Interpreting Theology

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

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.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I'm not the one who brought it up.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

There is little to do with actual histotry in the Bible

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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...

Quote:

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'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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

And technically, we ARE kind of off topic. The topic is "theology." Not "the validity of the Bible."

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

Quote:

Its not historic is it's speculation on the innerworking of a person's mind. Thats presumption.

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

Quote:

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!

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

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

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

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?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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

Most amazing jew boots

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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:

Quote:

“The thing is happening before our very eyes, here in Egypt; and thereby another prophecy is fulfilled, for at no other time have the Egyptians ceased from their false worship save when the Lord of all, riding as on a cloud, came down here in the body and brought the error of idols to nothing and won over everybody to Himself and through Himself to the Father.”

-- On the Incarnation

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.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

In that day five cities in Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the LORD Almighty. One of them will be called the City of Destruction. -Isaiah 19:18

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:

Quote:

From the very beginning their numbers seem to have been considerable; at all events, they formed a very large portion of the population under the successors of Alexander. A separate section of the city was assigned to them by the first Ptolemies, so that they might not be hindered in the observance of their laws by continual contact with the pagan population. Moreover, the whole city was divided into five districts, which were named after the first five letters of the Greek alphabet. Of these five districts two were denominated Jewish districts, because the majority of their inhabitants were Jews.

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.