Interpreting Theology
 

Spawning from the Theology thread, how do you interpret various theology?

Note that ‘you’ as in yourself and not how it’s supposed to be interpreted.

I grew up in a religion-less family. I was never indoctrinated with any religion. At the same time however, I wasn’t instructed to be against any particular religion either. My parents basically just helped me make sense of my own understandings. Be the observer. Therefore, any understanding of any religion I’ve read or discussed doesn’t assume that the theology is right literally but rather but is viewed by me as creative concepts expressed in an embellished manner. As we all know however, you can interpret the same concept in two extremely different ways. Example: Note that I’m not even concerned with being biblically accurate.


“Jesus will come back from the dead.”

A Literal Way = A man named Jesus will physically resurrect and live again.

A Symbolic Way = The ‘message’ that Jesus preached will become a dominate way of acting/thinking once again at some point a time among most people and thus ‘he’ as in ‘his message’ will become alive again.


”You will go to hell”

A Literal Way = Assumes you as in your current way of consciousness or even your physical self will actually go to a place named hell.

A Symbolic Way = Since you’re dead, your ‘life’ so to speak, is represented - literally - as more so your legacy. Such as, “he’s with us in our hearts.” Hell is represented as something that’s really really not good, basically. If you do wrong, the only thing you will leave behind (life) will be bad (hell). Therefore ‘you’ will ‘burn’ in ‘hell.’


You can also express the same concept in two completely different ways.


I got the holy spirit!

A Literal Way = An entity has actually possessed me causing the happiness I’m feeling.

A Symbolic Way = My mind (spirit) is in an elevated state of comfort and happiness, referenced with “holy” because holy notates the mind with “extremely good.”


I have a hard time emulating how some religious people thought process works because I can never tell the difference between literal interpretation/expressions and metaphoric/symbolic ones.

For example, in the theology thread Alice told me that how you refer to god – whether it’s “he” “she” “it” or whatever is irrelevant. Which is ridiculous of course, because as someone who attempts to look at religion objectively like I do, I have no idea how your mind is conceptualizing “god.” If you say “he” you’re communicating to me that you’re conceptualizing a human-like man, physically and/or metaphysically. Not to mention that I’ve came across many people that actually do conceptualize many biblical concepts literally, such as god resembling an actual man, physically/metaphysically.

So in essence, upon interpreting theology, do you take it mostly literal or mostly symbolic? If so, what do you interpret as literal and what as symbolic? For any symbolism, do interpret it as divine or no different than messages in something like a book of proverbs. (Which do contain mature, useful points by the way.)

I hear: "I need an excuse to be a productive person, for my will alone shall not suffice."
I hear: "I'm pissed at you but I can't do anything about it. GRRR."
My friends and I used to codename Meth and Coke 'Buddha' and 'Jesus'. We codenamed our drug sessions 'prayer'. By your literal definition, I suppose we were catching the Holy Spirit.

In hopes that this doesn't become another on-going debate, I'll say that I regard almost everything the Bible says as a kind of tool.

I think that needs clarification. When I read something from the Bible (or any other ancient religious text), it immediately becomes SMACKING of pyschological play. I never really give the literal text any credit, though.

I just see the entire thing as an overly-obvious control device.

I halfly agree with sass here.

A lot of christian societies are kind of overwhelming, Cult-like even.
I was raised a christian (protestant.) but when I went to an open-air praise (It's like a rock festival except without the beer and rockmusic etc.)
I walked into this tent and all these people were doing the same over and over. I personally saw hitler in front of me.

So thats when I kind of didn't believe in christianity anymore.

But on the psychological part. I don't think it's the bible per se, but more of the people preaching the bible to random people.

Can you expand on this?
I think I know what you are talking about, and have thoughts on that specific matter, but I want to hear you clarify it first.

Same here. Though, I don't really blame the bible as much as I blame corrupt churches and ignorant people.

I mean church as in whatever church institute had power in it's time. Weren't they ones doing translating/editing?

Now we all know that Constantine had called the council to assemble what was to be canonical, and what isnt. But, do you have even the slightest bit of evidence to suggest that he and the other people in the councils "edited," as you say, the scriptures?
We know for certain that the Old Testament is literally unchanged. So we have verification that those documents, especially the prophecies, have been untouched (Dead Sea Scrolls FTW).
As for the new testament documents, there has been many fragments of various parts of the new testament books which predate the first council of Nicea, and thus also attest to the unchanged nature of the new testament, to about 99%.
I do not have sources for the new testament documents found... I am looking for them right now though.

No, that is not editing. He was not the only dude that was involved in selection either.
The whole point was that everyone pretty much believed the same thing, with some variations here and there, even before Constantine came along. Then comes along Arius with a totally different and new way of interpreting what everyone had already accepted as scripture, by incuding various other documents which were not generally accepted as scripture. His views for every piece of scripture they questioned him about differed from what was accepted by the majority. When I say "they" I am referring to the council members, which number in at least the couple hundreds. That is a pretty big majority.

Please stop making such gross overgeneralizations, and actually look into the details of the events. It's like me saying that the only reason why Darwin came up with his theory of evolution because he wanted to attack Christianity.
I would also like to devote more time to this discussion, but it is finals week, and I have an exam tomorrow at 7:30 AM.

Well what I mean is, that it was a big tent with a lot of people sitting down at first. But of course the minister said all rise, So everyone stood up simultaniously(spelling?) and raised their hands simultaniously. so I inmediatly saw a black and white movie with people doin the "heil hitler" hand greeting.

I hope that clarifies it a bit.

Dude, Devo, have you ever read any of the apocrypha? Most of it is pretty out of place and dumb. You wouldn't need to be a member of the Nicean council to figure it out. The gospel of Thomas is everyone's favorite apocrypha and it's pretty unlike anything in the Bible and not backed up very well by the old testament. That is an important point, because Jesus himself canonized the OT and the standard Gospels are littered with references to it.

Plus as Lisztman (Fjordor) pointed out, we have manuscripts that date back to a time when people who actually witness the events could have verified them. From a historical standpoint, the Bible doesn't live up to the standards most historians use to qualify something as "legend" or folklore.

Yea, witnesses to historical events are never biased or never skew them.

I mean, even look at the Civil War. The South still thinks they WON in some parts of the nation.

Its all about perspective and interpretation. (Whether or not the Bible was mutialted intentionally is up for grabs. I think yes. But, you know, it is impossible to pass down literature in so many languages for so many years and have it stay as intact as it was when it was first written down. IMPOSSIBLE.)

Impossible according to whom? I mean, why would people assume these things. Copying the Bible was something a lot of poeple were wroking on independently. If two people copy something independently and you compare their copies and they agree, chances are, it's right. It doesn't take a lot of proof to show this. We use this kind of proof to put people in jail and on death row all the time. It's called corroborative evidence.

Have you ever even tried a simple game of telephone. You can't even get a drawing of a house to go through 20 people and come out accurately on the other end. I've tried it.

You don't understand behavioral sciences? Life is about perspective - it's about what a person sees, and the output from what they see. Its impossible for every person to see and duplicate things exactly as they saw them. Thats what we call "nature of man." Its a great thing. Theres no such thing as perfect! I am sure even YOU can agree with that.

Also, there are far too many factors involved. Mathematically, you know that the chances of getting something PERFECTLY INTACT after going through 2000 years of translation(thousands of factors alone there, esppecially when its translated into every language on the face of the planet, essentially) and being passed on or editted out (there's proof of it out there. Even the exclusion of important information) in a pure form is mathematically impossible.

But if you want to keep believing that it is and defy everything you've ever learned in your academic career, go ahead. It's your money and your religion.

The only factor you have on your side is that the Bible is the word of God - which even today is debatable.

You need to understand that there are THOUSANDS of religions out there claiming that THEY have the word of god in their hands. You're silly to think YOU have the right answer. You don't. And I would never claim that I had "a right answer" either.

Man has been pondering the "truth" about the world since day one. Theres a reason no one has any proof of any truth - because one doesn't exist in a united, tiny little bundle. Truth is in perception. It is the one constant.

It's editing in the sense Devo used the word, as a movie director cutting scenes he thinks doesn't fit the film. It's cutting scripture that doesn't fit a preconcieved doctrine.

Whether this doctrine was believed by the majority or not is irrelivent. There could be many reasons for it gaining a hold over people. Considering that a main doctrine of the NT is to spread the specific message of Jesus' "physical resurrection" as far and wide as possible, it isn't surprising that this specific set of scriptures/doctrines is what became prevalent. It was part of their doctrine to actively seek and convert others. Don't assume that majority = truth.

The followers of Jesus post-crucifixion had a great deal of diversity concerning their beliefs, a lot moreso then exists today. Read "The Gnostic Gospels" by Elain Pagels or "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman. There were many groups that believed the resurrection to be a symbolic tale of His message (which I think would be a VERY large "variation"). Everyone did eventually believe the same thing, but only after the followers of other theologies were killed off and the majority of their gospels destroyed, while the "true" followers of Jesus stuffed their gospels down everybody's throat.

Because if the people doing the analysis have similar mind sets, then corroborative evidence isn't very reliable. Now, if you take people across totally different cultures and extremely different ways of thinking and understanding, and they still reach the same conclusion, then you’re on to something outside of perspective and interpretation. That's how I see it.

First of all, you're not making any sense in comparing it to telephone. It's nothing at all like that. People have always, even to this day, made copies from the oldest source available. And, like we've mentioned a thousand times before, even though there is a huge time gap between the dead sea scrolls and the 2nd oldest OT, they are identical. So, where's you telephone now? Quit talking out of your ass.

You're apparently very upset that I tried to explain how I view religion and it's followers.

I am sorry I do not see life the way you see it. We ARE talking about theology here. Thats pretty broad, once again.

I am saying that I have no interest in reading (and BELIEVING) anything that came out of an era from thousands of years ago.

And yes, its VERY SIMILAR to telephone, in a graphic sense. And thats even HARDER to duplicate.

Would you like to discuss what certain things mean in certain languages? The "language barriers?" Things that are hard-pressed to be properly translated from one language into another? Meanings that are lost entirely through either translation or natural evolution of words?

Maybe I should get Pang into this. He knows an awful lot about this.

I am telling you - AGAIN - that it is mathematically impossible to keep an original document's meaning and clarity intact after 2000 years of copying and translating. The meat of the matter is lost, leaving a skeleton of text, IF THAT.

This is why I put a lot of belief in the value of tradition instead of text

Except, like I've said, a million times, it's not 2000 years of copying because we have manuscripts that date back to 100 something AD. So, I guess we couldn't keep our shit straight for a few decades. Or maybe people back then were just incompetent? I don't know. You're the one making outlandish assumptions. You tell me.

I can't say I trust anything thats been copied and translated so many times - even if it was only 500 years old, sir. (I won't even talk about how laughable it all is - I fear I will only enrage you more with my completely unrelated tangent!)

I just don't work like that. Sorry it offends you.

Besides. I've never been the kinda gal to hang on to every word of a book and hold it as a truth. I take things in stride and try to look at a bigger picture.

How do you even know how many times it was copied? Seriously.

I guess being a Christian means YOU DO KNOW how many times it's been copied?

I don't know the exact number - and I guarantee you no one does, but I know monks made a living of it, people have translated it for decades upon decades, and people have pondered over the meanings and proper portrayal of some of the translated words.

Before the press, the Good Word had to travel SOMEHOW. That was through any NUMBER of personal endeavors, independant or not.

Are you really that upset about it?

So you're entire argument about historical accuracy is based purely on assumption, devoid of fact? Cool. Fascinating discussion we're having here.

I see no point to debating the dating and accuracy of scripture. Stronger arguments can be made about authorship and canonization anyway.

I'm not the one who brought it up.

I don't know. You seem to be dodging pretty well. Interesting indeed. Annnnd, we have the old "I didn't bring it up" dodge. You actually ARE the one who brought it up. Click! Second paragraph. I DID instigate an argument if only because you can't ASSUME that witnesses are unbiased.

There is little to do with actual histotry in the Bible as it has to do with GOD. Sure, theres some accurate fact in there regarding some of the events of the time.

But I was under the impression that as a Christian, you follow the Bible not as a good historical novel, but as a guideline for your morals in your life.

Which is a pretty heavy topic to place on such a very old book. THATS what I am saying.

EDIT: And since we're getting complaints, I won't humor anything else from Minion about the validity of 1000+ (happy?) year old scriptures RIGHT AFTER I REPLY TO HIM.

We're supposed to be discussing theology and ALL FORMS thereof, yea?

See, when you say things like this, I can't help but get annoyed and not take you seriously. The Bible is the best source of ancient history we have. Literally, it has never been wrong regarding archeology. Sure, someone people thought it was from time to time, and then they'd find what they were looking for.

We're not even getting into how terrible a job they did if they did tamper with it. I mean, their savior riding into town on a donkey? Being spit on and taking it? Having women as the first messengers of the gospel (would have been very sketchy back then)? The list goes on. And what's with all the pointless detail in the Bible about which way Jesus went and when to what town and what river he cross and what road he followed? What purpose does that serve in a made up story? You don't hear about what route little red ridinghood took to go to grandma's house, do you? That's because myths don't generally bother with details, but when someone is recording history, they do bother with the details.

The Bible smacks of being a historical document and not a made up story.

The majority of it, sir, in MY opinion - is just that. Made up.

If it were about recording history, it wouldn't really speculate on inner working of the mind of the characters in it. It would tell the dry facts.

It was written, as you admitted, years AFTER the fact. So many years that generations would have passed.

The story works for you. Good. Great. Run with it! Don't expect everyone to follow suit.

And now, can we please stop with the shit about the validity of the Bible? I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me, and thats all it is - a matter of opinion. DEAL?

Nope. Since this thread is about debating, I don't think we're gonna stop doing that anytime soon. It's not like you can claim we're off topic.

Anyway...

It's got both. Why does it talk about what Jesus is thinking? Because it's important. Literature can serve many purposes at once, can't it? Especially if it's good literature. Besides, there weren't text books back then. This is the way history was told.

I was trying to be courteous to other posters, but if you think you can exhaust ME with inane discussions about your beloved Bible, by all means. Try me.

I just thought it might be nice for, you know, you and I to shut the fuck up so other people won't be drowned out. Other people DO have opinions. I know you hate that.

And technically, we ARE kind of off topic. The topic is "theology." Not "the validity of the Bible."
Its not historic is it's speculation on the innerworking of a person's mind. Thats presumption.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that the Bible was actually written by god himself.

And "stories" and "fiction" are also classified as "literature." Is it a historical novel? Perhaps a THRILLER MYSTERY? If it weren't for the RELIGION section of Barnes & Noble, Minion, which shelf would the Bible be placed upon? I don't think it even qualifies for the philosophy section!

Theology is the "knowledge of God." Since the Bible is about God, it and anything about it are fair game.

Maybe the author was told what the historical figure in question was thinking about by the person himself?

First of all, it generally has it's own section. Unless you go to a second-rate B&N that has more varieties of latte than it has books. Secondly, what's your point? If there was no mystery section, where would Sherlock Holmes go? Who cares?

But we're not even discussing God.

There's more than one author of the Bible, Minion.

Not to mention, like you said, written GENERATIONS AFTER the events occurred. These are your words.

People didn't live up to 100 back then, dude. They were lucky to see 40.

My point is that if it were used as a historical document exclusively, it would be in the history section. Not right next to the New Age Wicca books in the religion section.

I re-iterate: There is some historical truth in the Bible. But thats not it's expressed purpose. That would be "to spread the word of God."

I did not say that and, in fact, I said, not more than a few posts ago, that we have manscripts dating back to about 100 AD. That's like, 2 maybe 3 generations. It's like hearing about it from your grandpa.

"Back in the day, when I was a kid, I walked 30 miles in the snow BAREFOOT to get to school! You little ungrateful BASTARDS!"

That was always totally true and historic. ALWAYS BELIEVE YOUR GRANDPA!

Not everyone's grandpa was senile. Besides, if they only lived till they were 40 (many lived longer) their bodies deteriorated before their minds ever could. No reason not to trust their memory. Especially, like I said, when so many of them agree on something.

The only benefit you get is that this tradition doesn't get translated a WHOLE BUNCH OF TIMES over again. People just add their own little spin.

And remember - anything that comes out of a human's mouth has a spin.

But remember - if several humans, independent of each other say the same thing, it's probably true. Or at least true enough to get you the chair if these people claim you murdered someone. I'd say we as a society have a great deal of faith in this kind of evidence.

Aren't you the one who thinks if something is said in majority, it is the right decision?

I bet burning Joan of Arc was a great idea. Let's not forget those Nazis! And the Inquisition? Perhaps running the American Natives off of their land entirely? Yea. Those weren't bad decisions at all.

Historically speaking, thats very, very wrong. Especially when you're talking about something abnormal like an apparition, a UFO, or maybe a voice from God.

It's out of the ordinary. People WANT to believe in these things. So they will. They are COMFORTED by each other. But don't fool yourself into thinking that if MANY believe, then its TRUE.

We're not talking about majority decsions. Look, if 5 million people see a UFO and they all describe it the same way, then it probably happened. The idea that many people can hallucinate or will lie about something the exact same way? Now, THAT'S mathematically impossible.

BUT MINION!:
Do you have any idea how many people have claimed to see the same exact kind of UFO flying around in the sky - no knowledge of each other or other sightings - and have the SAME EXACT VISION?

HOLY SHIT, I GUESS THAT MEANS THEY DO EXIST!

Come on. You've got a scientific brain. Use it.

All I am saying is that its a great story -I NEVER denied that. But thats all it is: One giant fable. And I have a feeling thats what it's original intention was. People just manipulated it through it's evolution.

You should read Canticle for Lebowitz. ^_^

I'll guarantee they really did see the thing they described. Was it a UFO? Probably not, but it was something. It's kind of hard to hear entirely different words coming out of the same person's mouth, though. I mean, were all the Biblical authors going deaf or what? Were they Aramaic as a Second Language students? Help me out here.

The Bible says Adam and Eve were the parents of every living human. Genetically impossible. It also says Moses and his family of 6 or whatever were the only living decendants after the flood and repopulated the earth. Genetically impossible. The Bible says all living animals except those on the ark perished in the flood. Impossible. The earlier humans lived to be 600-1000 years old. Bullshit, as well as impossible. All original interpretations of the creation of the Earth led Jews to believe the earth was flat according to the verses of the OT. Of course now that we know that's impossible, there are all sorts of "truer" interpretations of the verses claiming it actually means round. Is it so hard to admit the writers of the OT didn't know what the hell they were talking about? Sure they've recorded a historical event here and there, and kept super-good track of their geneologies, but that in no way proves true the other 50+ "facts" that are impossible (unless you want to claim everything was a miracle back then, which is just a lazy man's denial blind faith).

There are also a number of OT prophecies that were never fulfilled. I can list them if you'd like. The God of the OT has very human characteristics. Jealousy. Changes his mind. Toys with humans. Tells his people to plunder and murder. All to spread His merciful glory.

Okay, thats a mouthful. You want to make one point and see where we go from there?

Seriously, what is with you people and argument spamming? Winning an argument by asking 500 questions in one post is pretty lame, considering that it's much easier to ask a question than to answer it.

I will have to ask, though, how you know any of that is impossible and if you can cite Biblical references for any of it. Also I would love for you to post about any OT prophecies that haven't been fulfilled. But one at a time, please.

Well, they weren't questions, more like "facts" of the Bible that are scientifically impossible unless we involve the word miracle.

As for the things which are genetically impossible, I learned in my genetics class that in order for a group to maintain diversity for repopulation there has to be around 40 individuals (or something like that). And we all know how incest leads to mutations, etc.

As for people living 600-1000 years old, we know that our lifespan has actually increased over time thanks to cleaner environments, better medical care, etc. A human body simply cannot withstand living 600-1000, unless there are magic voodoo spells on them that the Bible didn't talk about.

I came across a website that pointed them out. http://jews-for-allah.org/the-Jewish...bleEzekiel.htm
Instead of spamming them here, I'll just ask you what your overall opinion is of the points the guy makes. It basically says how the prophecies for various historical wars and conflicts never came true.

Double Post:
Here's an example error for those who don't want to read the site (looks as Sass... JK!:tpg:):

Isaiah 19: 21-22, "21 Thus the Lord will make Himself known to Egypt, ... They will worship the Lord with sacrifice and offerings, ...22 And the Lord will strike Egypt ... so they will return to the Lord, and He will respond to them and heal them."

Apologetics: They will return to the Coptic Church, it is a future prophecy.

Rebuttal: The prophecy refers to Hebrew religious practices, the OT is not a christian book, but a Jewish book. The Coptic Church never was widespread, so the vast majority of Egyptian never belonged to it, even at its height. Therefore, the non-Coptics cannot return to it. Islam never converted the Coptics, but did successfully convert the peasants away from the old gods for Allah. ALSO, the prophecy is about sacrifice being offered. Christianity is not a religion that offers sacrifice, for it maintains that Jesus was the essential one time sacrifice! The prophecy involves sacrifice, and that disqualifies Christianity.

Observation: This prophecy has several serious problems; v. 21 states that the Egyptians will worship God in the Hebrew manner, which has never happened in Egyptian history; v. 22 states that the Egyptians will return to the Lord, but it is established history that the Egyptians never worshiped YHWH, they remained loyal to the old gods until Islam took over the country.

Conclusion: According to the measure of Moses, this is a false prophecy.

I don't care about some guy who has a website. Make your arguments from your own mind. If I want to browse around for a Biblical skeptic on the internet, I can do that myself.

Well, that doesn't really qualify you as an expect in genetics. You can be doubtful, but I wouldn't throw around the word impossible after having only one class in genetics.

Incidentally, I've heard that if Adam and Eve had the right genetic combinations, it would indeed be possible for them to have produced all of the different basic genetic characteristics we know of today. As for genetic defects, the answer to that and your "how could they have lived that long" question are basically one in the same. We are talking about the beginning of the human race and an early, unpolluted Earth. Adam and Eve could simply have had no genetic defects, thereby allowing them to interbreed their children without much harm. It would certain make sense for God to have created the first humans this way. We have gentic defects now because our ancestor's genes have been effected by various diseases and other effects of their environment which has grown considerably more hostile since the population of the human race grew.

So, you see, it doesn't take magic or voodoo necessarily. Just a loving and sensible creator. And as much as you may like to doubt it, we are not arguing whether or not it happened. That is unprovable. We are arguing about whether or not it was possible, and indeed, it was.

I think it's funny when people like you automatically dismiss an argument as irrelivent because it's on a website. This isn't a "Biblical skeptic" website(the author has full faith in the books written by Moses), and the arguments he makes are concise and accurate. Your inability to comment on what he says demonstrates your inability to argue against his points. Don't put on a "it's internetz so it doesn't count!" facade.

Where'd you hear this from, pray tell? Could it be... a creationism "science" website/pastor? Considering neither of us are genetic experts, we have to trust what experts say. And I guarantee you a VAST majority of geneticists (aka, geneticists who don't have Christian faith-based agendas) will agree that the Adam/Eve story is genetically impossible very improbable.

And what about Noah and his family? None of the above "explanations" could apply to them.

Anything is possible. We aren't arguing whether it's possible, we're arguing whether it's probable, which it isn't.

Actually, the thread was suppose to be about discussing your interpretation of theological ideology because I have no idea how people are conceptualizing these things. Not that I didn't know debates were bound to happen, but whatever.

I think it's funny when people like you download arguments instead of acutally having a thought of your own. If you can't even bring up a point without using google, then maybe you should learn more about what you're talking about before you criticize it. Anyone can search for "bible+inaccuracy" or "bible+contradiction". Way to put effort into your posts.

No, we're not. First of all, you haven't even shown in any measure that it's improbable, except to say "well, I hear it in my genetics class." Make an argument. If you want to raise a point, then say something that someone can actually argue with. Not just "someone told me it's true, so it is." Prove it.

Secondly, it doesn't matter how probable it is because you can't talk about probability when you're talking about historical events. History is untestable, unreproducable. Therefore, any historical event or possible historical event is equally probable. There is no way to do a statistical analysis on what could have happened in history. So, if it's possible, then it could have happened. If there is no contradictory historical evidence and the event is a possibility, then there is no reason to say it can't be true.

Well, OT historical inaccuracies are not my specialty, and I'm not going to become specialized in it when 1) I can prove the Bible rediculous through other means and 2) it's already accepted by the majority of Christianity that there are errors. The only group that still clings to inerrancy are fundamentalists, which apparently you are. My condolences. If you feel you can legitimately discard arguments because of the format in which they're presented, good for you. It's your denial, not mine. If you would post a website to present your argument, I'd respond to it, because I don't care what format the argument is being made in, I care about how solid the argument being made is.

I got my information from a college class. You got yours from a Christian-science whateverthefuck. I'd say you're the one who needs to start proving something.

It's a fact that Biblical prophecies from the Bible concerning Egypt and Nebuchadnezzar didn't come true. If you want, I will post the verses, and then post a historical article from an encyclopedia contradicting those verses. Of course, this is EXACTLY what the website I linked to did, but that "doesn't count." Uh huh.

Okay, you're not making anything that even resembles an argument. I can't see how this is anything different from trolling. Copying and pasting is no different from spamming. Add to that some obvious flames and I'm having a hard time figuring out why I haven't thread banned you yet. If your next post doesn't have an actual argument in it, that is at least paraphrased, not plagarized so as to show that you put some degree of effort into posting, you will be thread banned. You've been warned.

Minion, the argument was whether the Bible has historical errors, correct? In my last post, I said it does concerning Egypt and Nebuchadnezzar, and that I can post these verses, and then post the encylopedia articles contradicting said prophecies. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT? Don't bitch me out for not having an argument. You act like you're just here to repond to criticisms. Where's your arguments FOR historical accuracy and FOR only 2 people needed to have genetic diversity??

Don't tell me you have information if I want it. Post it. Quit telling us what you know and show us.

I'm dead serious. If the next post of yours doesn't have an argument that equates to more than "UR WRONG" you're thread banned.

Just curious: Don't scream at me.

What if he has to copy and past the said information?

Then he's not debating. He's plagarizing. That's not even legal.

I beg to differ.

If he posts the source of his information and he is using it as a debating aide, I don't see whats wrong with it.

Perhaps a link would suffice?

I am just asking because, you know, I don't want to get threatened with thread bans because I would post some data from another site with a link. PLEASE do not flip out on me, Minion. ;_;

Referencing is not copying and pasting verbatim a source. Try that with one of your professors. See if you don't get expelled.

Are you going to answer my question, or are you going to bark at me some more?

Besides which, this is the internet. Not a thesis on the historical validity of the Bible. Would it be a compromise if he gave you a link? Or would you not accept that, either?

Relax, Minion. Come listen to NPR with me in the truck with a cup of coffee. ;_;

Isaiah 19:21 And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the LORD in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it . 22 And the LORD shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it : and they shall return even to the LORD, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them.

Part of this prophecy could be considered true. Nebuchadnezzar II defeated the Egyptian army:

"In the summer of 605 BC (or 607 BC by some sources), an important battle was fought there by the Babylonian army of Nebuchadrezzar II and that of Pharaoh Necho of Egypt (Jer. 46:2). The aim of Necho's campaign was to contain the Westward advance of the Babylonian Empire and cut off its trade route across the Euphrates. However the Egyptians were defeated by the unexpected attack of the Babylonians and were eventually expelled from Syria." (I had to use Wikipedia, since Brittanica and Encarta have restrictions on how much you can look at)

Howerever, this part of the verse never came true: "and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it." As well as "and they shall return even to the LORD, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them."

The structure of the verse is A) Egypt converts to Judaism from polytheism, and worships YHVH. B) Egypt is smited (presumably by Nebuchadnezzar) and then healed to show them the power of God, B) they go back to worshipping Him. However, this never happened. Necho II ruled for the 26th dynasty of Egypt.

Previous to the 26th dynasty there was no sign of Judaism:

Following the 26th dynasty, still no sign of Judaism:

All information about Egyptian religion was found from: http://www.philae.nu/akhet/history7.html

Today, Islam is the official religion of Egypt so it can't be future prophecy. There has never been any evidence of a Jewish movement in Egypt, past present or future. This prophecy never came true. There's your argument. Respond.

First of all, good post.

At first, I had a hard time dealing with this and it seemed to be a nontrivial issue, but that was largely due to my allowing you to convince me that there is historical certainty about whether or not there was a large Jewish population in Egypt. That is false. It is known that there was a large population during the Ptolemaic period, which, according to most of the sources I've consulted, is when this prophecy is fulfilled. At the very least, whether or not there was a strong Jewish population in the nation known as Egypt at the time (it wasn't exactly what it was today - it was much larger) is debatable. Check out this wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History..._Jews_in_Egypt

Concerning the Sacrifices - there is a reason why this prophecy could be figurative. According to Mosiac Law, there can be no temple build for sacrifices expect in Jerusalem, which we know is not in Egypt. Therefore, Egyptians that were following YHWH would not be literally making sacrifices. It is possible that it is a reference to revelation, where it mentions people of all nations will come to worship in Jerusalem, or it could be some sort of allusion to Christ, as he and his family fled to Egypt to escape Herod (ie the Egyptians will know the Lord - they knew Him when He visited).

There is also a theologian Athanasius of Alexandria who is quoted saying:

So here we have at least some Historical corroboration of the event.

I'm still researching, but I thought I would share what I've found so far, so that you know that I haven't been hiding. I also have a midterm and other things taking up my time, so it hasn't been easy. I will have to look for a good historical reference that we can both argee is trustworthy and see what that has to say about the history of the Jews in Egypt, but wikipedia is not bad about this sort of thing. I read a BBC article about how a study was done comparing wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britianica with regard to history and science and it is effectively just as good a source.

Ah... I agree Jews lived in Egypt. However the verse to me implies a conversion of Egyptians to Judaism. By Jewish "movement" I meant significant conversion of the population, which is what the verse implies to me. The article on Wikipedia only mentions Jewish immigration, not conversion, which is a much different matter IMO. Also, it seems this immigrant Jewish population remained fairly seperated from the rest of the culture:

Islam was the religion actually convert the Egyptian population.

The problem with putting these specific verses into prophecy concerning Jesus fleeing to Egypt or Revelation means you have to put the surrounding versus into that same time period to keep context. Every group of events in this chapter is prefaced with "in that day" which implies this entire chapter of prophecy concerns a specific set of events having a direct cause-and-effect relationship, not a "this part happened in 700 BC, this part happened in 2 AD, this part happened in 350 AD." If each set of events wasn't preceeded by "in that day" I wouldn't make this argument, but "in that day" is used to describe events that happen together, such as Jesus' prophecies about the end times. It's easy to take a few verses out to explain them as prophecy for Christ, but I don't think this is a legitimate way to interpret the text.

Well, I'd appreciate a less biased source. This information is coming from a Christian bishop. I think he'd jump on the chance to proclaim a prophecy was being fulfilled in his life whether it was historically accurate or not. I also didn't find the bottom of his biography too encouraging:

Also, I'd still make the case that you can't take those 2 verses and put them in a 350ish AD context while the rest of the verses in the chapter are shuffled into other time periods.

Well, then you haven't read it within the context of the chapter.

Clearly, this is pointing out that the Jews of Egypt will be mostly confined to 5 cities. Hardly a wholesale conversion of Egypt to Judaism. And according to the wikipedia article:

So there is historical corroboration of the verse. Don't get hung up on what the difference between a city and a district is. There probably was none. In Hebrew, I'm willing to bet that a "city" was just a large settlement, as opposed to a village.

This is also justification enough for the prophecy mentioning Judaic practices, as it does not specifically say that the Jews made sacrifices in Egypt; just that they made them. It also speaks of a highway between Egypt and Assyria which they could have used to travel to Judah to make their sacrifices.

As far as the timeline goes, "that day" is a very (and I'm willing to argue purposely) vague period of time. The Ptolemaic - Roman period lasted from 400 BC - 641 AD. This was when the population of Jews was at it's peak. It also encompases the time when the Jews inhabited the 5 cities as well as the time that Jesus' et. al. fled to Egypt. It is also possible that it marks the beginning of an Era which is still happening. We don't know. Isaiah didn't give us a specific timeline. All we can say with certainty is that "day" is not meant literally, as it would be impossible for all of this to take place in the span of 1 day. In fact, if you were to say "back in such and such day" you would be talking about a fairly large period of time. One might say, "back in the day, we were hunter gathers." The period of time this person would be talking about would be several centuries.

I disagree. This chapter concerns the entire country of Egypt. This can be proven with the very first verse:

Isaiah 19:1 "The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it."

The heart of Egypt is destroyed, which shows how these prophecies are a Nationwide event. The "five cities" reference is more appropriately interpreted as a part of the string of events that are to show how completely the Lord will change the face of Egypt.

There are three reasons why I'd get hung up. One is that it specifically names the one city "city of Destruction" - giving it a specific name implies a more important role than just a district within a city, in my opinion. It gives it symbolic value. I think it's along the lines of the 7 churches in Revelation. Most Christians associate those churches as representative of problems with Christianity as a whole, not just specific churches that were doing wrong. The same applies to this, in that the cities are representative of Egypt as a whole.

Secondly, I believe it's city because of the nation-wide feel of other verses. To suddenly limit the scope of the verses to districts within a city doesn't fit the context of the rest of the chapter.

Finally, and most importantly, the Wikipedia article says it was divided into 5 districts, yes, but only 2 of them were Jewish. You'd need all 5 to be Jewish if you're claiming this verse is prophecy concerning Jewish infiltration of Egypt.

Correct, but "in that day" still ties this entire chapter together. It's safe to say that when "in that day" is used, in generally means within the lifespan of a person. "In that day" implies that the person living during that time will see all those things come to pass (generally speaking).

Also, you didn't counter my point that these verses speak of a conversion of native Egyptians, not the immigration of Jews. This chapter describes the arrogance and punishment of Egyptian idolaters, so the subject is native Egyptians. Claiming that the immigration of Jews fulfilled this prophecy is bogus IMO.

Well, I have something to say, but at this point, I only foresee us bickering back and forth about what Isaiah intended when he used certain words to describe something. I've been in these arguments before and unless you have an ancient Hebrew scholar on hand, they go nowhere. I've shown how this passage could possibly have been fulfilled and you disagree with my interpretation of it. I guess we just have to agree to disagree then, but at the very least, one cannot say that this prophecy clearly hasn't been fulfilled. Because the Bible is not written specifically for us to read, it is possible for anyone to read anything they like into it without much difficulty. Only when you go over each word with a fine-toothed comb and a good concordance can you have a proper argument about what certain words mean. I have such a book, if you're interested, but not with me right now.

One thing I will say, though, is that I thought you had already asserted that Isaiah 19:1 was talking about Nebuchadrezzar's defeat of the Egyptian army, as Isaiah 19:21 (the original verse in question) has nothing to do with that.

The idea of the Egyptians being converted is really something you're reading into the passage. That may be what it means, it may not. Jewish Egyptians were still Egyptians. They didn't need to be converted. Maybe they went astray and this passage is talking about their eventual return to their practices.

I agree, Bible debates often become futile when neither person knows Hebrew (not counting the fact that even those who know Hebrew still end up debating this stuff).

Well, because of the way I interpret it I think it clearly hasn't been fulfilled. My interpretation may be wrong, but it's the (hopefully unbiased) conclusion I've come to from the information we have on hand.

Yea, I have a Strong's and Matthew Henry's commentary and a few study Bibles, but all of them are at home. Trying to make an argument with internet sources gets irritating because it's so much faster and easier for me to use my books.

Well, it's sometimes said that these prophecies on Egypt were in part fulfilled by the history of Nebuchadrezzar vs Egypt. I had said that it was possible to attribute some of the smiting of Egypt to the battle Neb. won against the Egyptian army, but it wasn't anything I was trying to prove.

There is only one subject in this chapter: Egyptians. In order for this prophecy to be fulfilled, you're claiming that "Egyptians" actually means immigrant Jews living in Egypt for verse 21, but this doesn't work for the other places "Egyptian" is used in this chapter.

"2 And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom."

The word "Egyptian" represents the general population of Egypt. You can't randomly restrict the scope of this noun to mean "Jewish people living in Egypt" for verse 21. To me this is simply putting your own spin on the word for the sake of trying to justify a prophecy. The last verse seals the deal:

"Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance."

IMO, clearly a nation-wide conversion prophecy that didn't happen. I would think that God only calls a country his "people" when a great deal (majority) of them convert to Judaism. This never happened with Egypt.