Evidence that substantiates ANYTHING that happened in the Bible.

[marksman]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Whether they are alleged to have occurred due to corruption, violence or a plague of polka-dot bunny rabbits is irrelevant.

Agreed, with respect to DOC's thesis, which I find beyond silly. I was taking issue with Recovering Agnostics attempt to make an argument by ridicule. I have nothing against arguments by ridicule as long as they are properly founded.

[marksman]

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

This interests me, and I'd like to discuss it further, but I think it might be in danger of getting a bit off-topic for this thread. Would you be interested in starting a new one?

I find such threads in this forum are quickly derailed by people who insist on pointing out that the Bible is a work of fiction (an assertion with which I agree) and thus that all discussion of the Bible is useless (an assertion with which I do not agree).

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by DOC

Argument by assertion

DOC, have you seen some evidence that no global flood occurred?

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Josephus was quite reliable when he was dealing with material with which he was contemporary. However, with earlier material, he simply used what he had heard from earlier writings. For example, in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 10, item 2, Josephus tells the story of how Tharbis, daughter of the Ethiopian king, fell in love with Moses, who, as a prince of Egypt, was leading the Egyptian army besieging the Ethiopian capitol. Tharbis, look down from her tower inside the city, saw Moses and fell instantly, madly in love with him. She sent him a message offering to show him how to take the city, if he agreed to marry her. He agreed; she showed him the secret entrance; he took the city and married Tharbis. She, then, was the Cushite wife referred to in Num. 12:1:

Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because ofthe Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman.

Thus, Josephus bought into an extra-biblical legend in order to explain Moses' Cushite wife, Cush being an alternate name for Ethiopia or any black African nation south of Egypt. In point of fact, Cushan was another name for Midian, (see Habakkuk 3:7). Thus, Moses' "Cushite" wife was none other than Zipporah, the Midianite woman he married.

Another example of the fallibility of Josephus can be found in Wars of the Jews Book 7, Chapter 7, item 4. Here, Josephus says that the Alans, a warlike tribe living in the Caucasus, and a subdivision of the Sarmatians, had designs of Media. Thus, according to Josephus (emphasis added):

. . . with which intentions they treated with the king of Hyrcania; for he was the master of that passage which Alexander [the Great] shut up with iron gates.

That Alexander the Great built iron gates across a pass in the Caucasus Mountains to keep out the northern barbarians was a sort of urban legend, one of many about Alexander the Great. Josephus bought into this, just as did the legend about Moses marrying an Ethiopian princess. However, Alexander's gates are nothing but fiction.

So, in closing, when Josephus was talking about Moses, he just followed hear-say. his reliability was limited to what he saw directly or at lest recorded from his contemporaries.

Now, DOC, which pharaoh would you say was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?

DOC: Regarding the historicity of Moses, I'm posting, as a quote, what I posted before about the unreliability of Josephus in matters prior to his time. That he believed in Alexander's gate shows that he wasn't even reliable as a source for material 300 years before his time. You haven't responded to this.

You also have failed to respond to my repeated question concerning which pharaoh was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. If you feel you have answered this question already, respond by naming the post by number. If you have me on ignore, shame on you. Evasion weakens your case and makes you appear dishonest. Surely, someone who refers to himself as Disciple of Christ (DOC) should at least be forthright and honest.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Quote:

Josephus was quite reliable when he was dealing with material with which he was contemporary. However, with earlier material, he simply used what he had heard from earlier writings. For example, in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 10, item 2, Josephus tells the story of how Tharbis, daughter of the Ethiopian king, fell in love with Moses, who, as a prince of Egypt, was leading the Egyptian army besieging the Ethiopian capitol. Tharbis, look down from her tower inside the city, saw Moses and fell instantly, madly in love with him. She sent him a message offering to show him how to take the city, if he agreed to marry her. He agreed; she showed him the secret entrance; he took the city and married Tharbis. She, then, was the Cushite wife referred to in Num. 12:1:

Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because ofthe Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman.

Thus, Josephus bought into an extra-biblical legend in order to explain Moses' Cushite wife, Cush being an alternate name for Ethiopia or any black African nation south of Egypt. In point of fact, Cushan was another name for Midian, (see Habakkuk 3:7). Thus, Moses' "Cushite" wife was none other than Zipporah, the Midianite woman he married.

Another example of the fallibility of Josephus can be found in Wars of the Jews Book 7, Chapter 7, item 4. Here, Josephus says that the Alans, a warlike tribe living in the Caucasus, and a subdivision of the Sarmatians, had designs of Media. Thus, according to Josephus (emphasis added):

. . . with which intentions they treated with the king of Hyrcania; for he was the master of that passage which Alexander [the Great] shut up with iron gates.

That Alexander the Great built iron gates across a pass in the Caucasus Mountains to keep out the northern barbarians was a sort of urban legend, one of many about Alexander the Great. Josephus bought into this, just as did the legend about Moses marrying an Ethiopian princess. However, Alexander's gates are nothing but fiction.

So, in closing, when Josephus was talking about Moses, he just followed hear-say. his reliability was limited to what he saw directly or at lest recorded from his contemporaries.

Now, DOC, which pharaoh would you say was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?

DOC: Regarding the historicity of Moses, I'm posting, as a quote, what I posted before about the unreliability of Josephus in matters prior to his time. That he believed in Alexander's gate shows that he wasn't even reliable as a source for material 300 years before his time. You haven't responded to this.

You also have failed to respond to my repeated question concerning which pharaoh was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. If you feel you have answered this question already, respond by naming the post by number. If you have me on ignore, shame on you. Evasion weakens your case and makes you appear dishonest. Surely, someone who refers to himself as Disciple of Christ (DOC) should at least be forthright and honest.

Just quoting you in case you're on ignore.

I don't think I am on DOC's ignore list yet.

[kmortis]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Josephus was quite reliable when he was dealing with material with which he was contemporary. However, with earlier material, he simply used what he had heard from earlier writings. For example, in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 10, item 2, Josephus tells the story of how Tharbis, daughter of the Ethiopian king, fell in love with Moses, who, as a prince of Egypt, was leading the Egyptian army besieging the Ethiopian capitol. Tharbis, look down from her tower inside the city, saw Moses and fell instantly, madly in love with him. She sent him a message offering to show him how to take the city, if he agreed to marry her. He agreed; she showed him the secret entrance; he took the city and married Tharbis. She, then, was the Cushite wife referred to in Num. 12:1:

Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because ofthe Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman.

Thus, Josephus bought into an extra-biblical legend in order to explain Moses' Cushite wife, Cush being an alternate name for Ethiopia or any black African nation south of Egypt. In point of fact, Cushan was another name for Midian, (see Habakkuk 3:7). Thus, Moses' "Cushite" wife was none other than Zipporah, the Midianite woman he married.

Another example of the fallibility of Josephus can be found in Wars of the Jews Book 7, Chapter 7, item 4. Here, Josephus says that the Alans, a warlike tribe living in the Caucasus, and a subdivision of the Sarmatians, had designs of Media. Thus, according to Josephus (emphasis added):

. . . with which intentions they treated with the king of Hyrcania; for he was the master of that passage which Alexander [the Great] shut up with iron gates.

That Alexander the Great built iron gates across a pass in the Caucasus Mountains to keep out the northern barbarians was a sort of urban legend, one of many about Alexander the Great. Josephus bought into this, just as did the legend about Moses marrying an Ethiopian princess. However, Alexander's gates are nothing but fiction.

So, in closing, when Josephus was talking about Moses, he just followed hear-say. his reliability was limited to what he saw directly or at lest recorded from his contemporaries.

Now, DOC, which pharaoh would you say was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?

DOC: Regarding the historicity of Moses, I'm posting, as a quote, what I posted before about the unreliability of Josephus in matters prior to his time. That he believed in Alexander's gate shows that he wasn't even reliable as a source for material 300 years before his time. You haven't responded to this.

You also have failed to respond to my repeated question concerning which pharaoh was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. If you feel you have answered this question already, respond by naming the post by number. If you have me on ignore, shame on you. Evasion weakens your case and makes you appear dishonest. Surely, someone who refers to himself as Disciple of Christ (DOC) should at least be forthright and honest.

yeah...that's what does it.

[halleyscomet]

This is getting a little circular.

So far, the thread's "Evidence" can be summarized thus:

The Bible frequently used real place names for much of what happened from the account of Moses onward. That's not really "evidence" of Biblical accuracy, as comic books and The DaVinci code meet that criteria as well.

While there's no evidence of the life of Abraham, Ur, the place from which he supposedly hailed, was a real place.

An early Roman historian, known for recording legends as fact, asserted that Moses was real. His "evidence" appears to have been Jewish legends.

Jericho appears to have actually been a real city whose dirt and stone walls collapsed. Numerous natural phenomenon could account for the collapse, but ancient peoples would no doubt have seen such an event as an act of God, especially if it happened during a siege.

The Flood did not happen. We've beaten these facts to death.

Did I miss anything?

[kmortis]

Originally Posted by halleyscomet

This is getting a little circular.

So far, the thread's "Evidence" can be summarized thus:

The Bible frequently used real place names for much of what happened from the account of Moses onward. That's not really "evidence" of Biblical accuracy, as comic books and The DaVinci code meet that criteria as well.

While there's no evidence of the life of Abraham, Ur, the place from which he supposedly hailed, was a real place.

An early Roman historian, known for recording legends as fact, asserted that Moses was real. His "evidence" appears to have been Jewish legends.

Jericho appears to have actually been a real city whose dirt and stone walls collapsed. Numerous natural phenomenon could account for the collapse, but ancient peoples would no doubt have seen such an event as an act of God, especially if it happened during a siege.

The Flood did not happen. We've beaten these facts to death.

Did I miss anything?

That multiple famous people hold Christianity to be true, the Bible is true because famous people wouldn't waste their time on falshoods.

The number of Christian martyrs gives evidence to the troothiness of the Bible, because no one would let themselves be sacrificed for a lie. Unless they're of another religion.

Thomas Jefferson said somethings that, if you squint, support Christianity, therefore the Bible is true.

Geisler, Turek and Dobson. Need I say more?

Sir Ramsey said positive stuff about Luke. Therefore the whole Bible's true.

Getting beaten is likened to a sunburn. Ok, that's not evidence for the Bible, just a really funny statement. (not funny "ha-ha", funny peculiar)

That's all I can think of off the top of my fingers.

[halleyscomet]

Originally Posted by kmortis

That multiple famous people hold Christianity to be true, the Bible is true because famous people wouldn't waste their time on falshoods.

The number of Christian martyrs gives evidence to the troothiness of the Bible, because no one would let themselves be sacrificed for a lie. Unless they're of another religion.

Thomas Jefferson said somethings that, if you squint, support Christianity, therefore the Bible is true.

Geisler, Turek and Dobson. Need I say more?

Sir Ramsey said positive stuff about Luke. Therefore the whole Bible's true.

Getting beaten is likened to a sunburn. Ok, that's not evidence for the Bible, just a really funny statement. (not funny "ha-ha", funny peculiar)

That's all I can think of off the top of my fingers.

Of course martyrdom can be used to support Islam, most Hindi faiths, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and a host of other religions. Zoroastrianism probably has the best case for using martyrs as evidence of being the "right" religion, especially after what Islam did to them in what is now Iran.

[kmortis]

Originally Posted by halleyscomet

Of course martyrdom can be used to support Islam, most Hindi faiths, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and a host of other religions. Zoroastrianism probably has the best case for using martyrs as evidence of being the "right" religion, especially after what Islam did to them in what is now Iran.

Oh nooooo, by the Law of Non-Contradiction, only one religion can be the One True Religion™. Therefore the Bible is true.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by DOC

Argument by assertion

DOC, is there evidence of two conflicting creation myths in the Bible?

[marksman]

Originally Posted by halleyscomet

Did I miss anything?

The Bible is true because it is the One True Book so it must be infallible when it says it is the One True Book.

_{Great. Now my brain hurts from all the dumb.}

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by kmortis

The number of Christian martyrs gives evidence to the troothiness of the Bible, because no one would let themselves be sacrificed for a lie. Unless they're of another religion.

Interesting aside: Were Early Christians Really Persecuted? Historian Reveals the Surprising Truth.
The short version is: The Christians were never subjected to sustained, targeted persecution. The accounts of the church’s first martyrs do not match what we know about Roman society and have some anachronisms. The "hiding away in catacombs" seems to be a myth. Some Christians were executed (gruesomely) but that was mostly prosecution not persecution.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by halleyscomet

An early Roman historian, known for recording legends as fact, asserted that Moses was real. His "evidence" appears to have been Jewish legends.

Flavius Josephus is, on the other hand, our prime informant on first century Judaea, especially the Jewish War, in which he was a participant (first on Jewish side, later on Roman side).

Originally Posted by halleyscomet

Jericho appears to have actually been a real city whose dirt and stone walls collapsed. Numerous natural phenomenon could account for the collapse, but ancient peoples would no doubt have seen such an event as an act of God, especially if it happened during a siege.

But Jericho was uninhabited at the alleged time of Joshua - there is a ca. 300 year gap in its habitation history.

Originally Posted by kmortis

Getting beaten is likened to a sunburn. Ok, that's not evidence for the Bible, just a really funny statement. (not funny "ha-ha", funny peculiar)

And therefore, slavery is no big deal.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Interesting aside: Were Early Christians Really Persecuted? Historian Reveals the Surprising Truth.
The short version is: The Christians were never subjected to sustained, targeted persecution. The accounts of the church’s first martyrs do not match what we know about Roman society and have some anachronisms. The "hiding away in catacombs" seems to be a myth. Some Christians were executed (gruesomely) but that was mostly prosecution not persecution.

I think it has been mentioned before that the persecutions have been overblown, but it's interesting another historian took the time to research the issue.

I challenged DOC to a game up-thread: he names martyrs (and provides evidence for them) and I name non-martyrs (and provide evidence). Each (non)martyr is one point.

He didn't take up the challenge, alas. I had already started preparing for my intended first move: the Theban Legion.

[TimCallahan]

Though DOC hasn't answered my question about who he thinks was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, we do have as the earliest preserved document mentioning Israel, the Victory Sele of Merneptah, son of Rameses II, called "the Great" Merneptah reigned 1212 - 1202 BCE. His reign was notable for two military campaigns. He repulsed a combined invasion of sea peoples and Libyans, and he put down a revolt in Syria and Canaan. His victory stele, raised to commemorate these two campaigns, mentions Israel as among the peoples, cities and kingdoms he defeated. Here is its text (emphasis added):

The princes are prostrate, saying, "Peace!"
Not one is raising his head among the Nine Bows.
Now that Tehenu [Libya] has come to ruin,
Hatti is pacified;
The Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe:
Ashkelon has been overcome;
Gezer has been captured;
Yano'am is made non-existent.
Israel is laid waste and his seed is not;
Hurru is become a widow because of Egypt.

The "determinative" used in conjunction with "Israel" indicates it designated a people or tribal group. Determinatives were glyphs used in conjunction with names indicating whether they were names of persons, cities, nation states or tribes. That "Israel" is designated a tribal group indicates the the Israelites had not yet created a nation state. They were but one of a number of peoples inhabiting Canaan at the end to the Late Bronze Age, which was terminated by a period of chaos, invasions, sacking of major cities and the end of many kingdom s an civilizations - such as the Mycenaeans, Troy and the Hittite Empire. This cycle of events from ca. 1200 to ca. 1050 is collectively called "The Catastrophe."

A similar cycle of events ended the Roman Empire in the west and initiated the Middle Ages. During such periods, new peoples come into existence and existing peoples are absorbed in the process. Thus, the Romanized Gauls were, along with the Bergundians, amalgamated with the Franks, creating the French people. The disordered remnants of Suevic tribes who had stayed in southern Germany during the Teutonic invasions amalgamted into a new tribal group calling themselves the Bavars, i.e. the Bavarians.

Likewise, at the end o the Late Bronze Age, new tribal groups came into being. One of this was likely Israel. Thus, we are not likely to find any earlier references to this entity. So, by the time of Merneptah, a tribal group called Israel was already in Canaan, but as one of many peoples there. We know also that after fending off another attack on the Nile Delta by foreign peoples, Rameses III, who reigned from 1182 to 1151 BCE, invaded Canaan one last time. We have archaeological records of Egyptian garrisons during this time. It was Egypt's last hurrah.

The Book of Judges records strife between the Israelites and a number of other peoples, among them Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, Midianites and Ishmaelites. Two peoples strikingly absent from the Book of Judges are the Hittites and the Egyptians. This indicates that, to the degree anything in Judges is historical, it occurred after the death of Ramesses III. This makes any Exodus event set ca. 1450 BCE highly unlikely.

So, DOC, since the Israelites were already in Canaan at the time of Merneptah, do you, like Cecil B. DeMille, see the Pharaoh of the Exodus as being Rameses II, the Great?

[DOC]

Originally Posted by joobz

DOC, linking to an article on conservapedia is as useful as linking to and article on crazy toothless hobo monthly.

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

[DOC]

Originally Posted by marksman

I am not a biblical literalist. I do not believe in God. But I have read the Bible in the original (or as original as we have) Hebrew so I feel the need to make some comments.

Noah was merely the most righteous man in his generation. A crappy crappy generation. Also the Hebrew makes clear that the problem is not sin but corruption. The world was essentially suffering a cosmic infection of some sort. The people were corrupted. The animals were corrupted. Even the land was corrupted. The flood was needed to destroy the corruption.

Which is not to defend the fictional character of God. Why let the infection get this bad. The corruption, it is implied, comes from fallen angels. Why not stop the angels? But if we are going to take literalists to task we need to do so accurately, not based on the Cliffs Notes version

If you stop people's and angel's behavior then you end free will, and God's creations become programmed robots.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by DOC

If you stop people's and angel's behavior then you end free will, and God's creations become programmed robots.

Now if there were just some evidence for any of the mythological gods or angels.

DOC, have you seen evidence that there are two contradictory creation myths in the Bible?

[DOC]

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

This interests me, and I'd like to discuss it further, but I think it might be in danger of getting a bit off-topic for this thread. Would you be interested in starting a new one?

You might consider reading Young's literal translation of the Bible along with the other translations.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by DOC

You might consider reading Young's literal translation of the Bible along with the other translations.

Have you read more than 30% of any translation of it yourself yet?

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by DOC

You might consider reading Young's literal translation of the Bible along with the other translations.

Or, DOC, you could invest the time, do the studying, and learn to read Hebrew (and Aramaic) yourself...

Do you ever intend to respond to my post 1602?
( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1602 )

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC

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

better. Wikipedia is a more reliable source that conservapedia.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

DOC, is there evidence of two conflicting creation myths in the Bible?

I guess if you're the type of person who assumes the worse and thinks people back then weren't smart enough to have a creation book that doesn't get its facts mixed up in the first two chapters, then there is some evidence.

But if you see Genesis as one account that then immediately expounds on that account (which I and the authors of the two links I brought in do), then there is no evidence.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by joobz

better. Wikipedia is a more reliable source that conservapedia.

If that is your opinion, fine, but that still doesn't mean just because information is in conservapedia it is wrong or not of some value to know.

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by DOC

I guess if you're the type of person who assumes the worse and thinks people back then weren't smart enough to have a creation book that doesn't get its facts mixed up in the first two chapters, then there is some evidence.

Is it really your position that the last half-century of textual criticism, and serious bible scholarship, has been promulgated by "the type of person who assumes the worst"? I can name a host of scholars, under whom I was privileged to study, whose lives and works refute you.

Originally Posted by DOC

But if you see Genesis as one account that then immediately expounds on that account (which I and the authors of the two links I brought in do), then there is no evidence.

...in other words, your response to my post #1602 is, in essence, "If you believe Genesis is perfect, then you will come to see that Genesis is perfect..."

What an odd thing to claim, in a thread about evidence.

What about the completely non-parallel sequences of "events"?

As for me and my house, we think that you don't mean what it looks as if you think you are saying, in your statement that I highlighted...

DOC, the creation myths are not just two different "accounts", but two entirely different traditions, collected from at least three different sources, told into two different oral traditions for two different purposes.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by joobz

DOC, linking to an article on conservapedia is as useful as linking to and article on crazy toothless hobo monthly.

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

And linking to an article about a completely unrelated informal logical fallacy is as useful as a hip pocket in a sock.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

If you stop people's and angel's behavior then you end free will, and God's creations become programmed robots.

What does this have to do with evidence that substantiates ANYTHING that happened in the Bible?

Or were you about to present evidence of angels?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

You might consider reading Young's literal translation of the Bible along with the other translations.

You might consider presenting evidence that substantiates ANYTHING that happened in the Bible.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by marksman

Which is not to defend the fictional character of God. Why let the infection get this bad. The corruption, it is implied, comes from fallen angels. Why not stop the angels? But if we are going to take literalists to task we need to do so accurately, not based on the Cliffs Notes version

If you stop people's and angel's behavior then you end free will, and God's creations become programmed robots.

@ marksman

This is exactly the kind of thing I was getting at when I made the point that posts such as the one of yours that DOC has seized on here need to contain huge disclaimers in every sentence to prevent him mining them for quotes and using them to veer off into these ridiculously off-topic side issues.



@ DOC

You can't stop angels doing stuff because they don't exist.

Or will you be attempting to address the topic by presenting evidence for them having taken part in events described in the Bible?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

You might consider reading Young's literal translation of the Bible along with the other translations.

Which translation contains the evidence that is the topic of this thread?

[kmortis]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Which translation contains the evidence that is the topic of this thread?

The one in the original Klingon?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

DOC, is there evidence of two conflicting creation myths in the Bible?

I guess if you're the type of person who assumes the worse and thinks people back then weren't smart enough to have a creation book that doesn't get its facts mixed up in the first two chapters, then there is some evidence.

What if you're the type of person who assumes the worse worst and thinks people back then weren't smart enough to have a means of writing anything down at all?

Originally Posted by DOC

But if you see Genesis as one account that then immediately expounds on that account (which I and the authors of the two links I brought in do), then there is no evidence.

The only way to see Genesis in that way is by ignoring stuff like this:

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Originally Posted by DOC

But you didn't add more detail in your A,a B,b sequence whereas the bible did add more detail.

In Genesis Chapter 1:27 {by the way, chapters, verses, and modern punctuation, didn't exist when the bible was first written. They were added much later) it says this (YLT)

<snip>

That's not adding more detail to the story in Genesis 1. It's a completely different account.

Genesis 1-2:4a	Genesis 2:4b-3:24
Creation is divided into days	No days or other periods of time are mentioned
Creation has a cosmic scope	Creation has to do with the earth only
Animals are created before man	Man created before animals
Animals are part of a cosmic design (along with plants and everything else)	Animals are created for a limited purpose: to keep man company or be "a helper"--though they turn out to be unsuitable for Adam, forcing God to make Eve instead
Man is to rule the world	Man is to have charge of Eden only and, presumably, is never to leave it
Woman is created simultaneously with man	Woman is created after (and from) the body of man
No names are given to creatures	All creatures, including man and woman, are given names
Only the deity speaks	Four speakers engage in dialogue, one of them an animal
The deity makes a day of the week holy	The deity forbids eating the fruit of a tree

Gabel, John B. and Wheeler, Charles B. The Bible as Literature: An Introduction. New York: Oxford U P, 1986 (Page 99)

Table available online here

And I note that you're still omitting inconvenient verses that contradict the sequence of events in Gen 1. (Not to mention that they also contradict modern scientific understanding)

I'd warn you that you lose credibility when you do this, except that you don't have any to lose.

You can keep claiming that there are no conflicts there until the cows come home and post as many apologetic links as you like but as long as those conflicts are right there in convenient tabulated form for everyone to read for themselves your argument just becomes a bit more ludicrous every time you attempt it.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

Originally Posted by joobz

better. Wikipedia is a more reliable source that conservapedia.

If that is your opinion, fine, but that still doesn't mean just because information is in conservapedia it is wrong or not of some value to know.

No, the information in conservapedia it is wrong or of no value regardless of joobz' opinion.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Which translation contains the evidence that is the topic of this thread?

Originally Posted by kmortis

The one in the original Klingon?

No, no. Shakespeare's plays were originally written in Klingon. The Bible is originally in Qenya.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by DOC

You might consider reading Young's literal translation of the Bible along with the other translations.

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

Or, DOC, you could invest the time, do the studying, and learn to read Hebrew (and Aramaic) yourself...

Hold on. He first has to learn Greek to read the New Testament in its original!

And we've gone over the issue of "literal translation" repeatedly before. It doesn't help one iota to slavishly translate word-for-word, but rather is counterproductive, and it definitely would not highlight points like marksman raised.

[Recovering Agnostic]

Originally Posted by marksman

Agreed, with respect to DOC's thesis, which I find beyond silly. I was taking issue with Recovering Agnostics attempt to make an argument by ridicule. I have nothing against arguments by ridicule as long as they are properly founded.

I didn't think I was attempting argument by ridicule - more like observing that a literal interpretation should lead to a God that's a very long way from the one literalists apparently believe in, and attempting (but possibly failing) to do so in a humorous manner. Whether it's properly founded is another matter, but your objection relates to one specific aspect of quite a long post, which doesn't affect the basic point.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by marksman

I am not a biblical literalist. I do not believe in God. But I have read the Bible in the original (or as original as we have) Hebrew so I feel the need to make some comments.

Noah was merely the most righteous man in his generation. A crappy crappy generation. Also the Hebrew makes clear that the problem is not sin but corruption. The world was essentially suffering a cosmic infection of some sort. The people were corrupted. The animals were corrupted. Even the land was corrupted. The flood was needed to destroy the corruption.

Which is not to defend the fictional character of God. Why let the infection get this bad. The corruption, it is implied, comes from fallen angels. Why not stop the angels? But if we are going to take literalists to task we need to do so accurately, not based on the Cliffs Notes version

I second the idea to discuss this further.

But your take on Noah - basically, as the least evil character of his generation - makes the story make even less sense. Why did God go to all this trouble - instructing Noah to build the boat, and to assemble all the animals - when he was a so flawed too? Why didn't God just zap up the place completely and start all over again?

[X]

Originally Posted by DOC

I guess if you're the type of person who assumes the worse and thinks people back then weren't smart enough to have a creation book that doesn't get its facts mixed up in the first two chapters, then there is some evidence.

Another option:
That the two different accounts of creation were written by different peoples following different traditions. Then later, the two different traditions were put together in a compilation along with other stories and traditions.
And for the record, that is the position of the vast majority of objective scholars studying the bible. At least, the ones with enough intellectual honesty not to begin by concluding infallibility.
While discussion of what exactly led them to this conclusion would be interesting, it would also be off-topic.

Originally Posted by DOC

But if you see Genesis as one account that then immediately expounds on that account (which I and the authors of the two links I brought in do), then there is no evidence.

You mean if you follow the biblical literalist's pre-determined conclusion that the bible must be true (or else their fuzzy little world implodes). Conclusions should follow from facts, not be used to interpret facts (carts don't go before the horse).




A thought:
Perhaps we would do well to make a brief list of the parts of the bile that are clearly mythical. There's no point trying to find evidence for those sections, and it would leave us other sections to ponder.
For example:
- the creation myths
- flood myths (yes, plural; there are 2 different flood accounts interlaced in the bible)
- the exodus (a neat topic for another thread about the lack of evidence for it, but not here)
- the sun standing still

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by DOC

I guess if you're the type of person who assumes the worse and thinks people back then weren't smart enough to have a creation book that doesn't get its facts mixed up in the first two chapters, then there is some evidence.

No, one mustn't assume anything at all, one merely has to read the two accounts. That is objective evidence that there are two contradictory creation accounts, neither of which reflects reality. Objective means that anyone can read it for themselves and see exactly the same thing.

Quote:

But if you see make believe Genesis as one account that then immediately expounds on that account (which I and the authors of the two links I brought in do), then there is no evidence.

FTFY.

DOC, have you seen some evidence that no global flood occurred?