didn't know the term henotheistic. Makes sense though, in comparison.

Is there a tradition wherein a culture's god is actually considered less powerful than someone else's?

So what we have, actually, is a sort of recasting, or repurposing of the old tradition to fit new beliefs.

So, then, the nephelim are a recast of something previously, which we can only guess at? Or have they always been sired by the divine, or the divine's messengers?

Today, the notion of gods coming down to earth and impregnating women seems bizarre, but it was par for the course back then.

Oh, agreed. There are all kinds of parallels in almost every tradition: Greek, Roman, Indian, almost every Asian religion, Native America, etc.

I think we, as humans, want to touch something of the divine, and have it made manifest. Instrinsically, we'd like to be part of something greater than ourselves. The myths themselves might originate from trying to explain why a hero was so heroic, so strong, so fast, so brave. Answer: he/she is part god. But I think we keep them because of what they represent. Thoughts?

It is only in retrospect that these divine beings came to be identified as angels. If you could go back in time to that day, you would have to explain what you meant by angels. No one would know what you were talking about.

Because angels have "fallen" if you will, from lesser dieties, to created messengers?

RobRoy

12th February 2008, 03:04 PM

Btw, Rob Roy, if you want a really fascinating and controversial topic, look into the textual and archaeological evidence that child sacrifice was practiced by the ancient Hebrew tribes, and was eventual supplanted by "redemption" of the firstborn son via animal sacrifice.

Human sacrifice seems to be intrinsic to most primitive cultures . . . but why?

(PS - Hate having to slog through all the crap just to get to the real discussion points.)

Piggy

12th February 2008, 05:31 PM

Is there a tradition wherein a culture's god is actually considered less powerful than someone else's?

Not that I know of. But wouldn't it make a hilarious spoof? Or a short story by Jorge Luis Borges -- he could have had a field day with that one!

So, then, the nephelim are a recast of something previously, which we can only guess at? Or have they always been sired by the divine, or the divine's messengers?

There's really no way of knowing how much recasting may have gone on in prehistory.

It may be, for instance (pure speculation here, just an example), that the Nephilim had their roots in pre-iron-age animist mythology. It could have been the case that myths of ancient giants -- such as those often credited with creating natural formations -- merged with myths of superhuman demigods.

We just don't know.

But the notion of Nephilim as the children of "angels", a tradition that's been around in various forms for some time, is clearly a retro-projection because we simply do not find a concept of angels contemporary to the age of those fragments.

These tales likely date from the time when El was worshiped as the supreme ruler of the Heavenly Council, who abided in the firmament surrounded by their hosts of stars (which, as per usual for that time, were conceived of as heavenly beings, not celestial objects).

This concept of El as leader of a council of divine beings in a polytheistic system is evident in other ancient myths, such as the Tower of Babel:

And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech."

God wasn't talking to himself, here, or using the royal "we".

And here we see a theme common to ancient near east religion -- the gods become afraid of the potential power of men, and take measures to weaken them so they can never become as powerful as the gods.

The myths themselves might originate from trying to explain why a hero was so heroic, so strong, so fast, so brave. Answer: he/she is part god. But I think we keep them because of what they represent. Thoughts?

Mythology is like drug addiction. The reason why it starts is not necessarily the same as the reason why it keeps going.

Myths crop up all the time. When they begin, they may not even be seen as myths.

Take Milton's "Paradise Lost", for example. No one at the time it was written and first published believed it to have the status of scripture. But you would be surprised at how many people firmly believe that notions and events from that poem are actually scriptural.

Ditto the "seven deadly sins" and all sorts of other traditions.

Of course, today, we can go back and look these things up. In the iron age, there was no such check.

Myths evolve, too. Just like animals, mythologic traditions produce more offspring than can possibly survive (in memory). People tend to keep only those bits which continue to serve their purposes through the ages, and the meaning they ascribe to those tales changes according to the philosophies of the day.

It is likely, for example, that the Song of Miriam and the Song of Deborah (two of the most ancient texts, maybe THE most ancient texts, contained within the Bible) are mere snippets from what were once epic poems recited and memorized over the ages.

Because angels have "fallen" if you will, from lesser dieties, to created messengers?

Yeah, I think you could say that.

As polytheism fell out of fashion and monotheism came to be the dogma, well, if you're in a scripture-based culture, you can't just chuck the sacred writings out the window, so what do you do with all these other gods?

A: You turn them into something else. They become attendants of God instead. Rather than peers of God, they become creations of God -- just like people, only they reside with God.

Or, they become demons. In the oldest traditions, Satan is not an evil character. He is "the accuser", one of the divine council who argues against mankind. But he is not demonic. He only became to be associated with the figure of the arch demon over time.

And of course Milton gives us the figure of Lucifer, drawing from monastic traditions of the middle ages, as the fallen angel who will not bow down to man.

Piggy

12th February 2008, 05:40 PM

always a pleasure, Mr. Piggy

Right back atcha, ya big lug! ;)

Y'know, for all my verbose posts, y'all just don't know how many threads I'm lurking on and soaking up the amazing bandwidth of knowledge on this board.

Plus, y'all are continually teaching me how to improve my netiquette, to calm down, to be careful about my citations, and so forth.

<sniffs> I love you guys! <sniffs. clears throat. straightens tie.>

Anyway, I'm very glad to be able to post on this subject because there are so few people who care about it at all, while I find it infinitely fascinating.

edge

12th February 2008, 06:10 PM

Yup that all sounds nice but how come stuff keeps poppin up?
Ya got a little something right here......

Piggy

12th February 2008, 06:48 PM

What's that? Looks like an early Pink Floyd album cover.

I can go find some photos and throw them onto the Web, too.

Means nothing.

Foster Zygote

12th February 2008, 07:06 PM

Yup that all sounds nice but how come stuff keeps poppin up?
Ya got a little something right here......

That's a nice photo of someone holding up a fake leg bone (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/whence_the_wisconsin_giant/).

In other words, Joe Taylor heard a tale about giants dug up in the Middle East, and using the dimensions he wanted, scaled up a model human femur to a larger size. He apparently uses this thing in his creation museum (at left) to argue that he has evidence for biblical “Giants in the Earth”!

It’s 47 inches long, and may be a bit larger than the one described in the newspaper account.

The kicker is that Joe Taylor makes casts and sells them.

You can buy your very own giant femur for $450.

I have my suspicions about where Robert Frey got his big bone, and precisely what kind of value it has in the creation/evolution debate.

Piggy

12th February 2008, 07:15 PM

Foster Zygote

12th February 2008, 07:46 PM

Actually, the relief image is relevant to the discussion. However, if anyone thinks that the proportions in ancient art are intended to be indicative of physical proportions in the real world, or that every image in ancient art is intended as a representation of the physical world, then they need to take some courses on ancient religion and art.

One might as well look at stained glass windows in Xian churches and conclude that Jesus wore crowns and sat on clouds, or that Jesus manifested in multiple bodies simultaneously and was crucified and born at the same moment, etc etc etc.

I know that ancient Egyptian art often depicts those of importance with larger images than others. But gee, when we examine the physical remains of pharaohs they don't seem to be any larger than anyone else. The Bayeux Tapestry likewise depicts people in various scales. These weren't so much realistic visual representations as they were narratives for the illiterate.

Radrook

12th February 2008, 10:00 PM

notice the proliferation of "not, fail, nahhh"

advice: assert. don't deny or quarrel.

more of the same

more of the same

I perceive that you don'tlike my choice of words which motivates a posting of the entire posts to demonstrate that you don'tlike them. What a waste of forum space! But that's OK. I understand what your problem is and you have every right to dislike whatever someone says thinks or expresses. However, isn't it a bit silly to post the whole content instead of just highlighting
what you claim to find intolerable?

Consider the benefits:

Saves time, space, doesn't clutter the board with PERSONAL
unsolicited opinions irrelevant to the subject, and doesn't convey the strong impression of zealously attempting to annoy on behalf of your friends described as paragons of proper forum behavior.

Of course this is nothing original. Humans have always subscribed to the "It all depends on whose ox is getting gored!" philosophy. Or better yet, the "My country right or wrong but my country!" claptrap in order to justify their own balogna.

But hey! That's OK by me. As long as I don't
have to have it on my personal computer screen. Sigh! Oh well. Bye!

Ocelot

13th February 2008, 04:37 AM

I know that ancient Egyptian art often depicts those of importance with larger images than others. But gee, when we examine the physical remains of pharaohs they don't seem to be any larger than anyone else. The Bayeux Tapestry likewise depicts people in various scales. These weren't so much realistic visual representations as they were narratives for the illiterate.

OK one last time, These are very small, but the ones out there are Far Away. Small... far away...

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Father_Ted#Hell

:cool:

Nogbad

13th February 2008, 06:09 AM

http://www.nerf-herders-anonymous.net/images/FatherTed_ChirpyBurpyCheapSheep.jpg

Radrook

13th February 2008, 06:19 AM

Foster Zygote

13th February 2008, 07:59 AM

Hey edge. Have you checked out this site?:

Nephilim
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyJ8e7bJHEx8BxCVrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=11q1urg7u/EXP=1202994846/**http%3a//www.bibleprobe.com/nephilim.htm

Good photos and diagrams!

Here is another interesting site

Chariott Wheel Red Sea
http://www.bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm

Let's see, the first website shows no physical evidence at all other than the same fake leg bone I just mentioned.

The second points to human artifacts on the sea bed and assumes that they must be from Pharaoh's army, as though no other humans could ever have sailed with any cargo across the Red Sea and lost their vessel in a storm. That first photo could be a cart wheel and the second could easily be a flywheel from some vessel's machinery. I bet one can find "charriot wheels" in bodies of water all over the world.

Belz...

13th February 2008, 08:01 AM

Why do people make stuff up and then convince themselves that it's true ? I mean, don't they realise that they just made it up ?

Foster Zygote

13th February 2008, 09:19 AM

Why do people make stuff up and then convince themselves that it's true ? I mean, don't they realise that they just made it up ?

But making it up is comforting and easy. Actually investigating the universe is humbling, even a bit frightening at times, and takes actual work. Which would you rather be: A soap bubble on the wind or the fulcrum of the universe?

Belz...

13th February 2008, 10:06 AM

Ewww... WORK ? Why didn't you say so earlier ? That's it. I'm converting!

edge

13th February 2008, 10:22 AM

I bet one can find "charriot wheels" in bodies of water all over the world.

Talk about making crap up...
The bone in the museum is a cast of the original the photo of the guy digging is the real bone that the cast is made from.

Hey edge. Have you checked out this site?:

The first one no, I have, or had a link to the second one but I think it was from National Geographic.

This is a link to a web cam on, lake Michiagan keep watch as charriot wheels are brought up.
http://doorbell.net/doorcam.htm

Belz...

13th February 2008, 10:32 AM

The bone in the museum is a cast of the original the photo of the guy digging is the real bone that the cast is made from.

Assuming that's true, how do we know it's a bone of what ?

Foster Zygote

13th February 2008, 10:50 AM

Talk about making crap up...
Insisting that those ambiguous objects must be chariot wheels from Pharaoh's army is indeed "making crap up".

The bone in the museum is a cast of the original the photo of the guy digging is the real bone that the cast is made from.
Try actually reading the link I provided. In it you will find the following statement by Joe Taylor:
Mr. Jack Wagner sent me the following article in 1996 and asked me to sculpt a human femur the size of the one found in Turkey. As a guide for this model, I used the femur of one of the Malachite Man females.
The "original" is not accounted for, we only have Joe Taylor's imaginary model.

RobRoy

13th February 2008, 11:19 AM

Not that I know of. But wouldn't it make a hilarious spoof? Or a short story by Jorge Luis Borges -- he could have had a field day with that one!

I wonder how the culture would evolve along those lines. We know our god is power, but not as power as your god, yet we still follow him/her.

I suppose from a pantheon of gods, individual worshipers picked they're favorites for the attributes they found most appealing, even though there might be others gods with greater perceived power.

But the notion of Nephilim as the children of "angels", a tradition that's been around in various forms for some time, is clearly a retro-projection because we simply do not find a concept of angels contemporary to the age of those fragments.

On the other hand (though I don't agree with this) it could be that at this time divine beings actually showed up, slept with and impregnated a bunch of women and had super-babies as a result.

But, of course, the divergence isn't great enough to reflect this kind of sudden change, and there are more logical, more organic progressions that have followed similar routes.

Question: Is there any kind of break in the Bible that would suggest a divine intervention and sudden shift in culture because of it?

God wasn't talking to himself, here, or using the royal "we".

I've heard this before, and tend to agree, but wonder how the conclusion is that God wasn't using the royal address?

Interestingly, the LDS deal with this quite nicely by actually having a council of gods, with their Heavenly Father as the primary, but a host of others He apparently raised to god-hood and follow His commands. What an interesting circle Joseph Smith created. He too from a Jewish traidition that had gone from polytheism to monotheism, and brought it all the way back to polytheism!

And here we see a theme common to ancient near east religion -- the gods become afraid of the potential power of men, and take measures to weaken them so they can never become as powerful as the gods.

Why do you think this theme emerged? Is it a social/cultural construct to reflect that men are somehow in control, or capable of challenging the gods?

Take Milton's "Paradise Lost", for example. No one at the time it was written and first published believed it to have the status of scripture. But you would be surprised at how many people firmly believe that notions and events from that poem are actually scriptural.

Such as Lucifer taking a "third of heaven" with him during the rebellion and Fall.

Or, they become demons. In the oldest traditions, Satan is not an evil character. He is "the accuser", one of the divine council who argues against mankind. But he is not demonic. He only became to be associated with the figure of the arch demon over time.

This has always been of great interest to me, since the Fall was never actually discussed in the Bible, and at various times Satan/Lucifer shows up in a capacity that is not at all what we've come to think of him. I've read a theory (can't recall where now) that stated Lucifer and his angels may have rebelled and been cast out, but they still perform duties as a part of God's plan. By that, the theory stated, that if God had truly wanted, He being omnipotent, then he could have just winked his creations out of existence. Instead, they were cast out, and now run around tempting humanity and then punishing them when they fall for temptation.

Foster Zygote

13th February 2008, 11:22 AM

Edge, if you want anyone to even entertain the idea that the attached photo is evidence of your claims then please provide the following information:

Who is the man in the photo?

When was this photo taken?

Where was this photo taken?

Where is the specimen now?

Radrook

13th February 2008, 11:30 AM

Talk about making crap up...
The bone in the museum is a cast of the original the photo of the guy digging is the real bone that the cast is made from.

The first one no, I have, or had a link to the second one but I think it was from National Geographic.

This is a link to a web cam on, lake Michiagan keep watch as charriot wheels are brought up.
http://doorbell.net/doorcam.htm

I suspected that was the case. But the one with the rest of the skeleton drawn in gives a better idea of the size differences. That fella was huge! How do evolutionists react to that femur find? About the chariots, anything dealing with video my computor can't handle, It's a vintage 1995 one is has been on its last legs for the past seven or more years. I keep it going by tweaking here and there but sooner or later it'' go belly up.

BTW
Your making crap up comment seems to refer to the chariot wheels. Confused me for a bit there. Or is that what you were referring to?

LOL

Foster Zygote

13th February 2008, 12:48 PM

How do evolutionists react to that femur find?

This must be quite a mystery to someone who ignores said reactions.

Nogbad

13th February 2008, 01:08 PM

It is remarkable how popular Wyatt's claim's are and the number of times they are repeated on web sites. However, it should be noted that his ability to find every major archaeological item in the Bible has raised more than an eyebrow or two (and a chuckle) in academic circles. However, where he has caused most alarm is in the Christian community where his foundation has received considerable financial and moral support.

This is a fairly lengthy debunking in of all places AnswersinGenesis. There is little I would agree with in AiG but I can understand their concern over Wyatt. In effect Wyatt is to Christian archaeology what Von Daniken is to mainstream archaeology.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp

edge

13th February 2008, 01:26 PM

BTW
Your making crap up comment seems to refer to the chariot wheels. Confused me for a bit there. Or is that what you were referring to?

Foster Zygote above made the statement that we could find chariot wheels in any body of water.
So I pointed to a lake Michigan web cam I'm sure they will pull up a wheel sooner or later probably much later! Sarcasm/ real world

I am 99.9 percent sure I picked up a chariot wheel," Peter Elmer tells WorldNetDaily after two diving trips to the Gulf of Aqaba branch of the sea. "It was covered in coral."

I’m sure this is the link where I first read about the discovery.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168

What are there about 10 or 20 of us at any given time in here that are Christian believers?

The only difference I see between us from my viewpoint is, I believe there is more that has been shown to us today than in the past.
In the past he actually appeared and spoke directly to man.
That was good for a couple of hundred years.

If the kingdom is within us, it is in the mind that he shows himself.
Signs of the spirit and from the spirit for the spirit.
By showing us in different ways that death is only a new beginning.
Those proofs are out there.
Archeology also, conformation of hidden facts that are discovered, as we look for those hidden facts that appear all of a sudden.
As they were de-bunked in the past by skeptics, these cities and sites just seem to slap them in their faces.

edge

13th February 2008, 01:32 PM

Who is the man in the photo?

When was this photo taken?

Where was this photo taken?

Where is the specimen now?

All that was on a link I posted a while back.
After I posted I found some new things.
I'll see what I can recollect and back track.

Nogbad

13th February 2008, 01:59 PM

Foster Zygote above made the statement that we could find chariot wheels in any body of water.
So I pointed to a lake Michigan web cam I'm sure they will pull up a wheel sooner or later probably much later! Sarcasm/ real world

The thing is there are no chariot wheels to be seen, there are merely some photos and unsubstantiated claims from someone who has a considerable question mark hanging over his other claims. There are no markers to show relative size - we we could be looking at recent mechanical parts in 20 feet of water for all the pictures reveal. If the remains of an entire army are on the sea bed then let it be excavated properly. Ordinarily Egyptian chariot spokes and rims would be lightweight and made of wood with perhaps some decorative gilding. For them to survive 3,500 years in the sea would be quite something.

I am not saying there are no Egyptian chariots down there - if there is going to be Egyptian chariots in the sea then off the coast of Egypt would be a good place to look.

Foster Zygote

13th February 2008, 02:45 PM

Foster Zygote above made the statement that we could find chariot wheels in any body of water.
So I pointed to a lake Michigan web cam I'm sure they will pull up a wheel sooner or later probably much later! Sarcasm/ real world
No Edge, I said

I bet one can find "charriot wheels" in bodies of water all over the world.
Note please the quotation marks. The source you've cited has assumed that those are photographs of Egyptian chariot wheels. Where is the evidence that they are specifically Egyptian chariot wheels and not simply lost cargo and machine parts from shipwrecks?

Piggy

13th February 2008, 05:13 PM

The second points to human artifacts on the sea bed and assumes that they must be from Pharaoh's army, as though no other humans could ever have sailed with any cargo across the Red Sea and lost their vessel in a storm.

Hey, Foster, how would you like to get into a discussion of the Exodus?

It's just as interesting as the Nephilim, angels, and child sacrifice.

First of all, we now know that "Red Sea" is an early mistranslation. The original scrolls say "Reed Sea". (It's only a coincidence that the words are also similar in English.) So any "evidence" in the Red Sea is irelevant.

There is also reason to believe, based on textual and archaeological evidence taken together, that the "Jews in Egypt" story is itself likely a back-projection onto an epic which actually refers to the defeat of Egyptian armies by proto-Hebrew forces during the time when the Egyptians occupied Canaan.

Again, the actual scholarship is so much more interesting and enlightening than the tall tales.

Piggy

13th February 2008, 05:36 PM

Question: Is there any kind of break in the Bible that would suggest a divine intervention and sudden shift in culture because of it?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question. Can you clarify?

I've heard this before, and tend to agree, but wonder how the conclusion is that God wasn't using the royal address?

Good question. Essentially, the process involves examining texts which we can date to various eras -- not just Biblical texts, but all relevant texts of the ancient near east -- as well as archaeological evidence such as inscriptions, artistic representations of the gods, remains of ritual sites, etc.

What we find when we do this is a progression of religious ideas, language, tropes, themes, motifs, iconography, etc. from epoch to epoch, and the divergence, conflict, merging, and re-divergence of religious thought among the various cultures as they interact in various ways, move around the region, and come into contact with other cultures encroaching in the territory.

As I've mentioned before, this is incredibly painstaking and often thankless work, and the results can be maddeningly incomplete.

Yet it is possible to reach some conclusions, and to reject certain theories which are simply not compatible with what we do know.

Of course, if you simply ignore all that, you're free to come up with any theory that suits your purpose.

But judging from the available evidence, the idea that El was employing a "royal we" just doesn't hold water. It would be startling indeed if, at this time, the story of the Tower were NOT set in the mythological context of the Heavenly Council. That reading would indicate a radically divergent idea within early Hebrew thought, without parallel in that time and place, and restricted to this fragment, cropping up and then lying dormant to be resurrected ages later.

In a word, it's implausible.

Why do you think this theme emerged? Is it a social/cultural construct to reflect that men are somehow in control, or capable of challenging the gods?

I really have no idea. I think anything I came up with, even if based on commentary from mythologists, would only amount to a "just so story". When it comes to asking "Why?" in cases like these, given the fact that there are no fossilized minds to examine for contemporary opinions, I don't see any way of reaching an answer which is not speculative.

This has always been of great interest to me, since the Fall was never actually discussed in the Bible, and at various times Satan/Lucifer shows up in a capacity that is not at all what we've come to think of him. I've read a theory (can't recall where now) that stated Lucifer and his angels may have rebelled and been cast out, but they still perform duties as a part of God's plan. By that, the theory stated, that if God had truly wanted, He being omnipotent, then he could have just winked his creations out of existence. Instead, they were cast out, and now run around tempting humanity and then punishing them when they fall for temptation.

The figure of Satan, Devil, Lucifer, serpent is best described as a modern invention.

These various figures have been blended in modern thought, as though they referred to the same being. But they don't.

The serpent was not the Devil, the Satan figure evolved over the ages, the Biblical Lucifer is not Milton's Lucifer.

Picking all this apart is very difficult, and eye-opening, for contemporary Xians who have been taught that it's all one and the same.

Foster Zygote

13th February 2008, 08:08 PM

Hey, Foster, how would you like to get into a discussion of the Exodus?

It's just as interesting as the Nephilim, angels, and child sacrifice.

First of all, we now know that "Red Sea" is an early mistranslation. The original scrolls say "Reed Sea". (It's only a coincidence that the words are also similar in English.) So any "evidence" in the Red Sea is irelevant.

There is also reason to believe, based on textual and archaeological evidence taken together, that the "Jews in Egypt" story is itself likely a back-projection onto an epic which actually refers to the defeat of Egyptian armies by proto-Hebrew forces during the time when the Egyptians occupied Canaan.

Again, the actual scholarship is so much more interesting and enlightening than the tall tales.

Yes, I'd love to. I've heard a few interesting things that you may be able to shed more light on.

I'd already heard about the Reed Sea mistranslation. But I've also heard, and I may not be remembering it accurately, that the Habiru (Sp.?) were a tribe of warriors that were employed by the Egyptians to help guard critical territories. Moses may have been the Egyptian commander of this mercenary group, possibly even a member of the royal family. The whole "baby in a basket" narrative may have been a later addition to explain to this (certainly not uniquely) xenophobic tribe why this revered leader from their past had an Egyptian name, but was really one of them all along.

Foster Zygote

13th February 2008, 08:14 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question. Can you clarify?

Good question. Essentially, the process involves examining texts which we can date to various eras -- not just Biblical texts, but all relevant texts of the ancient near east -- as well as archaeological evidence such as inscriptions, artistic representations of the gods, remains of ritual sites, etc.

What we find when we do this is a progression of religious ideas, language, tropes, themes, motifs, iconography, etc. from epoch to epoch, and the divergence, conflict, merging, and re-divergence of religious thought among the various cultures as they interact in various ways, move around the region, and come into contact with other cultures encroaching in the territory.

As I've mentioned before, this is incredibly painstaking and often thankless work, and the results can be maddeningly incomplete.

Yet it is possible to reach some conclusions, and to reject certain theories which are simply not compatible with what we do know.

Of course, if you simply ignore all that, you're free to come up with any theory that suits your purpose.

But judging from the available evidence, the idea that El was employing a "royal we" just doesn't hold water. It would be startling indeed if, at this time, the story of the Tower were NOT set in the mythological context of the Heavenly Council. That reading would indicate a radically divergent idea within early Hebrew thought, without parallel in that time and place, and restricted to this fragment, cropping up and then lying dormant to be resurrected ages later.

In a word, it's implausible.

I really have no idea. I think anything I came up with, even if based on commentary from mythologists, would only amount to a "just so story". When it comes to asking "Why?" in cases like these, given the fact that there are no fossilized minds to examine for contemporary opinions, I don't see any way of reaching an answer which is not speculative.

The figure of Satan, Devil, Lucifer, serpent is best described as a modern invention.

These various figures have been blended in modern thought, as though they referred to the same being. But they don't.

The serpent was not the Devil, the Satan figure evolved over the ages, the Biblical Lucifer is not Milton's Lucifer.

Picking all this apart is very difficult, and eye-opening, for contemporary Xians who have been taught that it's all one and the same.

I'm just finishing god Is Not Great, then next I'm planning to read Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan by Herbert Bix and Collapse by Jared Diamond. But there's an opening in the queue after that. Do you have any good reading recommendations?

HghrSymmetry

13th February 2008, 08:20 PM

Picking all this apart is very difficult, and eye-opening, for contemporary Xians who have been taught that it's all one and the same.

The Zoroastrian religion seems to have had an influence as well.

Angra Mainyu may have been an archetype influencing later traditions.

Piggy

13th February 2008, 08:33 PM

I've also heard, and I may not be remembering it accurately, that the Habiru (Sp.?) were a tribe of warriors that were employed by the Egyptians to help guard critical territories. Moses may have been the Egyptian commander of this mercenary group, possibly even a member of the royal family. The whole "baby in a basket" narrative may have been a later addition to explain to this (certainly not uniquely) xenophobic tribe why this revered leader from their past had an Egyptian name, but was really one of them all along.

I think you're refering to the Apiru, but spelling variations in English aren't so important when it comes to that.

As far as I know, not enough is known -- or likely ever to be known -- about the Apiru to support any scenario in as much detail as you describe.

I don't believe there is even any consensus about whether the Apiru are indeed proto-Hebrews.

You might want to check out some of Theodore (Ted) Lewis's books and articles.

The legends of Moses' early life have parallels elsewhere in the ancient near east, but I'd have to do some scrounging to find them.

I can fill in more details about the possibility of a Hebrew-Egyptian conflict in Canaan and internal re-appropriation of the ancient epics by later Hebrews, but that will have to wait til tomorrow or later in the week, since it's getting to near my bedtime.

Cheers.

Piggy

13th February 2008, 08:38 PM

The Zoroastrian religion seems to have had an influence as well.

The Zoroastrian influence on Judeo-Christian thought is very strong. When you get into sects like the Essenes, with their ubiquitous imagery of dark and light, it's all over the place.

I think it's safe to say that the Zoroastrian influence changed Judeo-Christian morals and theology profoundly and permanently.

The modern Xian idea of the entire world as a stage for the struggle between universal forces of good and evil, dark and light, cannot be separated from these influences.

Piggy

13th February 2008, 08:46 PM

I'm just finishing god Is Not Great, then next I'm planning to read Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan by Herbert Bix and Collapse by Jared Diamond. But there's an opening in the queue after that. Do you have any good reading recommendations?

You might want to try "Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion" or "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts".

HghrSymmetry

14th February 2008, 01:46 AM

On that note, this work may also be of interest:

http://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202978504&sr=1-4

Piggy

14th February 2008, 06:18 AM

On that note, this work may also be of interest:

http://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202978504&sr=1-4

And if you browse around at other works by the authors that HghrSymmetry and I have recommended, as well as some of Amazon's "also bought" lists on those pages, you'll find a lot of good stuff.

Have fun!

Caveat: Some of this material is quite academic, so it's not as quick and easy a read as, say, "God Is Not Great" or "The God Delusion".

HghrSymmetry

14th February 2008, 11:08 AM

Caveat: Some of this material is quite academic, so it's not as quick and easy a read as, say, "God Is Not Great" or "The God Delusion".

Good point. Some of this work is quite detailed from a scholarly viewpoint and not in the same category as popular "best-seller" titles.

RobRoy

14th February 2008, 11:30 AM

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question. Can you clarify?

What I meant is that there is clearly an organic growth to the stories in the Bible. There's a past cultural and historical tradition that can be traced (painstakingly, as you mentioned, but traced) and we can see that the stories originate from other myths, which can go back to any number of other myths.

What I was asking was are there any disparities, where there's a sudden break in this consistency of myth-building, which might suggest something other than just an oral or written tradition that has been reworked several times?

Not necessarily proof of divine intervention, per se, but something that was so clearly non-linear with the surrounding development of myth, that it might beg the question.

Foster Zygote

14th February 2008, 01:01 PM

And if you browse around at other works by the authors that HghrSymmetry and I have recommended, as well as some of Amazon's "also bought" lists on those pages, you'll find a lot of good stuff.

Have fun!

Caveat: Some of this material is quite academic, so it's not as quick and easy a read as, say, "God Is Not Great" or "The God Delusion".

My main concern would be that the more academic texts would assume basic knowledge that I have not learned. After all, one wouldn't expect an advanced textbook to constantly re-hash fundamental concepts. What I need is something to introduce me to the fundamentals of the subject.

And another question: Does the act of circumcision have its origin in the same sort of blood sacrifice traditions that have been discussed?

edge

14th February 2008, 02:10 PM

edge

14th February 2008, 02:41 PM

Note please the quotation marks. The source you've cited has assumed that those are photographs of Egyptian chariot wheels. Where is the evidence that they are specifically Egyptian chariot wheels and not simply lost cargo and machine parts from shipwrecks?

To get back on the subject, at least somewhat.

Now lets assume that evolution has occurred.
You say chimp has lead up to man so to say.
What about bigfoot?
State Incidence 2005

Washington 347
California 303
Ohio 171
Oregon 171
Texas 140
Colorado 72
Florida 72
Pennsylvania 67
New York 63
Michigan 55
Arkansas 49
Oklahoma 45
Missouri 43
Indiana 42
Kentucky 40
Iowa 36
Tennessee 35
Illinois 34
Idaho 33
Louisiana 31
Alabama 30
Wisconsin 30
Utah 29
North Carolina 28
West Virginia 24
Maryland 23
Minnesota 23
Georgia 22
Kansas 21
South Carolina 21
Wyoming 21
New Jersey 19
Arizona 17
Montana 17
New Mexico 17
Virginia 16
Maine 13
Mississippi 12
South Dakota 11
New Hampshire 9
Massachusetts 8
Nebraska 7
Nevada 6
Vermont 4
Connecticut 3
North Dakota 3
Delaware 2
Rhode Island 2

Giantopithecus could be the precursor to the giants of the past and it is no more out of range than monkey to man.
We do have indications of that as with the celocampth.
It doesn't matter the legend goes back before the hoaxer.
Plus the fossilized skeletons, of large primates, which are the real Bigfoot, Giatopithecus.
It was a good visual.

Well the Indians had talked about Bigfoot I am sure before hoaxers ever thought about hoaxing the legendary creature.
Their legends may have started at the end of the last Ice age, when it is thought that they migrated here from Asia.

New species of animals are found even today on land and under the seas.

The point is maybe Neanderthal didn’t go extinct maybe that’s what we are seeing only further down the evolutionary ladder or up.

Or survivors of the Giatopithecus further down. One of those links shows humans with recessive genes that cause six toes and double rows of teeth, which the other link suggests is a trait that’s been passed down possibly from interbreeding with the Nephilim and giants described in the old Testaments as they described them with these traits.
Pictures of these traits are on this site.
http://www.burlingtonnews.net/giants.html

I am or was Velocityc

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Giatopithecus&btnG=Google+Search
Go to that link I can’t believe what I wrote is on a search engine?

edge

14th February 2008, 03:10 PM

Maybe so but even the Native American Indians had legends of a race of Giants with double rows of teeth.
This also occurs in modern humans to an extent.
Lets not forget Big foot which maybe a relative of Gigantopithecus, meaning "gigantic ape," and the species blacki, in honor of his late friend and colleague Davidson Black. ?

On a second visit, in 1957, Pei's team discovered the first Gigantopithecus jawbone in place, in a very hard deposit resembling red clay. Another was excavated in 1958. One of the jawbones was extraordinarily large; presumably, it belonged to an adult male, while the other two were thought to be from an adult female and a juvenile.

Munns calculated that the average Gigantopithecus male was more than ten feet tall and weighed as much as 1,200 pounds - comparable to a large male polar bear.
Simply because it has not been found, or only a fossil of it has been found, does not negate the possibility of its existence. Remember the coelacanth.
http://www.meta-religion.com/Paranormale/Anomalies/asian_fossils_reveal_humanity.htm

In their evil report of the land of Canaan, the ten spies say, "All the people we saw in it were men of great stature. And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, descended from the Nephilim: and we seemed to ourselves as grasshoppers, and so did we to them" (Numbers 13:32-33).
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm

I played some of these for my guard dog to see if they have any substance, http://www.google.com/search?q=bigfoot+sounds&revid=2110141575&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=1&ct=broad-revision&cd=5
I have a guard dog, he absolutely freaked out.

Then you have Cro-Magnons, whose brain size was bigger by about, if I recall correctly 200 cm. or so, and also more robust than us.
So who was smarter and were these really the first of our descendents?

The Bible says in so many words that we were superior till we fell into sin so yes evolution maybe correct to an extent and even in the fact that we may have taken a step backwards to what we are now, less in gods eyes than the original creation.

We are still evolving to achieve greater brain capacity so are we catching back up to what we were before sin?
Cro-Magnons may be proof of that.

Some of the records indicate that the Hebrew was living side by side with the Neanderthals.
Something to think about.

About Lucy,
Note to reader: The 1973 knee joint is often referred to in the context of the Lucy skeleton. This knee joint, however, was found over a mile away and in strata 200 feet lower than the Lucy skeleton (1974) ---a point not always made clear by those who discuss the evidence for bipedality in Australopithecus afarensis in general, or Lucy in particular. Johanson has never claimed that the 1973 knee joint belongs to the individual skeleton known as Lucy, but _is_ convinced that the knee joint belongs to the same species as Lucy [Australopithecus afarensis] because of "anatomical similarity".

Taken from here,
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/apeimage.htm

§ Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.
There is no fossil proof that man is the product of evolution. Could it be that the missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/links.html

Just for fun,
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Gigantopithecus+&btnG=Search

Note how the casts of bigfoot and of the giants are simalar.
I just can't believe your cut and dry explanations are true when the evidence points at something we have no control over, what was written by early man and what is seen today in this world, don't fool yourself it is a spiritual world and all people are not delusional and you are not the only sain people that are on this planet. have a nice day :)

Oh ya the picture at the bottom imagine them less hairy since it is an artist rendition.

Nogbad

14th February 2008, 04:33 PM

Why in the world would a ship even be in this area?
It would be like running into a reef on purpose.
Lets play the wheel hub picture looks a lot older than you train wheels.

Why would Egyptian ships ply the Red Sea? :boggled:

The Egyptians traded with ancient cities in Oman and Yemen for frankincense and trade also came up the coast from Ethiopia.

It was an important highway in the ancient world. The Greeks used it, the Persians used it, the Romans used it and it was a the main highway for medieval trade between India and Europe.

The object in the picture has a lot of coral on it and is hard to make out. There was a picture earlier of a four spoke wheel which looked like cast metal rather than wooden spokes.

Foster Zygote

14th February 2008, 05:15 PM

Why in the world would a ship even be in this area?
I'm sorry, are saying that the "chariot wheel" in the photo is located in the area of the yellow circle, in Saudi Arabia?

It would be like running into a reef on purpose.
And we know that ships never run into reefs unless the crew does it on purpose.

Lets play the wheel hub picture looks a lot older than you train wheels.
And? Ships have been sailing the Red Sea for thousands of years. There is nothing to indicate the age of the wheel in your photo so there is no way for you to even claim that it dates from the time of the Exodus story. The other photo of a "chariot wheel" that you provided looks remarkably new.

Piggy

14th February 2008, 05:25 PM

What I meant is that there is clearly an organic growth to the stories in the Bible. There's a past cultural and historical tradition that can be traced (painstakingly, as you mentioned, but traced) and we can see that the stories originate from other myths, which can go back to any number of other myths.

What I was asking was are there any disparities, where there's a sudden break in this consistency of myth-building, which might suggest something other than just an oral or written tradition that has been reworked several times?

Not necessarily proof of divine intervention, per se, but something that was so clearly non-linear with the surrounding development of myth, that it might beg the question.

I think I'm getting your drift....

Are you speaking of the sudden appearance of a new theology, in its entirety, unrelated to neighboring traditions, which might be best explained by divine revelation?

If so, the answer is no, not to my knowledge.

The closest thing I can think of to the wholesale introduction of a new tradition (and as you'll see, it's not even that, but more of a recasting of previous tradition to fit a new politic) is the book of Deuteronomy.

Broadly speaking, the idea behind the book of Deuteronomy is that the people of Israel came to forget their covenant with the Lord and had to be reminded by Moses of their vows, and in doing so, Moses goes into much greater detail than was recorded in Exodus, but that the scrolls recording Moses' speech became lost.

The new bits appearing in this book could be viewed as the rediscovery of a lost revelation. But the circumstances of the "discovery" of the book point to a more mundane explanation.

Supposedly, the high priest discovers this ancient scroll in the temple during a renovation effort and takes it to King Josiah. Textually, however, the scroll does not appear to be relatively ancient, but rather a product of its time (7th c. BCE), just as textual analysis of the Book of Mormon reveals it to be a 19th century document in (what its author perceived to be) the style of ancient texts. Good enough to pass in its day, but not good enough to hold up under close examination.

(The history of the book, and related writings, is actually more complex than that, but this thumbnail sketch suffices for our purposes here.)

Lo and behold, the variations introduced in Deut. -- which is primarily concerned with covenant law -- align quite neatly with the political/religious reforms (there was no real difference then) being implemented by Josiah at the time.

The Deuteronomic writings -- both the laws and the histories -- are solidly henotheistic, standing between the earlier polytheistic traditions and the monotheistic traditions which would emerge a century later. And they are clearly Yahwistic, essentially erasing references to El worship.

The Deut. tradition is also highly centralized. The "high places" (remnants of the old El traditions) are abominations; there is only one acceptable site of worship (forget all that old stuff about building altars and having God come to you). And the Levitical priests are clearly preferred over the Aaronites.

Yet what we're seeing here is best viewed as the officalization of a tradition which had been ascendant for some time, and an attempt to more or less outlaw the competing tradition.

Piggy

14th February 2008, 05:35 PM

My main concern would be that the more academic texts would assume basic knowledge that I have not learned. After all, one wouldn't expect an advanced textbook to constantly re-hash fundamental concepts. What I need is something to introduce me to the fundamentals of the subject.

I see your point.

I don't know of any non-academic books on these topics, I'm afraid. I'm not sure there's enough of a market for any publisher to try to put one out, actually.

You may want to start, then, with 101-level textbooks like Anderson's "Understanding the Old Testament".

Maybe Nogbad and HghrSymmetry have some suggestions?

And another question: Does the act of circumcision have its origin in the same sort of blood sacrifice traditions that have been discussed?

I don't know of any link, no. The progression seems to be from sacrifice to redemption. I know of no text or archaeological evidence to support a progression from sacrifice to ritual circumcision.

HghrSymmetry

15th February 2008, 01:32 AM

Hmm, NT sources are rather abundant, but as P stated, the ancient pre-Hebrew topic isn't covered as extensively.

I'll dig around and see if anything pops up.

Nogbad

15th February 2008, 02:51 AM

I can't think of any introductory books off the top of my head. There are lots of stuff on Egyptian culture, Babylonian culture etc. but rather less on Hebrew culture. Probably the best bet is to see if any of the modern Israeli work has been translated into English. Some of that is very good and has pulled no punches in critically reassessing the authorship and history of Biblical texts and their cultural backdrop.

Unfortunately I am not familar with who is who amongst modern Israeli scholars and who is considered sound and who is a Von Danikin (an ever present danger in introductory works) but a bit of careful googling should at least throw up the the tell tell warning signs :)

Belz...

15th February 2008, 05:28 AM

Oh ya the picture at the bottom imagine them less hairy since it is an artist rendition.

Woah! Artist renditions. I'm sold !

Ocelot

15th February 2008, 06:21 AM

Then you have Cro-Magnons, whose brain size was bigger by about, if I recall correctly 200 cm. or so, and also more robust than us.
So who was smarter and were these really the first of our descendents?

The parts of five skeletons found in Cro Magnon (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html) in 1868 were dated to an estimated 30,000 years ago. Although originally given their own taxonomy they are now considered to be modern humans (http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.htm)in every respect: Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Pop into the Tardis, kidnap a Cro Magnon baby, you could bring it up in the 21st century and no body would notice any difference.

One of the skeletons included a complete skull which has a brain capacity of 1600 cc. This is 200 cc greater than the average human brain capacity of 1400 cc. However looking around you I'm sure that you can confirm that there is a great deal of variation in human head size. For the most part this correlates with body size. This particular family of Cro Magnon humans were bigger than today's average but not outside the expected range.

Ocelot

15th February 2008, 06:24 AM

§ Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.

Nope missed each other by 100,000 years (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html). Same strata? Evidence please?

Ocelot

15th February 2008, 06:27 AM

Some of the records indicate that the Hebrew was living side by side with the Neanderthals.

It seems Neanderthals died out 30,000 years ago. Even earlier in the middle east. What are these records of which you speak?

Ocelot

15th February 2008, 06:30 AM

There is no fossil proof that man is the product of evolution. Could it be that the missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist.

There are plenty of fossils showing various stages of hominid development. What are you expecting here, every single one of your ancestors to bury themselves in a peat bog?

There's an abundence of evidence for evolution and mans invovlement in it. Not least of which is the fossil record.

Foster Zygote

15th February 2008, 06:36 AM

Nope missed each other by 100,000 years (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html). Same strata? Evidence please?

I'm afraid that what you've seen in this thread is typical of the quality of "evidence" that Edge finds convincing.

Nogbad

15th February 2008, 07:11 AM

There are plenty of fossils showing various stages of hominid development. What are you expecting here, every single one of your ancestors to bury themselves in a peat bog?

There's an abundence of evidence for evolution and mans invovlement in it. Not least of which is the fossil record.

The call for missing links is entirely spurious anyway. If you have a fossil at 1m years ago and one a 500k years ago and an intermediate is found the goal posts are simply moved to "it isn't a true intermediate what came between that and the other two". In effect one would have to discover 90%+ of every developmental stage no matter how small to plug the gaps satisfactorily in order to convince those who hold to species immutability. That said, as every year passes more and more remains come to light. At one time the complaint used to be that there was only a box full of bones, now there is a pick-up truck full and before long there will be a container lorry full.

Piggy

15th February 2008, 09:22 AM

HghrSymmetry

15th February 2008, 11:22 AM

In effect one would have to discover 90%+ of every developmental stage no matter how small to plug the gaps satisfactorily in order to convince those who hold to species immutability.

Unfortunately, even then, there would surely be 'believers' that would simply come up with new "explanations" to discount the fossil record.

When all else fails, often times the "devil did it" will be drug out yet again.

Granted, much of that would probably come from the fundamentalists, but even some "moderates" may resort to that routine.

Radrook

15th February 2008, 11:39 AM

.....

Note how the casts of bigfoot and of the giants are simalar.
I just can't believe your cut and dry explanations are true when the evidence points at something we have no control over, what was written by early man and what is seen today in this world, don't fool yourself it is a spiritual world and all people are not delusional and you are not the only sain people that are on this planet. have a nice day :)

Oh ya the picture at the bottom imagine them less hairy since it is an artist rendition.

Is that footprint that the guiy has placed his foot in the one they said was found on a river bed next to dinosaur tracks? Do you know what was the estimated weight and size based on that footprint? Very interesting info!

Foster Zygote

15th February 2008, 11:52 AM

Is that footprint that the guiy has placed his foot in the one they said was found on a river bed next to dinosaur tracks? Do you know what was the estimated weight and size based on that footprint? Very interesting info!

It seems that giants only had four toes. It looks as though it might be an erosion pattern that resembles a foot, considering how eroded the rest of the rock appears, or it could be a simple carving. Maybe if we knew where this alleged footprint is located...

Nogbad

15th February 2008, 11:59 AM

It seems that giants only had four toes. It looks as though it might be an erosion pattern that resembles a foot, considering how eroded the rest of the rock appears, or it could be a simple carving. Maybe if we knew where this alleged footprint is located...

Homergiganticus? :eek:

Actually it is not hard to believe in parallel universes because we seem to occupy them here on Earth. I am sure Edge and Radrook find our scepticism just as baffling as we find their belief.

Radrook

15th February 2008, 12:27 PM

Homergiganticus? :eek:

Actually it is not hard to believe in parallel universes because we seem to occupy them here on Earth. I am sure Edge and Radrook find our scepticism just as baffling as we find their belief.

Actually, what really baffles me isn't your skeptism. It is the refusal to be skeptical when skeptism is demanded in reference to what can be or cannot be possible that baffles me.

BTW

The concept of parallel universes and other dimensions was proposed by physicists. I am neutral in reference to that concept. I neither discount the possibility nor affirm it. However, I do accept 100 percent the scientific statement that there is a horizon beyond which we cannot see and that we cannot say for certainty what lies beyond it. It's the certainty statements concerning these unreachable regions that constitutes fallacious reasoning. A certainty that we know that what cannot be there without seeing or being able to detect what is there. That constitutes conclusion reached via non-representative or scanty evidence. A type of fallacious reasoning avoided in all other matters except when it comes to this subject. Then it becomes a paragon of cogent reasoning. Which in itself constitutes fallacious reasoning vie inconsistency.

If indeed this example is the one taken from the river bed, it wasn't a solitary footprint that was found. It was a walking pattern of footprits. Of course they were imediatelyt tagged as a hoax by atheists, Unforutnately the hoaxters would have needed to
walk under water, and even under river bed and somehow
carved their hoax on slolid rock since further invesigartion the prinnts were found to cointinue under slabs of solid rock.

Since the discovery was an embarassment it was
conveniently shelved where it would not disturb the popular views.

That is what I recall reading about the footprints. At the moment I cannot provide links. But later tonight I will try.

edge

15th February 2008, 12:42 PM

Creekfreak

15th February 2008, 12:59 PM

edge

15th February 2008, 12:59 PM

Is that footprint that the guy has placed his foot in the one they said was found on a river bed next to dinosaur tracks? Do you know what was the estimated weight and size based on that footprint? Very interesting info!
I'm not sure but it looks to me to be in bedrock that also makes it old.
The cast is one of many, one set shows a deformity in the foot.

edge

15th February 2008, 01:07 PM

Ive got teeth that grew on top of other teeth that can only be seen with an x ray so haveing another set of teeth is possible the proof is in my mouth .
Keep up the good work edge your on the right path with what you beleave no matter what some closed minds think .

I have seen that in other people in different formations, mostly side by side.
I have been reading some of Enoch.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/enoch.html

Belz...

15th February 2008, 01:09 PM

Ive got teeth that grew on top of other teeth that can only be seen with an x ray so haveing another set of teeth is possible the proof is in my mouth .
Keep up the good work edge your on the right path with what you beleave no matter what some closed minds think .

Living in your own, make-believe universe is comforting, Creek. I prefer the cold reality.

Creekfreak

15th February 2008, 01:15 PM

The cold reality is I have more teeth then normal .

Nogbad

15th February 2008, 01:20 PM

Actually, what really baffles me isn't your skeptism. It is the refusal to be skeptical when skeptism is demanded in reference to what can be or cannot be possible that baffles me.

BTW

The concept of parallel universes and other dimensions was proposed by physicists. I am neutral in reference to that concept. I neither discount the possibility nor affirm it. However, I do accept 100 percent the scientific statement that there is a horizon beyond which we cannot see and that we cannot say for certainty what lies beyond it. It's the certainty statements concerning these unreachable regions that constitutes fallacious reasoning. A certainty that we know that what cannot be there without seeing or being able to detect what is there. That constitutes conclusion reached via non-representative or scanty evidence. A type of fallacious reasoning avoided in all other matters except when it comes to this subject. Then it becomes a paragon of cogent reasoning. Which in itself constitutes fallacious reasoning vie inconsistency.

If indeed this example is the one taken from the river bed, it wasn't a solitary footprint that was found. It was a walking pattern of footprits. Of course they were imediatelyt tagged as a hoax by atheists, Unforutnately the hoaxters would have needed to
walk under water, and even under river bed and somehow
carved their hoax on slolid rock since further invesigartion the prinnts were found to cointinue under slabs of solid rock.

Since the discovery was an embarassment it was
conveniently shelved where it would not disturb the popular views.

That is what I recall reading about the footprints. At the moment I cannot provide links. But later tonight I will try.

Likewise I am neutral regarding such concepts - the maths goes beyond my limits.

I am also happy to look at fossils and footprints - very large apes did exist once and I don't have a problem with this. Do they still exist in the depths of ancient jungles? Perhaps - it is certainly possible. I am less inclined to believe they still exist in areas regularly visited by humans - very large apes being very large.

The universe is old and vast and the horizons are huge and distant. This is one of the reasons I am sceptical about religion - much of it is small and limited. It concerns itself with the prosaic and fusses about the trivial. Would a God really care if someone ate pork? Would a God send bears to kill dozens of small children for calling someone baldy? I don't think so. It doesn't ring true. Would she-bears kill small children if they were making a noise near their cubs? Yes they would. Would people put 2 and 2 together and get 42? Yes they would. Would some grumpy old religious guy be pleased the impudent kids were killed? - Sadly, yes.

Creekfreak

15th February 2008, 01:28 PM

great link edge saved it to my favs a must study for anyone into the meat of what is in the bible and what is not in the bible .

Foster Zygote

15th February 2008, 02:08 PM

L.O.L. he said 4 toes!
Loss of one toe makes it erosion.
Now mutations don't count or accidental amputation doesn't figure in the picture?
Erosion is possible, highly unlikely though.
But then anything is possible.
The evidence seems to add up differently.
There’s tons of it and it also changes from time to time.

Almost forgot,
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071007.html

I did not say that the "loss of one toe makes it erosion". You came to that conclusion with your inability to parse sentences.

Why is erosion unlikely? Because you want it to be unlikely?

And you never answered my previous questions: Is the "chariot wheel" located within the yellow circle in Saudi Arabia? Are shipwrecks on reefs impossible unless the crew intends to wreck there?

edge

15th February 2008, 08:34 PM

And you never answered my previous questions: Is the "chariot wheel" located within the yellow circle in Saudi Arabia? Are shipwrecks on reefs impossible unless the crew intends to wreck there?

No they think the yellow area is the real Mt Sinai.There should be more on that too.
That narrow channel is the spot of crossing the other photo shows the relief of the bottom of that channel.
I doubt that there's a collection of ship wrecks there.
More likely that if a number of trade ships sank it would have occurred in the real body of the sea or near a port.
Not impossible just unlikely.And you never answered my previous questions: Is the "chariot wheel" located within the yellow circle in Saudi Arabia? Are shipwrecks on reefs impossible unless the crew intends to wreck there?

No they think the yellow area is the real Mt Sinai.
That narrow channel is the spot of crossing the other photo shows the relief of the bottom of that channel.
I doubt that there's a collection of ship wrecks there.
More likely that if a number of trade ships sank it would have occurred in the real body of the sea or near a port.
Not impossible just unlikely.
I’ll see if there’s anything new on the site.

It seems a perfectly logical crossing point and there should be some kind of an update on the finds.

I’ll see if there’s anything new on the site.
It seems a perfictly logical crossing point.

edge

15th February 2008, 08:47 PM

great link edge saved it to my favs a must study for anyone into the meat of what is in the bible and what is not in the bible .

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071007.html

Have you checked that one, if you go there, go to the archives and then bookmark it.

It's amazing how much empty space is needed for the amount of matter visable and dark.

The link is at the bottom of that page.

edge

15th February 2008, 08:52 PM

Piggy

15th February 2008, 08:54 PM

All these photos mean absolutely nothing.

Take a look at this photo of a tornado on Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/floridatornado.asp), and the accompanying claims people have made about it.

At some point, someone made up lies about this shot and started spreading them.

The emails didn't write themselves, and somehow associate themselves with the photo.

Although it's impossible for me to imagine why anyone would want to do so, at some point, for each of the false stories that is circulating, someone took this photo and, without any basis in fact, generated a false narrative claiming that it was taken at an event which it was not actually associated with.

So.... If anyone here is going to make claims about any photos of "chariot wheels" or bones or footprints or such, you're going to have to pony up with some hard evidence. Otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to believe you.

And although it may seem that many of my discussions about Biblical passages on this thread are unrelated to the OP, actually they are all pertinent, because they help to demonstrate that the unitary and literalist approaches to Biblical readings are invalid on their face.

Those who go seeking for the bones of the Nephilim are like the misguided Mormons searching for the grand cities of the Hebrews in South America.

Genetic research shows conclusively that the Native Americans are not descendants of the ancient Hebrews, and textual scholarship shows that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century document, not an ancient one. Therefore, there is no reason to go looking for such cities.

Similarly, archaeological research, anthropology, paleontology, and textual analysis of Biblical texts and related texts demonstrate that the story of the Nephilim is an ancient myth similar to any other myth of giants and demigods around the globe, not an accurate tale of some semi-divine race.

What's worse, y'all who claim to "believe" the Biblical tale don't actually believe it, because you do not understand it for what it is. You don't believe it at all. Instead, you believe your own modern notions of what it means and project those back onto the ancient text.

Unless, of course, you are polytheists, which none of you claim to be.

That's the saddest part of it, really.

edge

15th February 2008, 08:57 PM

Yellow highlights possible spot of Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia. Gulf of Aqaba branch of Red Sea is at center, with main Red Sea at bottom-right of photo (wyattmuseum.com)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168

Have at it, what would it do to your beliefs if it were found to be absolutely true?
It would be easier to ship them across this point via the land route wouldn’t you think?

Foster Zygote

15th February 2008, 09:01 PM

No they think the yellow area is the real Mt Sinai.There should be more on that too.
So the area in the yellow circle is completely irrelevant.

That narrow channel is the spot of crossing the other photo shows the relief of the bottom of that channel.
That narrow channel is the Gulf of Aqaba. It is 160 km long and 24 km wide. What source to you have that indicates that the photos were taken in the Gulf of Aqaba?

I doubt that there's a collection of ship wrecks there.
You doubt based on what? Seriously, provide something to back this claim up other than your desire to believe that those photos must show chariots from the Exodus story.

More likely that if a number of trade ships sank it would have occurred in the real body of the sea or near a port.
Then why is wreck diving a popular sport in the Gulf of Aqaba?
The Gulf of Aqaba, like the coastal waters of the Red Sea, is one of the world's premier sites for diving.The area is especially rich in coral and other marine biodiversity and contains a number of underwater wrecks, some accidental shipwrecks, others vessels deliberately sunk in an effort to provide a habitat for marine organisms and bolster the local dive tourism industry.

Not impossible just unlikely.
Why is it unlikely that ships should sink in the Gulf of Aqaba? People have been sailing in that are for thousands of years.

edge

15th February 2008, 09:05 PM

Photos from Rads' site.The land route, rib cage, thigh bone, different chariot wheels.

Foster Zygote

15th February 2008, 09:07 PM

Take a look at this photo of a tornado on Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/floridatornado.asp), and the accompanying claims people have made about it.

Ha! Now I know where Ali got his avatar. It's certainly appropriate.

edge

15th February 2008, 09:08 PM

No sign of a ship wreck though.

So the area in the yellow circle is completely irrelevant.

Not according to the site that Radrook posted.

edge

15th February 2008, 09:15 PM

At some point, someone made up lies about this shot and started spreading them.

Ok if you say so.

You could say that about any excavation then right, and on the internet this is what we have no real matter can be delivered as hard evidence you have to go there to these sites, or get real time communications with the archeologists.

Now you know how a believer feels about fragmented monkey bones!

edge

15th February 2008, 09:17 PM

Why would you pay a ship to haul wheels or chariots across that little body of water?
:)

edge

15th February 2008, 09:20 PM

Although it's impossible for me to imagine why anyone would want to do so, at some point, for each of the false stories that is circulating, someone took this photo and, without any basis in fact, generated a false narrative claiming that it was taken at an event which it was not actually associated with.

I feel the same way why would any one want to perpetuate a false story if in fact it was from it base up.
For 2000 years no less.
Chances of it being the real thing is high on the probability charts as I see it along with Bigfoot and Giants.

Foster Zygote

15th February 2008, 09:32 PM

No sign of a ship wreck though.
There's no sign of a shipwreck in the photo below either. But I'm sure you've heard of the Titanic. When Bob Ballard went looking for HMS Titanic the first thing they came across was the debris field. When a ship goes down debris gets spread along a large area. The same happened when Ballard found the DKM Bismarck. Bits of debris with no wreck in sight.

Not according to the site that Radrook posted.
It is completely irrelevant to a discussion of the objects in the Red Sea.

Foster Zygote

15th February 2008, 09:37 PM

Why would you pay a ship to haul wheels or chariots across that little body of water?
:)

It's called commerce. Sailing a ship across a 24 km body of water is a hell of a lot faster and cheaper than traveling by land all the way around a 160 km long body of water.

Piggy

15th February 2008, 09:42 PM

I feel the same way why would any one want to perpetuate a false story if in fact it was from it base up.
For 2000 years no less.

Then why in the world are you participating in the process yourself?

It only takes one person to craft a lie such as the book of Deuteronomy. But it survives as long as there are gullible or ignorant people to pass it on, even if their ignorance is not their fault.

Then there are those tales which grow organically, through mistakes, misunderstandings, misinterpretation, misreading, and forgetting what the original significance of texts were in their day.

That's why this forum is here. To try to teach people how not to be gullible, and to take an objective view, so maybe we can stop the spread of some of these tall tales accepted as fact.

Here you are, perpetuating patent nonsense, despite being shown in no uncertain terms why the "evidence" for your position is utterly invalid, why your very approach to the subject is invalid and cannot possibly discern fact from fiction, and despite having been presented with a completely realistic theory to the contrary which fits all the facts.

And yet you persist.

Ted Lewis used to repeat a truism which one of his mentors said to him: A text cannot mean what it never meant.

And yet the literalist, unitary approach to the Bible insists that texts do indeed mean what they never meant.

Your approach insists that texts mean what you want them to mean.

Believers do this all the time.

For example, there's no indication that anyone thought Paul's letters were the Word of God, or were inspired by God. Had a church replied, "Thanks for the letter, and by the way, we consider it to be the very Word of Almighty God Himself," no doubt Paul would have called them blasphemers to their face.

Yet, because they want to make it so, modern fundamentalists open to Paul's letters and say, "Now, let us read from God's Word."

But it is not our place to take the words of a man and promote them to the status of the Word of God by election, by fashion, by mere vote.

If you want to understand the Bible, you will put down your preconceived beliefs and open yourself up to whatever the text has to show you, even if it is not what you thought you wanted to hear.

But you appear unwilling.

And as long as you are unwilling, you will persist in your error.

"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool to his folly."

Amen and amen.

Piggy

15th February 2008, 09:49 PM

Ok if you say so.
No, not if I say so. This is documented.

You could say that about any excavation then right, and on the internet this is what we have no real matter can be delivered as hard evidence you have to go there to these sites, or get real time communications with the archeologists.

No, if I were to claim that legitimate archaeology were bogus, plenty of folks on this forum could point me to the documentation to demonstrate that it is isn't.

What you're doing, on the other hand, is to throw out a bunch of photos and speculation and pretend that this somehow supports your ideas -- ideas which are unrelated to what we can deduce about the actual Biblical texts, but which are only related to your fantasies about them.

edge

15th February 2008, 10:10 PM

Then why in the world are you participating in the process yourself?

Because as a believer I get other proofs.
In big ways and small ways.
To you they may be anacedol but to me they are proof.
They come to other believers that can co-berate the message and it’s a deeper feeling of what is true or what is false.
In other words even after 2000 years it works now as it did then.
The wise men were called wise men for a reason.
They were smart educated and wise, knowing and following the signs to see if it was true.
Scientists and Kings of the times doing it with the prophetic knowledge of the times, as close to being scientific in their time.

It’s kind off like this on a small scale I come in here sometime and it literally hurts my eyes and my heart to read some of the opposing beliefs or rather non-beliefs.

Then in the afternoon I watched the newest nativity movie and my heart leaped like the other baby when the two pregnant woman where near and touch each other’s bellies, {the two Mary’s}.

In my heart I knew that this was true and nothing can change that, and the whole movie made me feel good and relieved.

I’ll ask again if any of this came to light as absolute truth, what would that mean and do to you?
Do you think anyone could change your mind back if the evidence was real to you?

Piggy

15th February 2008, 10:42 PM

Because as a believer I get other proofs.

No, you don't.

There are no proofs other than proof.

You get non-proofs and call them proofs.

You fool yourself, then try to fool others.

"Deep feeling" is not proof. Since anyone may have a deep feeling about anything, deep feelings cannot -- by definition -- distinguish fact from fiction.

Leonard Lake had a deep feeling that he should kidnap families, murder the husbands and babies in front of the wives/mothers, hold the women as sex slaves, then murder them and bury them in his yard.

According to you, this is proof that he should have done so. Perhaps even that God wanted him to do so.

The 9/11 hijackers had deep feelings that God wanted them to murder thousands of innocent people.

By your standards, this is proof that God indeed wanted this.

You tell me "the wise men were called wise men for a reason". Yet you don't know the story of the wise men. Do you care to hear it? Once again, you are projecting your own mistaken modern notion onto the text, rather than searching the text for what it is really saying, and so you are again falling into error.

I’ll ask again if any of this came to light as absolute truth, what would that mean and do to you?
Do you think anyone could change your mind back if the evidence was real to you?
There is no "coming to light as absolute truth". There is no evidence which is merely "real to me".

If I receive a revelation, I take it as a sign that I need to wake up and smell the coffee. If the revelation is accurate, it will hold up when compared with reality.

If it does not, then it was not revelation, but illusion.

By refusing to compare your revelation to reality, you dodge the test, and you cannot know whether what you have seen is enlightenment or deception.

It is an act of supreme egoism to accept what I feel or what is "real to me" as Truth.

Trust me, I have had to give up a lot of cherished notions along the way. At every turn, it seemed, I had to give up what made me special, what made me important.

In the end, I could not avoid concluding that I am temporary, a mist seen for a time and then dispersing.

Ashes to ashes and dust to dust.

No eternal mansion for me.

Turns out, I am only the place where the universe is shaped like me, for a time. When I'm gone, I'm gone. And when I think about it, it frightens me to my bones.

But reality is not what I want it to be.

As long as you take your feelings for the truth, you will continue to confuse your own petty ego for the Will of Almighty God.

edge

15th February 2008, 11:13 PM

Ships on the Red Sea.
I’m not sure if these are in the right time frame, I’m getting tired.

http://www.artsales.com/ARTistory/Ancient_Ships/06_egyptian_galleons.html

Turns out, I am only the place where the universe is shaped like me, for a time. When I'm gone, I'm gone. And when I think about it, it frightens me to my bones.

The fear leaves you, as you grow older.

By refusing to compare your revelation to reality, you dodge the test, and you cannot know whether what you have seen is enlightenment or deception.

You see enlightenment and deception are both information and that has to come from a mind.
When it's not your own you will at some time in your life know where it is from and that is a gift.
It will be a blessing that you yourself will not be able to refute.
We all have gifts of one sort or another.

Leonard Lake had a deep feeling that he should kidnap families, murder the husbands and babies in front of the wives/mothers, hold the women as sex slaves, then murder them and bury them in his yard.

According to you, this is proof that he should have done so. Perhaps even that God wanted him to do so.

According to me this would be deception. I would in no way say that because I see that it is deception.
Where does deception come from?
Obviously an evil thought enters in.
So how can you say it’s deception if chariot wheels are found to co-berate the Red Sea crossing when it would bolster a great truth into fact that god might love us to show us he’s there?
So far the evidence at hand at least leans in that direction and if is not, the truth of that being deception will also appear more clearly but for now I would have to say wow.

Radrook

16th February 2008, 04:02 AM

Likewise I am neutral regarding such concepts - the maths goes beyond my limits.

I am also happy to look at fossils and footprints - very large apes did exist once and I don't have a problem with this. Do they still exist in the depths of ancient jungles? Perhaps - it is certainly possible. I am less inclined to believe they still exist in areas regularly visited by humans - very large apes being very large.

[quote]The universe is old and vast and the horizons are huge and distant. This is one of the reasons I am skeptical about religion - much of it is small and limited. It concerns itself with the prosaic and fusses about the trivial.

Religion answers many questions which would deeply disturb many people if left unanswered in the atheistic mode. Where do we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? Why do we die? What happens after we death? Even the NASA question of whether we are alone in the universe is answered with a resounding NO!

Such matters are universally recognized as being very important to mankind-even by atheist philosophers for that matter-so it surprises me to come across a suggestion that they are trivial. Or are you simply ignoring these and focussing on the other incidents which you consider trivial? In that case then, the generalization is unwarranted ad would benefit by the qualifier "most"

Would a God really care if someone ate pork?

Yes, if pork could affect the health of a people who had entered a covenant relation with him and if the dietary law could serve as a shadow or prophetic illustration-

Hebrews 10:1
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

-of how the once ceremonially unclean could be viewed as clean via Christ's cleansing Ransom sacrifice.

Acts 10:13-15 (King James Version)

13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common

Would a God send bears to kill dozens of small children for calling someone baldy? I don't think so.Would she-bears kill small children if they were making a noise near their cubs? Yes, they would. Would people put 2 and 2 together and get 42? Yes, they would. Would some grumpy old religious guy be pleased the impudent kids were killed? - Sadly, yes.

BTW

Here is an interesting response:

Excerpt:
What is the meaning of this strange set of events? First, prophets were the people God used to communicate His will to men (Exodus 7:1; Deuteronomy 18:18-19). So if someone was disrespectful to a prophet, then that was just like being disrespectful to God.

Second, these "youths" probably were not young children but young adults. The word from the Hebrew language that the Bible uses for "youths" can refer to anyone from a newborn child to an adult.

Third, these young men were not teasing Elisha in a good-natured way. Rather, their words were meant as a curse on him. In the Old Testament, God sometimes cursed wicked men with baldness as an outward sign of their sin (for an example, read Isaiah 3:24). This curse was not a swear word, but a judgment on rebellious persons (Deuteronomy 27:14-16). And so these young men were saying to Elisha, "We curse you, you sinner." It is a serious matter to treat a man of God like this (2 Chronicles 36:16).http://www.discoverymagazine.com/articles/d1999/d9911e.htm

Please take note that today such sins are covered by Jesus' ransom sacrifice while at that time they were not. Israel was placed under the severe requirements of law with one purpose only to show mankind how much in need of a Ransom Sacrifice for sin it was. In Paul's words, in order to make sin manifest. In simpler terms, to show that the consequences of sin, no matter the nature of it and by whom it was committed would always be death if we remained unredeemed.

Under the law, then, God's severity was to be emphasized for this purpose. So that when the New Covenant was instituted via Jesus, those who had observed God's previous strict severity could appreciate just how much the Ransom Sacrifice had changed our legal status before God. That's why the law was abolished and mankind was offered grace instead.

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans[b] 5:20
Moreover the law entered, [b]that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

It doesn't ring true.

And you are fully entitled to that opinion.

================================================== ================================================== ==================

BTW
I was once under considerable physical distress and there were children publically mocking me and I'm not ashamed to say that
if those kids had died at that moment I would not have regretted their demise. Especially since their so called Christian parents were
present and obviously were either approving or else didn't give a hoot.

Foster Zygote

16th February 2008, 09:01 AM

Ships on the Red Sea.
I’m not sure if these are in the right time frame, I’m getting tired.

http://www.artsales.com/ARTistory/Ancient_Ships/06_egyptian_galleons.html

Of what relevance is this, other than to demonstrate that humans have sailed the Red Sea for thousands of years? My point is that those "chariot wheels" could be from almost any era. The upturned wheel is likely not a lightweight three thousand year old chariot wheel. It is more likely much newer because after tree thousand years the coral would have completely engulfed it. The four spoke wheel looks very much like a machined metal wheel that I would suspect to be a part of some ship's machinery. Given its lack of encrustation I doubt it is very old.

edge

16th February 2008, 10:44 AM

Well the pharaoh is in hot pursuit do you think he had the time or the patients at that moment to stop and say to his army lets load everything on ships and then cross the stretch of sea in question, when the story says they didn't?
This would mean there must be some evidence to the incident lying on the bottom.
I would think that the people claiming this would have thought of the suspicions that you all have and eliminated them before publishing the story.
It’ll be interesting to see a follow up on this story.

Of what relevance is this?
To see the size of the ships, and capacity of the cargo capability.
I guess a lot depends on the concentration of the finds on the bottom and any inscriptions that are found on any of the artifacts.
Something suggesting a link to that particular pharaoh, and his army.

Nogbad

16th February 2008, 10:51 AM

[QUOTE=Nogbad;3438465]Likewise I am neutral regarding such concepts - the maths goes beyond my limits.

I am also happy to look at fossils and footprints - very large apes did exist once and I don't have a problem with this. Do they still exist in the depths of ancient jungles? Perhaps - it is certainly possible. I am less inclined to believe they still exist in areas regularly visited by humans - very large apes being very large.

Religion answers many questions which would deeply disturb many people if left unanswered in the atheistic mode. Where do we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? Why do we die? What happens after we death? Even the NASA question of whether we are alone in the universe is answered with a resounding NO!

Such matters are universally recognized as being very important to mankind-even by atheist philosophers for that matter-so it surprises me to come across a suggestion that they are trivial. Or are you simply ignoring these and focussing on the other incidents which you consider trivial? In that case then, the generalization is unwarranted ad would benefit by the qualifier "most"

Yes, if pork could affect the health of a people who had entered a covenant relation with him and if the dietary law could serve as a shadow or prophetic illustration-

Hebrews 10:1
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

-of how the once ceremonially unclean could be viewed as clean via Christ's cleansing Ransom sacrifice.

Acts 10:13-15 (King James Version)

13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common

BTW

Here is an interesting response:

Excerpt:

Please take note that today such sins are covered by Jesus' ransom sacrifice while at that time they were not. Israel was placed under the severe requirements of law with one purpose only to show mankind how much in need of a Ransom Sacrifice for sin it was. In Paul's words, in order to make sin manifest. In simpler terms, to show that the consequences of sin, no matter the nature of it and by whom it was committed would always be death if we remained unredeemed.

Under the law, then, God's severity was to be emphasized for this purpose. So that when the New Covenant was instituted via Jesus, those who had observed God's previous strict severity could appreciate just how much the Ransom Sacrifice had changed our legal status before God. That's why the law was abolished and mankind was offered grace instead.

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans[b] 5:20
Moreover the law entered, [b]that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

And you are fully entitled to that opinion.

================================================== ================================================== ==================

BTW
I was once under considerable physical distress and there were children publically mocking me and I'm not ashamed to say that
if those kids had died at that moment I would not have regretted their demise. Especially since their so called Christian parents were
present and obviously were either approving or else didn't give a hoot.

The verses are difficult and I am not surprised that there are sanitised interpretations of them. Every Bible I have read has translated that event as being young children and certainly their behaviour sounds like that of young children. One might say that ripping 42 of them to shreds taught them an important lesson - the link certainly did. :boggled: Personally, I think it demonstrates more accurately how just about any ghastly event can be accommodated within a religious text and then glossed over. Events in the Bible (and any other religious text for that matter) get cut a lot of slack by adherents.

Piggy

16th February 2008, 10:53 AM

So how can you say it’s deception if chariot wheels are found to co-berate the Red Sea crossing when it would bolster a great truth into fact that god might love us to show us he’s there?

If an all-powerful omni-present being wants to show us that he's there, I'm sure it will find a more direct way to do so.

The problem with your "chariot wheels" is that there is, so far, zero evidence that this is indeed what we're looking at. Even if we determined that there were wheels there, it would take a lot of study -- not faith -- to determine whether they were Egyptian, military, and dating from the period of the Song of Miriam.

Which brings us back to textual scholarship.

That passage is possibly the most ancient passage in the entire Bible. Most likely, it is part of a larger oral epic, and almost certainly was recited in a ritual context (which is how it came to be preserved up to the time of the redaction of Exodus).

So, here we have this song praising the god of the Hebrew tribes for throwing the forces of Egypt into the sea, for burying the forces of Egypt in the ground.

As it happens, this imagery is a trope which is common in the tales of that time and place. It is not unique to the Hebrew lore. (It is not even unique to that section of the Bible.)

In the context of Exodus, we have a much later prose narrative surrounding this fragment which tells the tale of the captivity in Egypt.

Yet we find no evidence -- sorry, my friend, but your photos and speculations don't meet the standards of valid evidence -- anywhere else of any such captivity or migration, which is very significant since the Egyptians kept pretty good records of their conquests and their dealings with foreigners.

We do know, however, that Egypt controlled a good chunk of Canaan during the earliest epochs of encroachment and war by the proto-Hebraic tribes, and that they lost control of those regions and never regained it.

Given that we're dealing with an oral culture, the most likely scenario is that the presence of Egypt in Canaan was forgotten (in fact, we know it was forgotten) and over the ages these stories of enslavement by Egyptian forces -- and in that day it is likely that tribal warriors were enslaved during the wars -- and eventual triumph over them came to be set in Egypt, because, from their point of view many generations down the road, where else would they be set?

The stories of Moses and Joseph then developed on top of that dislocated tradition.

This scenario is highly likely. It fits the available evidence.

Your scenario is not likely at all, and is in fact based on a profound misunderstanding of what the Bible is.

Radrook

16th February 2008, 10:56 AM

[quote]Now you know how a believer feels about fragmented monkey bones!

Good analogy!

Piggy

16th February 2008, 11:03 AM

Good analogy!

Horrible analogy.

The difference b/t the stuff y'all are trotting out and the legitimate study of fossils and artifacts is that there are valid standards used in the legitimate study to determine age, speciation, etc etc etc.

Quacks who try to propose unfounded hypotheses or introduce bogus evidence are quickly sussed out and refuted. Even the occasional scientist who attempts fraud will be discovered, as has happened, sadly.

But y'all use methods which are incapable of discerning what is accurate from what is rampant speculation. Because your methods are not valid, your conclusions are not credible.

Radrook

16th February 2008, 11:25 AM

[QUOTE=Radrook;3440563]

The verses are difficult and I am not surprised that there are sanitized interpretations of them.

Most KJV verses are difficult because they were written in 17th century English. That's why I hesitate to use the KJV. but since other versions have copyright restrictions I am usually forced to use the KJV online.

Every Bible I have read has translated that event as being young children and certainly their behavior sounds like that of young children. .

What sanitized version? Can you provide one?

The behavior of adults is much worse than the behavior of young children Adults are the ones who torture, drop incendiary bombs, riot, snicker at those not sharing their views, and so on. So I would consider that incident tame in comparison to adult behavior. In short, we don't usually become more civilized as we near adulthood-we grow more dangerous and more savage.

Events in the Bible (and any other religious text for that matter) get cut a lot of slack by adherents.

It depends what you interpret as "slack". If the original word can be translated as young men-why would I want to choose little children instead?

One might say that ripping 42 of them to shreds taught them an important lesson - the link certainly did. : boggled: Personally, I think it demonstrates more accurately how just about any ghastly event can be accommodated within a religious text and then glossed over

No one is glossing anything over. You prefer the translation to be little children because it fits in with your purpose. I am not bound by such restrictions and prefer the more reasonable translation. As for ghastly, there seems to be a double standard in vogue among atheists. Ask a group of atheists about Hiroshima and the incendiary bombings of Tokyo and of the German City of Dresden where children were celebrating and which fried hundreds of thousands of men women and children to a crisp and left thousand of countless others badly mutilated, and the won't bat an eye.

For Tokyo the excuse goes:

"Umm, it was necessary to save American lives!"
"Umm, they started the war."
Ummm. brought the war to a quick end!"
"Umm, it was the right decision."

For Dresden:

"Umm, the Russians had to be shown that they needed to restrain themselves and not try to overrun too much territory."

"You guys burnt the place down, turned it into a single column of flame. More people died there in the firestorm, in that one big flame, than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined." --Kurt Vonnegut, Jr

excerpt

The WWII Dresden Holocaust -
On the evening of February 13, 1945, an orgy of genocide and barbarism began against a defenseless German city, one of the greatest cultural centers of northern Europe. Within less than 14 hours not only was it reduced to flaming ruins, but an estimated one-third of its inhabitants, possibly as many as a half a million, had perished in what was the worst single event massacre of all time....

One eyewitness who survived told of seeing "young women carrying babies running up and down the streets, their dresses and hair on fire, screaming until they fell down, or the collapsing buildings fell on top of them."

MELTING HUMAN FLESH

Others hiding below ground died. But they died painlessly--they simply glowed bright orange and blue in the darkness. As the heat intensified, they either disintegrated into cinders or melted into a thick liquid--often three or four feet deep in spots.

http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm

Tell them that God ordered two bears to kill 42 people and they are horrified. One is ghastly and intolerable to contemplate. While the other elicits a yawn. Which makes one wonder as to why.

There is also the incident where the British government didn't warn people of a certain city that a bombing raid was coming in order to prevent the Nazis from realizing that they had broken the Nazi secrete code. Thousands died and were mutilated.

Reaction?

"Ummm, it was necessary!"

Flossing over and sanitizing?

BTW
The victims were not the immediate beneficiaries of any lesson.

Piggy

16th February 2008, 11:44 AM

No one is glossing anything over. You prefer the translation to be little children because it fits in with your purpose. I am not bound by such restrictions and prefer the more reasonable translation.

Your "translation" is not reasonable, but convenient.

In fact, it is not a "translation" at all.

Go to Biblegateway.com and look up the passage. Every version* describes them as "boys", "little boys", "youths", or "little youths". I have never heard any legitimate scholar even suggest that these were not kids.

You are the one starting out with a purpose, my friend.

And frankly, your repeated and utterly unfounded and unsupported accusations against others are rather nauseating.

*There are some Bibles, such as "The Message" which I do not check b/c they play so fast and loose with the texts as to be unreliable.

Piggy

16th February 2008, 11:46 AM

I hesitate to use the KJV. but since other versions have copyright restrictions I am usually forced to use the KJV online.

Baloney. Your most transparent dodge yet. Citing passages from any Bible is perfectly allowable under fair use laws.

edge

16th February 2008, 12:05 PM

A Pharaoh, traditionally assigned the identity of Rameses II (reign: 1279-1213 B.C.),

The gigantic monuments of Rameses II provide no evidence of the enslavement of the children of Israel in Egypt. Indeed, Israel does not appear in Egyptian records until the reign of Rameses' son and successor Merneptah. By then it is clearly a nation, not a wandering mass of refugees. But some scholars argue that a group of people called the 'Apiru in Egyptian chronicles may actually have included the Hebrews. And they point out a papyrus fragment that may show that Semitic peoples were used for forced labor. Between 1630 and 1521 B.C., Egypt was ruled by the Hyksos, a Semitic people from western Asia, until they were expelled by a native dynasty. Perhaps the Israelites shared a history with the Hyksos. Of Moses and the Israelites, says James Hoffmeier, an archaeologist and the author of Israel in Egypt: "There is one important thing to remember. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

This is 8 pages but an excellent read, a little refresher.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989815-1,00.html

Tell them that God ordered two bears to kill 42 people and they are horrified. One is ghastly and intolerable to contemplate. While the other elicits a yawn. Which makes one wonder as to why.

Excellent points the why is they are guilty of something they do not want to stop such as drug use, alcohol, sex.
Anything to keep their life style going the way it is I.M.O. We are all guilty and I don’t mean to judge, I’m just reflecting on my past as well.

You guys are trying to judge God and he's silent maybe it's to show us something.

Without him what we are capable of.
From Dresden,

Nogbad

16th February 2008, 12:09 PM

It is not my translation it is the one I have read in the Bibles I own KJV, RSV and Good News. Why do they all choose to translate it as small boys? That said I have no issue with you choosing an alternative reading.

The notion that God would kill 42 small boys for being impudent is shocking - not on the scale of the horror of Dresden, Hiroshima etc, I agree but shocking nonetheless. I have enough shock in me to be horrified by all of them.

Piggy

16th February 2008, 12:20 PM

The gigantic monuments of Rameses II provide no evidence of the enslavement of the children of Israel in Egypt. Indeed, Israel does not appear in Egyptian records until the reign of Rameses' son and successor Merneptah. By then it is clearly a nation, not a wandering mass of refugees. But some scholars argue that a group of people called the 'Apiru in Egyptian chronicles may actually have included the Hebrews. And they point out a papyrus fragment that may show that Semitic peoples were used for forced labor. Between 1630 and 1521 B.C., Egypt was ruled by the Hyksos, a Semitic people from western Asia, until they were expelled by a native dynasty. Perhaps the Israelites shared a history with the Hyksos. Of Moses and the Israelites, says James Hoffmeier, an archaeologist and the author of Israel in Egypt: "There is one important thing to remember. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The absence of evidence is, however, the absence of evidence.

As can be seen by your own description, the connections you're speaking of are tenuous and speculative in the extreme.

Of course, the hypothesis that the Song of Miriam derives from wars between Egyptian forces and proto-Hebraic forces in Canaan is also speculative.

The connections between the Song of Miriam and ancient near eastern mythological tropes, however, are not speculative.

What it comes down to is the fact that those searching for the remains of Pharaoh's drowned chariots are on a quest to confirm an iron-age legend rife with mythic tropes.

Given that, the odds are overwhelming that they're wasting their time, just as every other effort so far to do so has been a waste of time. Until and unless they come up with some verifiable evidence, it's safe to ignore them and move on with legitimate studies.

Foster Zygote

16th February 2008, 12:40 PM

Well the pharaoh is in hot pursuit do you think he had the time or the patients at that moment to stop and say to his army lets load everything on ships and then cross the stretch of sea in question, when the story says they didn't?
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that you have presented no evidence that these are artifacts from Pharaoh's army. They could be from any number of shipwrecks.

This would mean there must be some evidence to the incident lying on the bottom.
Then present it.

I would think that the people claiming this would have thought of the suspicions that you all have and eliminated them before publishing the story.
It’ll be interesting to see a follow up on this story.
I get the impression that they saw what they wanted to see. "Look, circular objects encrusted in coral. It must be from Pharaoh's army in pursuit of the Hebrews." If they have any evidence of the sort you describe then where is it?

To see the size of the ships, and capacity of the cargo capability.
How do you know that the artifacts are from the period of the ships you've referenced? How do you know that they are not from the 19th century, or the 20th? You haven't even proved that they are chariot wheels.

I guess a lot depends on the concentration of the finds on the bottom and any inscriptions that are found on any of the artifacts.
Something suggesting a link to that particular pharaoh, and his army.
You are right, a great deal depends on those things, yet you have reached a conclusion in the absence of any such evidence.

Nogbad

16th February 2008, 12:46 PM

A Pharaoh, traditionally assigned the identity of Rameses II (reign: 1279-1213 B.C.),

The gigantic monuments of Rameses II provide no evidence of the enslavement of the children of Israel in Egypt. Indeed, Israel does not appear in Egyptian records until the reign of Rameses' son and successor Merneptah. By then it is clearly a nation, not a wandering mass of refugees. But some scholars argue that a group of people called the 'Apiru in Egyptian chronicles may actually have included the Hebrews. And they point out a papyrus fragment that may show that Semitic peoples were used for forced labor. Between 1630 and 1521 B.C., Egypt was ruled by the Hyksos, a Semitic people from western Asia, until they were expelled by a native dynasty. Perhaps the Israelites shared a history with the Hyksos. Of Moses and the Israelites, says James Hoffmeier, an archaeologist and the author of Israel in Egypt: "There is one important thing to remember. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Interestingly the damage to the walls of Jericho is dated at 1550BC which is when the Hyskos were expelled from Eygpt rather than the period covered by Ramses II. It is possible to consider that the Israelites and the Hyskos were connected.

Radrook

16th February 2008, 07:43 PM

It is not my translation it is the one I have read in the Bibles I own KJV, RSV and Good News. Why do they all choose to translate it as small boys? That said I have no issue with you choosing an alternative reading.

I have never come across an alternative reading and was wondering whether you had.
That's the translation I was asking about.

The notion that God would kill 42 small boys for being impudent is shocking - not on the scale of the horror of Dresden, Hiroshima etc, I agree but shocking nonetheless. I have enough shock in me to be horrified by all of them.

Yes, it is shocking. As is the mention of stoning people for blasphemy and all the other harsh punishments. Actually, such things were meant to be shocking. They were meant to emphasize our condition if under strict law and our need for a savioir to remove us from under strict application of law.

All sin, remember, from God's standpoint as mentioned in Eden warrants death.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Under strict law then-there can be no exception because exceptions would condone sin. So those children, as innocent as the might appear to us, were not innocent of sin and their lives were being lived via grant or temporary pardon because we are all essentially condemned to death since birth. Viewed that way their execution or obligatory demise under sin was just moved forward.

Very harsh, true, but it was deemed necessary in order to convey to us our desperate condition of captivity to sin and death and our need for a redeemer who would make such an obligatoiry death unecessary. That was the purpose of the law with all its strict requirements and capital punishments-an emphasizing of the relationship of sin with its consequent death contrary to what Satan had said. To make sin manifest and our need for grace.

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 5:20
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Romans 5:19-21 (in Context) For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

That's why Jesus died for our sins, so we are no longer under the threat of inevitable eternal death:

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord

bolding mine

BTW
I know you might find the explanation unsatisfactory and am simply posting the explanation
in order to make the Christian position clear.

Piggy

16th February 2008, 07:47 PM

They were meant to emphasize our condition if under strict law and our need for a savioir to remove us from under strict application of law.

Nothing in the Hebrew Bible was meant to emphasize our need for a savior to remove us from application of the law.

That idea cannot be found anywhere in the Hebrew Bible.

It is yet another projection of your imagination onto the text.

bokonon

16th February 2008, 08:13 PM

Yes, it is shocking. As is the mention of stoning people for blasphemy and all the other harsh punishments. Actually, such things were meant to be shocking. They were meant to emphasize our condition if under strict law and our need for a savioir to remove us from under strict application of law.
That's rich. Make a bunch of oppressive laws, so the people living under the rules you made will realize they'd be better off with less rules.

That's some Christ, that Christ-22.

Piggy

16th February 2008, 09:04 PM

To those who support the effort to find evidence of the Nephilim, I ask you this:

When are you going to get around to searching for the sea of fresh water above the Earth's atmosphere?

edge

16th February 2008, 10:34 PM

When are you going to get around to searching for the sea of fresh water above the Earth's atmosphere?
We are getting skeptyspeck again.

As soon as the snow melts off, when I can drive off road, I'm going sluicing.
Right now there's danger of getting stuck still.
I have to remeber to bring my camera I am in BigFoot country.
Up here you never know what you might see.

edge

16th February 2008, 10:35 PM

Good job Rad, they can't understand it even yet. :)

Tricky

16th February 2008, 11:12 PM

Good job Rad, they can't understand it even yet. :)
Au contraire. We understand it so well that we know what it is made of.

Piggy

17th February 2008, 07:30 AM

That's rich. Make a bunch of oppressive laws, so the people living under the rules you made will realize they'd be better off with less rules.

That's some Christ, that Christ-22.

Nominated!

Piggy

17th February 2008, 07:33 AM

We are getting skeptyspeck again.

That's not an answer.

If it makes sense to go rushing off looking for physical evidence of one iron-age tale which only corresponds to the genre of ancient myth and does not correspond to our actual experience, then certainly it makes sense to go looking for evidence of others, no?

So what's the problem?

It's in the Bible, the Bible's true, so... there you go. Right?

I'm just applying your logic, here. Where am I making my mistake?

edge

17th February 2008, 08:58 AM

Wadi Sidra is a possible natural route the Jews may have chosen in the Sinai after escaping Egypt. The exact route remains uncertain.

Inscriptions BEGIN:
"The wind blowing, the sea dividing into parts, they pass over"

"The Hebrews flee through the sea; the sea is turned into dry land."

"The waters permitted and dismissed to flow, burst rushing unawares upon the astonished men, congregated from quarters banded together to slay treacherously being lifted up with pride."

"The leader divideth asunder the sea, its waves roaring. The people enter, and pass through the midst of the waters."

"Moses causeth the people to haste like a fleet-winged she-ostrich crying aloud; the cloud shining bright,
a mighty army propelled into the Red sea is gathered into one;
they go jumping and skipping.
Journeying through the open channel,
taking flight from the face of the enemy.
The surge of the sea is divided."

"The people flee, the tribes descend into the deep.
The people enter the waters.
The people enter and penetrate through the midst.
The people are filled with stupor and perturbation.
Jehovah is the keeper and companion."

"Their enemies weep for the dead, the virgins are wailing.

The sea flowing down overwhelmed them.
The waters were let loose to flow again."

The people depart fugitive.
A mighty army is submerged in the deep sea,
the only way of escape for the congregated people."
Inscriptions END

Above found in Grant R. Jeffrey's "The Signature of God"
Historian Diodorus Siculus, about 10 B.C. described the Sinai Peninsula in his Library of History wrote, "Moreover, an altar is there built of hard stone and very old in years, bearing an inscription in ancient letters of an unknown tongue. the oversight of the sacred precinct is in the care of a man and woman who hold the position for life." (Bk. 3, sect. 42, Loeb Classical Library, C.H. Oldfather, trans. [Cambridge Harvard University Press, 1993], p.211)
In 518 A.D. Cosmas Indicopleustes, a Byzantine Christian writer, also mentions the ancient inscriptions. Concerning them he stated that they appeared "at all halting places, all the stones in that region which were broken off from the mountains, written with carved Hebrew characters."288/49 Cosmos came to the conclusion that they were made by the Israelites fleeing Egypt.
Other explorers which confirmed these inscriptions were Bishop Robert Clayton of Ireland (1753) and Rev. Charles Forster who published these findings in a book in 1862. He came to the conclusion that these inscriptions were a combination of both Hebrew and Egyptian alphabets describing Israel’s exodus out of Egypt.
In 1761 a German explorer Barthold Niebuhr found an extensive ruined cemetery
So what happened to the bodies of all the Hebrew escaped slaves who died from this plague? A mountaintop Graveyard found.
http://www.bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm

Read the , “Other inscriptions:”
As far as the canopy it’s gone now, so is it of your opinion that God is gone now?

Nogbad

17th February 2008, 09:41 AM

The difficulty is that much of the above is associated with Wyatt and his unsubstantiated claims. I linked a site above which could not be more Christian "Answers in Genesis" and even they were deeply unhappy with Wyatt's activities. I chose them rather than a sceptic's site simply because I assumed you would discount a sceptic as being a bit....well, sceptical. However, my link was ignored completely as were the issues raised.

I recall having similar conversations many years ago about enthusiastic supporters of Von Danikin. Other than the religious aspects I don't see a lot of difference between Wyatt and Von Danikin.

If there is good archaeology in Sinai and Arabia let it be excavated with verifiable discoveries.

Radrook

17th February 2008, 10:01 AM

It is not my translation it is the one I have read in the Bibles I own KJV, RSV and Good News. Why do they all choose to translate it as small boys?....

I did some research and here is what I found:

2 Kings 2:23-25 (New King James Version) Youths

2 Kings 2:23-25 (Young's Literal Translation) Lads

2 Kings 2:23-25 (New Life Version) Young Boys

2 Kings 2:23-25 (Holman Christian Standard Bible) Youths, Boys

2 Kings 2:23-25 (New International Version - UK) Youths

2 Kings 2:23-25 (New American Standard Bible) Lads

2 Kings 2:23-25 (Holman Christian Standard Bible) Boys. Youths

2 Kings 2:23-25 (New International Reader's Version) Young Fellows

2 Kings 2:23-25 (Amplified Bible) Young [maturing accountable] boys

2 Kings 2:23-25 (Holman Christian Standard Bible) Boys. Youths

This informnation can be verified at the
Bible Gateway site:http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/

Here an article that might prove to be informative:

2 Kings
File type:PDF - Download PDF Reader
The Hebrew word na'ar translated "lads" in 2:23 describes young men, not boys, in ... 1 Kings 20; 2 Kings 6:24; 8:7, 9, 14. Hazael. 841-801 B.C. ...
www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/2kings.pdf

volatile

17th February 2008, 10:10 AM

Hold on... so every translation says "youths" or "boys", but you still choose to translate it otherwise? :rolleyes:

Nogbad

17th February 2008, 10:21 AM

Within the context of the story the behaviour of those involved is certainly more akin to that of children than young men - although if they were simple country folk in the best duelling banjos tradition perhaps any age is possible.

Radrook

17th February 2008, 10:34 AM

Within the context of the story the behavior of those involved is certainly more akin to that of children than young men - although if they were simple country folk in the best dueling banjos tradition perhaps any age is possible.

I do respect your opinion of adults and sincerely wish I could share that opinion since it would mean that the world wouldn't be as messed up as it is due to adult behavior. Unfortunately, my personal experience with adults as well as my observations of adult behavior with others or amnong themselves has convinced me otherwise.

This is not to say that a difference doesn't exist. Only to say that my experience tells me that adults are quite more than willing ready and able to mock someone in the style described. Because of that, I am not as inclined as you are to insist that the perpetrators were children. So I guess we simply differ on that small point perhaps based on different observations and personal experiences. Which is of course OK since we are all entitled to our opinion.

Radrook

17th February 2008, 10:40 AM

When are you going to get around to searching for the sea of fresh water above the Earth's atmosphere?

What sea of fresh water above earth's atmosphere? That water came crashing down during the flood.

Genesis 7
10And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

================================================
Bolding mine

BTW
yes, I have read all the detailed objections to the water canopy.
My problem with those objections is this:

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Mark 10:27
And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

In short, wiuth God out of the equation--No!
With God in the equation--Yes!

Piggy

17th February 2008, 10:46 AM

What sea of fresh water above earth's atmosphere? That water came crashing down during the flood.

No, it didn't. Read Genesis 8:2. The flood ended by the windows of heaven being shut, not by all the water running out.

Radrook

17th February 2008, 11:15 AM

Its similar to saying, for example, the sun will run out of Helium and earth and mankind will be burnt to a cinder. Such statements require an atheistic perspective. From a Christian viewpoint-God doesn't have to permit his Sun to run out of Hydrogen. If it is, then he can recharge it. The same applies to all other attempts to discredit the biblical accounts. The size of the ark, the number of animals, an impossible water canopy, an impossible resurrection of Lazarus, the parting of the Red Sea, the impossibilities referred to are endless from the atheistic view. But not from the believer's. From a believer's viewpoint God who established the universal laws cited by atheists as inviolable can and are manipulated by their creator whenever he sees fit in order to perform what atheists considered to be impossible.

Just wanted to clarify that point in order to show just how useless such scientific arguments are in trying to convince believers in God about such impossibilities and by extension discredit the biblical account.

Tricky

17th February 2008, 12:06 PM

Its similar to saying, for example, the sun will run out of Helium and earth and mankind will be burnt to a cinder. Such statements require an atheistic perspective.
Not at all. Even theists are capable of recognizing stellar life-cycles, though "running out of helium" is not the case. Helium is made in the sun, not consumed. But the point is that you can still believe in God and be able to understand science. Occasionally, it requires that you be willing to admit that the Bible is incorrect on scientific matters. Is that a problem?

From a Christian viewpoint-God doesn't have to permit his Sun to run out of Hydrogen. If it is, then he can recharge it.
Perhaps from some Christian perspectives, but I assure you that not all Christians share that belief. For many, the end of times is expected long before the sun "runs out of"... hydogen now?

The same applies to all other attempts to discredit the biblical accounts. The size of the ark, the number of animals, an impossible water canopy, an impossible resurrection of Lazarus, the parting of the Red Sea, the impossibilities referred to are endless from the atheistic view. But not from the believer's. From a believer's viewpoint God who established the universal laws cited by atheists as inviolable can and are manipulated by their creator whenever he sees fit in order to perform what atheists considered to be impossible.
Exactly. Magic. That is what fundamentalist beliefs require.

Just wanted to clarify that point in order to show just how useless such scientific arguments are in trying to convince believers in God about such impossibilities and by extension discredit the biblical account.
If Christians would cheerfully admit that their beliefs had no basis in science then we could agreee on this right here. Sadly, many do not do this. They want their beliefs TAUGHT as science. As long as they make such requests that reality be altered for the benefit of their beliefs, then there will always be discord between science and religion.

Foster Zygote

17th February 2008, 12:07 PM

bokonon

17th February 2008, 12:07 PM

Its similar to saying, for example, the sun will run out of Helium and earth and mankind will be burnt to a cinder. Such statements require an atheistic perspective.
Not really. Plenty of Christians accept current theories of astronomy. If you choose to equate science with atheism, it's a personal choice, but you can't make it for anyone but yourself.

From a Christian viewpoint-God doesn't have to permit his Sun to run out of Hydrogen. If it is, then he can recharge it. The same applies to all other attempts to discredit the biblical accounts. The size of the ark, the number of animals, an impossible water canopy, an impossible resurrection of Lazarus, the parting of the Red Sea, the impossibilities referred to are endless from the atheistic view. But not from the believer's. From a believer's viewpoint God who established the universal laws cited by atheists as inviolable can and are manipulated by their creator whenever he sees fit in order to perform what atheists considered to be impossible.

Just wanted to clarify that point in order to show just how useless such scientific arguments are in trying to convince believers in God about such impossibilities and by extension discredit the biblical account.
Consider it clarified. You've dropped all pretense of logic and reality, in favor of the accounts in your book of fairy tales. If the magic book says something impossible happened, then by god it happened. If the magic book contradicts itself, then all of the conflicting accounts happened. If god needed a time machine or a couple of parallel universes to reconcile the discrepancies, he just made them. People who claim to speak for god can make up any kind of nonsense, and you'll go along with it, because god can make it up as he goes along. If the real world appears to operate according to different rules than your book of fantasy, then you'll bury your head in the book of fantasy. Attempting to think for yourself runs the risk of thinking ungodly thoughts, and is thus best avoided.

What I still don't understand is, if a dozen different translations say that "lads," "boys," or "youths" were assaulted by god in the form of a bear for making fun of a geezer, and none use any other term, why would you continue to believe it wasn't lads, boys, or youths? Are you writing your own bible inside your head?

Tricky

17th February 2008, 12:11 PM

What I still don't understand is, if a dozen different translations say that "lads," "boys," or "youths" were assaulted by god in the form of a bear for making fun of a geezer, and none use any other term, why would you continue to believe it wasn't lads, boys, or youths? Are you writing your own bible inside your head?
The New Apologist Bible refers to them as "Juvenile Delinquents".

bokonon

17th February 2008, 12:17 PM

Not at all. Even theists are capable of recognizing stellar life-cycles, though "running out of helium" is not the case. Helium is made in the sun, not consumed.
I think stars both make helium (by hydrogen fusion) and consume helium (by helium fusion). My understanding is that helium fusion results in carbon and oxygen, and fusion of carbon and oxygen result in heavier elements. I think these proceed in stages, but don't quote me on that.

If Christians would cheerfully admit that their beliefs had no basis in science then we could agreee on this right here. Sadly, many do not do this. They want their beliefs TAUGHT as science. As long as they make such requests that reality be altered for the benefit of their beliefs, then there will always be discord between science and religion.
Yeah, that's the problem. If only all the nutjobs would be as honest with themselves as Radrook is being with us, and stop pretending their fairy tales are a cleverly disguised science textbook, I could stop mocking them and go back to poking fun at Rumpelstiltsken.

bokonon

17th February 2008, 12:21 PM

The New Apologist Bible refers to them as "Juvenile Delinquents".
I stand corrected.:)

Piggy

17th February 2008, 12:23 PM

bokonon

17th February 2008, 12:37 PM

From a believer's viewpoint God who established the universal laws cited by atheists as inviolable can and are manipulated by their creator whenever he sees fit in order to perform what atheists considered to be impossible.
And yet, when he wants his "chosen people" in the "chosen land," he doesn't just beam them over. He sends plague, and pestilence, and disease to the land of the Pharoah, attempting to persuade a man who could easily (one assumes) be persuaded by simply manipulating his "universal law" of free will. Oh my god! They killed all the firstborn sons! You BASTARDS!

And time and time again, the "chosen people" are tasked with slaughtering the families who had the poor manners to be residing in the "chosen land" before the arrival of the "chosen people." Hell, if you've already taken the time to intelligently design smallpox, why not send it on ahead?

People who believe in fairy tales. Gotta love 'em.

Piggy

17th February 2008, 12:42 PM

And yet, when he wants his "chosen people" in the "chosen land," he doesn't just beam them over. He sends plague, and pestilence, and disease to the land of the Pharoah, attempting to persuade a man who could easily (one assumes) be persuaded by simply manipulating his "universal law" of free will. Oh my god! They killed all the firstborn sons! You BASTARDS!

It's even worse. When Pharoah is considering allowing the Jews to leave, God "hardens his heart" against the idea.

Cause y'see, God's not done yet.

He's like a serial killer who allows his victims to regain consciousness over and over so he can enjoy having another whack at 'em.

Yah Wehne Gacey, as it were.

bokonon

17th February 2008, 02:13 PM

Oh my god. You mean he does override free will, but only to give himself an excuse to kill babies?

When we finally get that Yahweh in front of a war crimes tribunal, he's going to have a lot to answer for.

Piggy

17th February 2008, 02:23 PM

Oh my god. You mean he does override free will, but only to give himself an excuse to kill babies?

Apparently.

Pharaoh was a hard-hearted guy, and he would not listen. Until the frogs. After the frogs, he said, ok, you can go, just get rid of these damn frogs.

So Moses did, but after they were gone, he chalked it up to a fluke and changed his mind. He "hardened his heart", as he'd done every time since Moses started pulling his tricks.

After a few more plagues, finally Pharaoh believed what Moses was saying. But apparently it was too early! God had one last trick, and he wasn't going to be denied showing it off.

So in this case, the language is different:

So they took soot from a furnace and stood before Pharaoh. Moses tossed it into the air, and festering boils broke out on men and animals. The magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils that were on them and on all the Egyptians. But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron.

That's right. This time, God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

Piggy

17th February 2008, 03:38 PM

There's another passage in this area of Exodus that's important to the question of how to interpret the Nephilim, and it's one which shows how the old myths were brought into line with the more recent mythology.

And God said to Moses, "I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Almighty, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them."

Now, this doesn't really hold water, because El -- head of the Heavenly Council -- and Yahweh -- the storm god -- are not actually one and the same.

But the Yahweh cult cannot be fully legitimized if it cannot claim the ancient traditions, so Yahweh becomes identified as the same being as El.

Once we understand this, we realize that no one today actually believes in "the God of Abraham" as many claim. That god is as dead as Zeus.

And it is that god whose children descended to earth and impregnated human women.

Radrook

17th February 2008, 11:21 PM

What a perfect summary of magical thinking.

We can tag one another's thinking in whatever way we wish with only our imaginations and our perceptions of common decency as the limit. But that would in no way affect the force of either your argument or mine since it expresses merely an opinion. Your response's critical nature also seems to indicate that you have mistaken my post as an effort to argue or debate when it is only an effort to clarify both for the benefit of those using atheistic scientifically oriented arguments against Christians and other religionists as well as for religionists themselves who might fail to perceive the futility of such arguments when exposed to them and feel unnecessarily intimidated. Saves atheists time and saves religionist unnecessary worry.

BTW

Things possible to a God who can manipulate laws at his whim will seem magical to those who think that such laws inviolable. Present day inventions such as the airplane-TV, and car would seem magical if recounted to person's living in the not so too distant past. In fact, a time traveler might be accused of practicing witchcraft if seen doing the things he does today in the past. A good analogy actually.

Nogbad

18th February 2008, 03:18 AM

Therein lies the problem. If one believes in an omnipotent diety then all things are, by definition, possible. If, for example, regarding the flood story I put forward the very reasonable obstacle that one could not keep every species on the planet in such a small boat (not to mention feed them too) for that length of time - never mind issues about S American tree sloths getting back to the S America from a mountain in Turkey or how they got bamboo shoots to feet the Pandas - then the answer "all things are possible" effectively closes the debate. If one believes that for God all things are possible then the transportation issues or boat size are academic and in fact literalist attempts to prove Biblical events through science are bound to raise more questions than answers. The matter then becomes one of faith and faith is a matter of choice (or trust if one prefers).

Radrook

18th February 2008, 04:03 AM

Therein lies the problem. If one believes in an omnipotent deity then all things are, by definition, possible. If, for example, regarding the flood story I put forward the very reasonable obstacle that one could not keep every species on the planet in such a small boat (not to mention feed them too) for that length of time - never mind issues about S American tree sloths getting back to the S America from a mountain in Turkey or how they got bamboo shoots to feet the Pandas - then the answer "all things are possible" effectively closes the debate. If one believes that for God all things are possible then the transportation issues or boat size are academic and in fact literalist attempts to prove Biblical events through science are bound to raise more questions than answers. The matter then becomes one of faith and faith is a matter of choice (or trust if one prefers).

First. let me deviate for a second. In reference to the Ark, there weren't as many species as there are now then. There were basic kinds which speciated later.

What is meant, of course, is that God can do all things possible that are possible. This doesn't mean that there are things which are not impossible to do. For example, it is impossible to square a circle as a circle is defined no matter how much power one has. Or it isn't possible to be totally evil and totally good. Or to feel totally elated while feeling totally miserable. Such paradoxical things are patently impossible.

Now, about the essence of your commentary, yes, I agree, any atheistic scientific objection in an effort to discredit the Bible and its accounts of miracles will be met ultimately with the assertion that although our present science cannot do it-God could and did do it.

The alternative of course would be to say that God cannot do those things because he is limited or because man and his limited science can't. But please consider this: human flight was once seen as impossible, space travel, and a host of other such things. Now they are accepted tongue-in-cheek. Not only accepted, but viewed as challenges for innovation.

Take for example cryogenics. Presently there is no way of resurrecting those people due to cellular damage caused by the intracellular ice which seriously damages the cell during the crystallization process. Now, the people subjecting themselves to this procedure which sometimes involves decapitation, considered a resurrection impossible now. But that didn't prevent them from considering it humanly possible in the distant future.

So perhaps if indeed the resurrection of those people takes place, then the biblical acxcount concerning the resurrection of Lazarus won't seem as impossible to skeptics as it does now. In short, as we accomplish more and more, the miracles of the past will appear to be less and less improbable.

If for example we gain the ability to miniaturize things. Then of course we can fit a far larger volume of things into the same space. I have come across this concept several times in speculative fiction. If we ever do attain that ability, then perhaps the use of Noah's Ark to transport all those animals might not seem so weird, especially when accomplished by a being with an ability to manipulate laws of nature.

In any case, I fully understand your viewpoint and I guess we will simply have to differ on that one. Thanks for the feedback.

Piggy

18th February 2008, 04:49 AM

We can tag one another's thinking in whatever way we wish with only our imaginations and our perceptions of common decency as the limit.

No, Radrook, your post was, in fact, a perfect example of what is commonly known as "magical thinking".

And the problem with magical thinking is that it can be used to justify any position, no matter how absurd.

It is, therefore, incapable of discerning truth from falsehood. And so, those engaging in it cannot reasonably expect to be believed when they claim they are speaking the truth.

As I said before, I could use your method of thinking to demonstrate that any other book is the Word of God.

Piggy

18th February 2008, 04:53 AM

any atheistic scientific objection in an effort to discredit the Bible

And this is your worst sin, Radrook.

You are the one discrediting the Bible.

You are claiming it to be something it does not claim to be. You are the one doing violence to the scripture. Because instead of reading the text for what it has to tell you, you instead project your modern fundamentalist views upon it.

When these don't match reality or the text itself, you ignore the actual evidence and make up bizarre scenarios the Bible doesn't support.

YOU are discrediting the Bible.

YOU are substituting your ideas for what's actually there.

To add insult to injury, you then spout insults and lies about the men and women who ARE studying the Bible closely and objectively.

What you're doing is disgusting.

Belz...

18th February 2008, 05:34 AM

The cold reality is I have more teeth then normal .

And still not a single proof of bigfoot or biblical giants, eh ?

Belz...

18th February 2008, 05:37 AM

Unless, of course, you are polytheists, which none of you claim to be.

That's the saddest part of it, really.

Indeed, full pantheons are always more fun.

Belz...

18th February 2008, 05:41 AM

Because as a believer I get other proofs.
In big ways and small ways.
To you they may be anacedol but to me they are proof.
They come to other believers that can co-berate the message and it’s a deeper feeling of what is true or what is false.
In other words even after 2000 years it works now as it did then.
The wise men were called wise men for a reason.
They were smart educated and wise, knowing and following the signs to see if it was true.
Scientists and Kings of the times doing it with the prophetic knowledge of the times, as close to being scientific in their time.

It’s kind off like this on a small scale I come in here sometime and it literally hurts my eyes and my heart to read some of the opposing beliefs or rather non-beliefs.

Then in the afternoon I watched the newest nativity movie and my heart leaped like the other baby when the two pregnant woman where near and touch each other’s bellies, {the two Mary’s}.

In my heart I knew that this was true and nothing can change that, and the whole movie made me feel good and relieved.

I’ll ask again if any of this came to light as absolute truth, what would that mean and do to you?
Do you think anyone could change your mind back if the evidence was real to you?

You are fooling yourself, Edge. Your emotional "proofs" are nothing but what members of OTHER religions feel about OTHER gods or entities.

Feelings do not provide useful information about anything but themselves.

Belz...

18th February 2008, 05:46 AM

Religion answers many questions which would deeply disturb many people if left unanswered in the atheistic mode. Where do we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? Why do we die? What happens after we death?

Chaos, no reason, nowhere, entropy, nothing.

Unfortunately, those are questions that may not have any meaning, and that we made up. Reality may not have an answer to them, because they are most probably nonsensical.

Even the NASA question of whether we are alone in the universe is answered with a resounding NO!

I was not aware we had discovered alien life yet.

Belz...

18th February 2008, 05:55 AM

Yes, it is shocking. As is the mention of stoning people for blasphemy and all the other harsh punishments. Actually, such things were meant to be shocking. They were meant to emphasize our condition if under strict law and our need for a savioir to remove us from under strict application of law.

Would you please stop speculating about what was "meant" by the authors ?

Tricky

18th February 2008, 06:34 AM

First. let me deviate for a second. In reference to the Ark, there weren't as many species as there are now then. There were basic kinds which speciated later.
You think? Boy, that's some fast evolution! In your estimation, how many different "kinds" were there on the ark? Just a rough number will do.

Now, about the essence of your commentary, yes, I agree, any atheistic scientific objection in an effort to discredit the Bible and its accounts of miracles will be met ultimately with the assertion that although our present science cannot do it-God could and did do it.
But so could the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you have absolutely no rules for what can be done, then your knowledge base is exactly zero. So why try to use science at all? Just say that God "poofed it". It is more honest than trying to make science accommodate your myths.

The alternative of course would be to say that God cannot do those things because he is limited or because man and his limited science can't. But please consider this: human flight was once seen as impossible, space travel, and a host of other such things. Now they are accepted tongue-in-cheek. Not only accepted, but viewed as challenges for innovation.
This is patently untrue. Some of the earliest stories talked about human flight (see "Icarus"). Leonardo da Vinci was designing flying vehicles more than 700 years ago. You have a very poor opinion of the human imagination. If it can imagine a God, it can certainly imagine space flight.

So perhaps if indeed the resurrection of those people takes place, then the biblical account concerning the resurrection of Lazarus won't seem as impossible to skeptics as it does now. In short, as we accomplish more and more, the miracles of the past will appear to be less and less improbable.
Actually, the resurrection of Lazarus doesn't even need any modern explanation. It was (and still is) fairly common for people to have the appearance of death and yet "wake up", sometimes at their funerals.

So perhaps if indeed the resurrection of those people takes place, then the biblical account concerning the resurrection of Lazarus won't seem as impossible to skeptics as it does now. In short, as we accomplish more and more, the miracles of the past will appear to be less and less improbable.
Certainly lots of biblical "miracles" could be explained away by modern science. But then, they're not miracles are they? However, stories like the great flood have so many gaping holes in them that it is so very highly unlikely for them to be true (because of so much evidence against them) that the likelihood of them being explained by science is close to zero. It would require completely discarding everything we have learned about geology. The Genesis creation story would require discarding everything we have learned about biology. The Methuselah story would require discarding everything we have learned about gerontology.

If for example we gain the ability to miniaturize things. Then of course we can fit a far larger volume of things into the same space. I have come across this concept several times in speculative fiction. If we ever do attain that ability, then perhaps the use of Noah's Ark to transport all those animals might not seem so weird, especially when accomplished by a being with an ability to manipulate laws of nature.
It might solve some problems, but you'd have to explain how everything got miniaturized. It would also be unusual for this to have gone unnoticed or unmentioned.

Also, there are some serious problems with miniaturization of living organisms. It would require changing the properties of atoms and molecules. Such things work well in sci-fi, but there are some real-world physical barriers to overcome.

So again, it is usually a mistake for Christians to try to scientifically explain miracles. They usually result in having to "magic away" some well-known aspect of how we know the world works. Since it is going to require a miracle anyway, just say "God-did-it" and leave it at that. Treading on the territory of science is just going to lead to self-contradiction.

Foster Zygote

18th February 2008, 07:43 AM

Indeed, full pantheons are always more fun.

"Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms."

Col. Robert G. Ingersoll

Piggy

18th February 2008, 07:44 AM

Indeed, full pantheons are always more fun.

Y'know, I never thought about that.

Maybe the only-gods are so angry because they've never been socialized and learned how to share and play nice.

Piggy

18th February 2008, 07:59 AM

Radrook's replies have become so far out, way beyond anything I've seen from even the most oddball fundies (or at least the literate ones with computer access) that I have to conclude a high likelihood of trolling at this point.

Correct me if there's reason to believe otherwise.

Not that I would necessarily have to listen to your evidence. I could apply Radrook logic and declare myself a "believer" in his trollhood, discard any contrary evidence, accuse you all of trying to disprove me, and invent elaborate explanations to justify my position.

ETA: It was the shrinky-dink animal theory that broke the camel's back.

Foster Zygote

18th February 2008, 08:16 AM

We can tag one another's thinking in whatever way we wish with only our imaginations and our perceptions of common decency as the limit. But that would in no way affect the force of either your argument or mine since it expresses merely an opinion. Your response's critical nature also seems to indicate that you have mistaken my post as an effort to argue or debate when it is only an effort to clarify both for the benefit of those using atheistic scientifically oriented arguments against Christians and other religionists as well as for religionists themselves who might fail to perceive the futility of such arguments when exposed to them and feel unnecessarily intimidated. Saves atheists time and saves religionist unnecessary worry.
Got it, "Magic". Let me ask you though, what about the miracles of other religions? You speak of "religionists" as though there is a single group that has reached a concensus, but we all know this is not true. How do you feel about Mohammed's night flight or Bodhi Dharma crossing a river standing on a floating leaf? If I accept that supernatural powers can cause miraculous events then should I accept that all miracles have indeed occured?

BTW

Things possible to a God who can manipulate laws at his whim will seem magical to those who think that such laws inviolable.
Isn't that pretty much the definition of "magical"?

Present day inventions such as the airplane-TV, and car would seem magical if recounted to person's living in the not so too distant past.
Tricky has already covered this well.

In fact, a time traveler might be accused of practicing witchcraft if seen doing the things he does today in the past. A good analogy actually.
I agree. A time traveler might be accused of witchcraft by the superstitious, ignorant, miracle believing faithful of the not so distant past. Heck, superstitious, ignorant, miracle believing and faithful people are accusing people of witchcraft right now.

Foster Zygote

18th February 2008, 08:21 AM

This is patently untrue. Some of the earliest stories talked about human flight (see "Icarus"). Leonardo da Vinci was designing flying vehicles more than 700 years ago. You have a very poor opinion of the human imagination. If it can imagine a God, it can certainly imagine space flight.

Visits to the moon were imagined by Johannes Kepler and even a Chinese emperor (Huang Di?).

bokonon

18th February 2008, 08:33 AM

Radrook's replies have become so far out, way beyond anything I've seen from even the most oddball fundies (or at least the literate ones with computer access) that I have to conclude a high likelihood of trolling at this point.
Radrook's not all that literate. He's picked up a big word here and there, but he still doesn't know how to use them in many cases.

Correct me if there's reason to believe otherwise.

Not that I would necessarily have to listen to your evidence. I could apply Radrook logic and declare myself a "believer" in his trollhood, discard any contrary evidence, accuse you all of trying to disprove me, and invent elaborate explanations to justify my position.

ETA: It was the shrinky-dink animal theory that broke the camel's back.
I'm inclined to think it's more likely that what we're seeing is what happens when rock-solid fundie "inerrancy" runs up against informed skeptical thinking, with maybe a dash of failing mental prowess brought on by age.

It's sad and funny at the same time.

edge

18th February 2008, 11:02 AM

Actually, the resurrection of Lazarus doesn't even need any modern explanation. It was (and still is) fairly common for people to have the appearance of death and yet "wake up", sometimes at their funerals.

But you forget one thing that he was commanded to wake from the dead by Jesus in front of witnesses.

Today we have science confirming the death of patients with all their scientific instruments and these people still see Christ on the other side who then commands them to return, then what you have here is an N.D.E., Which to me suggests that through science there is a confirmation of an after life.

Should be called a True Death Resurrection, or T.D.R., which in both cases would suggest that there is more to it than meets the skeptical eye since we also in today’s world have O.B.E. experiences.
Unless you’re scientific instruments are wrong in which case it must be an illusion.

The way I see it you want to judge God but can’t because that will never happen, as in the after life we all will be informed about all the questions we have and one person came back with an answer you want to know what that is don’t you?

You have magic/miracles, luck/blessings, you can look at in any way you want but any being that can create all of this and we can’t, he can do what he needs to do with science that we don’t and won’t be able to comprehend, to know all of science that there is, would take infinity, since all is based on science and he’s the one that created it in the first place he must be infinite.

The illusion of life is, there is death.
Which means there is a soul.
I think Radrook has given the most truthful interpretations of the word you just can’t take it.

You are fooling yourself, Edge. Your emotional "proofs" are nothing but what members of OTHER religions feel about OTHER gods or entities.

Feelings do not provide useful information about anything but themselves.

God doesn’t fool people he shows them with proof and feelings, you have to look at religion like this 1+1=2, 2+2=4,
One male and one female make three.
Rad asks,

Why do we die? What happens after death?
Belz answer,

Reality may not have an answer to them, because they are most probably nonsensical.

True reality comes after death and this is the dream.
Have you ever considered that?

Your answer,
Chaos, no reason, nowhere, entropy, nothing.

This is a reality also, if you wish it to be.

http://www.near-death.com/index.html

Be careful what you wish for.

Piggy

18th February 2008, 11:26 AM

God doesn’t fool people he shows them with proof and feelings

That's what Al Qaeda says. That's what the Taliban says. That's what Andrea Yates said when she murdered her children.

And there is nothing in your philosophy to prove them wrong.

According to your thinking, they were right to murder the people they killed.

After all, God gave them that feeling, gave them their proof, and they acted on it.

Praise God!

Belz...

18th February 2008, 01:06 PM

First. let me deviate for a second. In reference to the Ark, there weren't as many species as there are now then. There were basic kinds which speciated later.

Evidence ? Or are you AGAIN making stuff up, both speaking for science AND the bible ?

What is meant, of course, is that God can do all things possible that are possible. This doesn't mean that there are things which are not impossible to do.

Then some of what happens in the bible is clearly impossible.

Belz...

18th February 2008, 01:08 PM

I think stars both make helium (by hydrogen fusion) and consume helium (by helium fusion). My understanding is that helium fusion results in carbon and oxygen, and fusion of carbon and oxygen result in heavier elements. I think these proceed in stages, but don't quote me on that.

That's true, but the sun has insufficient mass for that process to occur. It's simply not hot enough.

Belz...

18th February 2008, 01:16 PM

But you forget one thing that he was commanded to wake from the dead by Jesus in front of witnesses.

So the bible claims.

Today we have science confirming the death of patients with all their scientific instruments and these people still see Christ on the other side who then commands them to return, then what you have here is an N.D.E., Which to me suggests that through science there is a confirmation of an after life.

You haven't done your research properly. NDE means NEAR-DEATH. If they weren't dead then they couldn't be on "the other side".

The way I see it you want to judge God

Thou canst judge that which doth not exist.

The illusion of life is, there is death.

How utterly non-profound.

Which means there is a soul.

Non sequitur. You just claimed something. It doesn't "mean" anything.

I think Radrook has given the most truthful interpretations of the word you just can’t take it.

Edge, stating things out of the blue does not make them true.

There is a miniature, flying pink invisible elephant under my bed.

God doesn’t fool people he shows them with proof and feelings

And since feelings are crap, all we've got left is proof.

Which you will now show us.

One male and one female make three.

Only if you add the right amount of food.

True reality comes after death and this is the dream.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

Have you ever considered that?

Yes, and I found it to be nonsensical, because it is one of an infinite number of faith-based claims one can make. I deal in reality. If there's a "true" reality after this one, then I cannot possibly deal with it until it comes. And before you start preaching about the fact that it'll be too late, well Pascal's wager works both ways. What if it's Karma ???

Be careful what you wish for.

You think I WANT oblivion ? You understand nothing, boy.

edge

18th February 2008, 01:23 PM

After all, God gave them that feeling, gave them their proof, and they acted on it.

If God told you this, then you have the right to make that statement., well did he?

Other wise you are a liar sir and I will slap you with my gloves!
And then out to the smoke house with you.

I actually slapped some one the other day at work with surgical gloves, it was funny, I’m 5’8” , he’s about 6’5”.

According to your thinking, they were right to murder the people they killed.

Ah a mind reader, no one has that right that’s why it’s such a sin as you have already judged them when you say murdered, however self defense is a different story and judgments has been past on to all of those you mentioned.
That’s just in this world.

The outcome of what I told you about isn’t murder but rather answers to the questions we all ask.
If it was, then from what I read about your posts, you in a heap of trouble now!
You still breath so your assumption about God is wrong and a straw man I believe.

That's what Al Qaeda says. That's what the Taliban says. That's what Andrea Yates said when she murdered her children.

I don’t believe it for one minute. Do you?

Foster Zygote

18th February 2008, 02:09 PM

If God told you this, then you have the right to make that statement., well did he?
Hanuman and Wotan came by last week and asked me to say something to that effect, but then Hanuman threw crap on my ceiling and I asked them to leave

Other wise you are a liar sir and I will slap you with my gloves!
And then out to the smoke house with you.
You should slap Radrook then. He's a liar.

The outcome of what I told you about isn’t murder but rather answers to the questions we all ask.
If it was, then from what I read about your posts, you in a heap of trouble now!
You still breath so your assumption about God is wrong and a straw man I believe.
So we should consult you to determine when someone is having a genuine revelation from god?

I don’t believe it for one minute. Do you?
I don't. But I don't believe for one minute that you are hearing god either.

Piggy

18th February 2008, 02:22 PM

If God told you this, then you have the right to make that statement., well did he?

God has never told me anything.

They said it themselves, EXACTLY as you have said the same about the feelings you have.

If I am to believe you, I must also believe them.

Or are you saying that when YOU have feelings that YOU think are from God, they are from God, but when OTHERS do, they are NOT from God?

If so, you are the greatest egotist in the world. You are saying: "My feelings are the Word and Will of Almighty God."

So... YOU tell ME now... how am I to judge that your feelings which you say are from God ARE from God, but these other peoples' feelings which they say are from God are NOT from God?

Tell me.

No dancing, no playing, just plain English.

Tell me.

I actually slapped some one the other day at work with surgical gloves, it was funny, I’m 5’8” , he’s about 6’5”.

If you'd tried that with me, you'd have gotten your ass kicked right then and there.

I don’t believe it for one minute. Do you?

I don't believe any of you for one second.

But you claim that your feelings are proof. If your feelings are proof, and theirs are not, then again, tell me -- tell me! -- how do I tell the difference?

Don't tell me to look in your book because they have their books, too.

bokonon

18th February 2008, 03:20 PM

True reality comes after death and this is the dream.
Have you ever considered that?
Whatever rows your boat.

Tricky

18th February 2008, 04:23 PM

Other wise you are a liar sir and I will slap you with my gloves!
And then out to the smoke house with you.
You're pretty strict about lying for someone who has admitted lying to James Randi so that you could keep your dream of winning a million dollars alive. Is it okay to lie if the payoff is big?

edge

18th February 2008, 05:16 PM

You're pretty strict about lying for someone who has admitted lying to James Randi so that you could keep your dream of winning a million dollars alive. Is it okay to lie if the payoff is big?
Off topic, I already explaned and you refuse to accept it.

Or are you saying that when YOU have feelings that YOU think are from God, they are from God, but when OTHERS do, they are NOT from God?
Tell me.

No dancing, no playing, just plain English.

Tell me.

You have to look at the results where did it get you/them, Andrea Yates?
What did they lose for not recognizing where those feelings/messages came from?
Did I gain anything did you?
The feelings I get like watching the movie the other day is, it backs up my belief.
When I come in here I get the creeps, some times I have no idea what to say and I keep telling myself not to come in here.
Then the answers just appear.

You think I WANT oblivion ? You understand nothing, boy.
Good.

If I am to believe you, I must also believe them.

Believe in the good be aware of the evil.

If you'd tried that with me, you'd have gotten your ass kicked right then and there.

Then you wouldn't be able to read me; it was all in good fun.

So we should consult you to determine when someone is having a genuine revelation from god?

No, they/you will know.

Piggy

18th February 2008, 05:19 PM

You have to look at the results where did it get you/them, Andrea Yates?
What did they lose for not recognizing where those feelings/messages came from?
Did I gain anything did you?
The feelings I get like watching the movie the other day is, it backs up my belief.
When I come in here I get the creeps, some times I have no idea what to say and I keep telling myself not to come in here.
Then the answers just appear.

No no no. No dancing, no dodging, no stalling.

You tell me.

You get a thought in your head or a feeling in your gut and say it's God.

Others do the same and you say it's not God.

You tell me how I can tell the difference.

Why should I believe you, not them?

You tell me.

Radrook

19th February 2008, 04:13 AM

Foster Zygote;3446636
Let me ask you though, what about the miracles of other religions? You speak of "religionists" as though there is a single group that has reached a consensus,....

Despite your perception to the contrarey-I am not under that illusion.

Got it, "Magic" but we all know this is not true.

We?

How do you feel about Mohammed's night flight or Bodhi Dharma crossing a river standing on a floating leaf?

From an agnostic standpoint I would remain neutral. From a Christian standpoint which recognizes that rebel angels try to mimick, as they did during the ten plagues incident in Egypt, I would allow for its possibility.

If I accept that supernatural powers can cause miraculous events then, should I accept that all miracles have indeed occured?

Acceptance of one and absolutely discounting the other would be self-contradictory.

However, that stance would permit the allowance for their possibility.

Isn't that pretty much the definition of "magical"?

Magic is a term not applicable to the unusual events described and attributed to God.

Lev. 19:31, "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God."

Deut. 18:10-14, “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,....

http://www.carm.org/wicca/bible.htm

As for the miraculous: According to Webster's Dictionary:

1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

So the difference is that you seem to believe the miraculous is always related to the supernatural and choose to reject it such -while I accept both definitions and take no umbrage if the first is claimed to have occurred.

Tricky has already covered this well. I agree. A time traveler might be accused of witchcraft by the superstitious, ignorant, miracle believing faithful of the not so distant past. Heck, superstitious, ignorant, miracle believing and faithful people are accusing people of witchcraft right now.

The problem with that skeptical stance is its total inability to prove the supernatural an impossibility. Which leaves mockery as the only alternative. Unfortunately, mockery proves only disagreement.

BTW

Physicians refer to the unexplainable spontaneous headings despite previous negative diagnosis of incurability as miraculous-are they ignorant as well?

Addendum:

The perception of the magical is subjective. What might seem magical to us might very well be commonplace among a hypothetical higher civilizations who have achieved control of natures forces. The manipulation those forces in order to achieve certain phenomena might very well be tagged as magic. So the term itself seems a bit biased. Better to keep an open mind than to realize later that what we considered magic wasn't.

For example, the sudden appearance of Jesus among his followers though no doors were open. That concept is repeatedly tossed about via the Star Treck series where people use a transporter. Yet no one has ever accused the film of propagating magic. In the same series people are healed via what someone might interpret as a wave of the hand holding a device. This is similar to Jesus healing of the sick. Yet no one complains that magic is being invoked on the Star Trek series. There is also the appearance of beings who are -almost godlike-like Q for example. Yet again, no one seems to think it is magic but they accept it as a possibility because it is couched in scientific jargon. So are we really being skeptical due to the ideas themselves, or it for some other reason. In view of the above, I suspect the latter.

Radrook

19th February 2008, 04:27 AM

Visits to the moon were imagined by Johannes Kepler and even a Chinese emperor (Huang Di?).

Despite those few unrepresentative examples, ancient man's concept of the possible did not match modern man's and many of the things taken for granted today woud be seen as miraculous then. Vague enough for you?

Radrook

19th February 2008, 04:46 AM

Good job Rad, they can't understand it even yet. :)

There is a benefit derived:

James 1:3
Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.

Nogbad

19th February 2008, 05:19 AM

Exodus 22:18, “You shall not allow a sorceress to live."

and boy did the Church ever take that one to heart.

Radrook

19th February 2008, 05:32 AM

Exodus 22:18, “You shall not allow a sorceress to live."

and boy did the Church ever take that one to heart.

The RCC took many things to heart that were not incumbant on Christians to take to heart.

Belz...

19th February 2008, 05:36 AM

If God told you this, then you have the right to make that statement., well did he?

Irrelevant. Just as you, they claim that God told them so. By your own logic, this is enough to believe.

I don’t believe it for one minute.

So you are saying that only YOUR beliefs and feelings show the way to the truth ? Don't you see a problem with that ?

Tricky

19th February 2008, 05:38 AM

Magic is a term not applicable to the unusual events described and attributed to God.
Any gods, or just the one you believe in? If another entity poofed fishes and loaves into existence, would you call it "magic"?

As for the definition of "miraculous", I prefer Ambrose Bierce (http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/m.html).

MIRACLE, n. -- An act or event out of the order of nature and unaccountable, as beating a normal hand of four kings and an ace with four aces and a king.

Belz...

19th February 2008, 05:40 AM

What did they lose for not recognizing where those feelings/messages came from?

Are YOU a mind reader, now ?

The feelings I get like watching the movie the other day is, it backs up my belief.

How do you determine if feelings acurately convey any useful information ?

Then the answers just appear.

That is to say: you make them up.

Good.

Huh ? You think it's good that you don't understand ?

Believe in the good be aware of the evil.

That has nothing to do with the sentence you answered.

By WHICH process can we determine what feelings are true and which are not ?

Belz...

19th February 2008, 05:42 AM

There is a benefit derived:

James 1:3
Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.

Genesis 3:4-5
You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Genesis 11:5
The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.

Like God, indeed.

Radrook

19th February 2008, 06:38 AM

Not at all. Even theists are capable of recognizing stellar life-cycles, though "running out of helium" is not the case. Helium is made in the sun, not consumed.

First, thank you for the relevant response:

Actually, running out of Helium comes after the Sun supposedly bloats and burns the earth to a cinder.

Hydrogen is presently being fused into helium. When Hydrogen runs out is then the Sun is supposed to shift to helium fusion which produces another element. Its that shift to Helium which is supposed to bloat our sun due to a shift between the tug of war between gravity and radiation's outward thrust. That bloating is predicted to burn the earth to a cinder. helium fusion produces carbon but since our sun lacks the mass to fuse carbon into iron it will lose the tug of war battle to gravity for lack of sufficient radiation outward thrust and ultimately winds up as a black dwarf. That is the dismal prediction of science.

Psalm 104:4-6 (King James Version)
5Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

But the point is that you can still believe in God and be able to understand science. ?

Misunderstanding of science isn't the reason I believe in God.

Occasionally, it requires that you be willing to admit that the Bible is incorrect on scientific matters. Is that a problem?

Actually, the Bible holds up pretty well scientifically.

Scientific facts only recently discovered had been revealed in the
Bible thousands of years ago. The following list is an example:

Excerpt

The Theory of Creation
by Jim Schicatano

Predictions of Creation

Countless Stars

Jer 33:22

Gen 22:17

Gen 32:12

Gen 15:5
==============

Under SeaValleys

2 Sam 22: 16

====================

Expanding Universe

Isaiah 40: 22

Ps 104: 2, 3

Isa 42: 5

Isa 45:12
==========================

Existence of Space

Job 26:7
==============================

Hydrologic Cycle

Job 26:37-28

Job 26:8

Ecc 1: 6-7
==============
Antiquity of the Earth

Hab 3: 6

Ps 90 1-4

Mic 6:2

Prov 6:22-29

Isa 46:10

Ecc 1:3-11

============
Begining of Time and Universe

Gen 1:1
===========================
Predictions Based on Genesis Creation Account

1.Universe had a begining Gen 1:1

2.Time had a begining Gen 1: 1

3.Earth covered once covered in water Gen 1: 2

4.Surface of earth shrouded in darkness once Gen 1: 2

5.Plant life was first form of life Gen 1:11

6.Spontaneous Generation Impossible Gen 1:

7.Animal life in ocean preceded animal life on land Gen 1:20,24

8.Land a nimals among last creations Gen 1:24

9.Man was God's final creation Gen 1:27 Gen 2:2

=============================

Predictions based on other passages

10.Stars are virtually countless Gen 15: 5, 22: 17 Jer 33:22

11.Earth suspended on nothing Job 26:7

12.Universe expanding Isa 40: 22 42:5 45: 12 and Ps 104:2

13. Earth is spherical--Isa 40:22

(chapter 30 pgs 199-202)

Perhaps from some Christian perspectives, but I assure you that not all Christians share that belief. For many, the end of times is expected long before the sun "runs out of"... hydogen now?

I did not say that everyone claiming to be a Christian hold identical views.

Exactly. Magic. That is what fundamentalist beliefs require.

That all depends on what you classify as magic.

If Christians would cheerfully admit that their beliefs had no basis in science then we could agree on this right here. Sadly, many do not do this. They want their beliefs TAUGHT as science. As long as they make such requests that reality be altered for the benefit of their beliefs, then there will always be discord between science and religion.

Reality as seen by atheists and agnostics.

volatile

19th February 2008, 06:43 AM

Does Pi equal 3, Radrook?

volatile

19th February 2008, 06:44 AM

"claiming to be a Christian"

What about Scotsmen?

Foster Zygote

19th February 2008, 07:18 AM

Despite your perception to the contrarey-I am not under that illusion.
You did not answer the question. How can you convince us that the miracles you believe in are genuine while the miracles you discount are false?

We?
Myself, Piggy, Nogbad, Belz, Tricky, Bokonon etc...

From an agnostic standpoint I would remain neutral. From a Christian standpoint which recognizes that rebel angels try to mimick, as they did during the ten plagues incident in Egypt, I would allow for its possibility.
Again, how do we know that your accepted miracles aren't caused by "rebel angels"?

Acceptance of one and absolutely discounting the other would be self-contradictory.

However, that stance would permit the allowance for their possibility.
So there are false miracles to be found. Do you allow for the possibility that the miracles you accept as genuine are false or indeed that all miracles are false?

Magic is a term not applicable to the unusual events described and attributed to God.

Lev. 19:31, "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God."

Deut. 18:10-14, “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,....
Neither of those verses claims that what god does is not magic.

As for the miraculous: According to Webster's Dictionary:

So the difference is that you seem to believe the miraculous is always related to the supernatural and choose to reject it such -while I accept both definitions and take no umbrage if the first is claimed to have occurred.

The problem with that skeptical stance is its total inability to prove the supernatural an impossibility. Which leaves mockery as the only alternative. Unfortunately, mockery proves only disagreement.
You have it backward. It is not up to me to prove that the supernatural does not exist, it is up to you to prove that it does. My only stance is that there is no evidence in favor of the existence of the supernatural. I will not accept that it exists unless evidence is presented. You have failed to present any evidence for the supernatural.

BTW

Physicians refer to the unexplainable spontaneous headings despite previous negative diagnosis of incurability as miraculous-are they ignorant as well?
I see. So "miracle" is a medical term? I'm sorry, but the vernacular use of the the word "miracle" does not have to result from the belief in the occurance of miracles. Can you provide any modern scientific medical papers that make literal reference to a miraculous cure?

Addendum:

The perception of the magical is subjective. What might seem magical to us might very well be commonplace among a hypothetical higher civilizations who have achieved control of natures forces. The manipulation those forces in order to achieve certain phenomena might very well be tagged as magic. So the term itself seems a bit biased. Better to keep an open mind than to realize later that what we considered magic wasn't.

For example, the sudden appearance of Jesus among his followers though no doors were open. That concept is repeatedly tossed about via the Star Treck series where people use a transporter. Yet no one has ever accused the film of propagating magic. In the same series people are healed via what someone might interpret as a wave of the hand holding a device. This is similar to Jesus healing of the sick. Yet no one complains that magic is being invoked on the Star Trek series. There is also the appearance of beings who are -almost godlike-like Q for example. Yet again, no one seems to think it is magic but they accept it as a possibility because it is couched in scientific jargon. So are we really being skeptical due to the ideas themselves, or it for some other reason. In view of the above, I suspect the latter.
Isn't Q a fictional character? Unless you can tell us how Q did his tricks or how a transporter works they are still essentially "magic".