Interpreting Theology

Originally Posted by Fjordor

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Minion

The Bible smacks of being a historical document and not a made up story.

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Also I would love for you to post about any OT prophecies that haven't been fulfilled. But one at a time, please.

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!):

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

Originally Posted by Minion

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

We are arguing about whether or not it was possible, and indeed, it was.

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Minion

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

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??

FELIPE NO

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.

Quote:

The city of Sais saw a period of great power under the rulers of the 26th Dynasty. A new era of Egyptian nationalism was dawning, which showed itself in scuplture and painting, during this period looking back to Old and Middle Kingdom ideals. Similarly religion saw both a reinforcement of traditional values and new habits entering.

Neith

This was the time when the influence of Neith (Nit), the ancient local goddess of Sais, was rising to be felt nationwide. later she became incorporated into the Greek and Roman pantheon and associated with their Athena and Diana, probably due to her emblem of a shield with what resembles tow crossed arrows on it.

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

Quote:

The Nubian/Kushite Rulers (Dyn 25) The Kushite rulers used the Amun temples at Napata in the south of Egypt, which were theologically closely related, to legitimize their political positions and when the Theban families acknowledged them as pharaos it was done according to the 'will of Amun'. Kushite coronation ritual however drew upon Egyptian ritual and ceremonies. These rulers also collected ancient religious writings and reformed the cult of Amun

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

Quote:

The Late Period starts after the fall of the Saite dynasty with the 27th Dynasty, the first one of the Persian period. The Persian Cambyses II is mentioned by Herodotos as having caused the death of a sacred Apis bull, which maybe tells us that he was not a ruler who heeded the ancient Egyptian religion, while Darius I took care to build a temple at Kharga Oasis and repair others. The general tendency was however to try and win the loyalty of the Egyptians through large land donations to temples (Horus of Edfu) and through merging their own gods with Egyptian ones.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Minion

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.

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:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

While the Jewish inhabitants of other cities of the Roman empire, without any political separation, formed private societies for religious purposes, or else became a corporation of foreigners like the Egyptian and Phenician merchants in the large commercial centers, those of Alexandria constituted an independent political community, side by side with that of the heathen population.

Islam was the religion actually convert the Egyptian population.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Egypt is predominantly Muslim, covering about 94% of the population, most belong to the Sunni branch of Islam. Christians represent about 6% of the population, primarily the Coptic denomination, though other Christian groups are present, including Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Armenian Orthodox, in Alexandria and Cairo, whose adherents are mainly descendants of Italian, Greek, and Armenian immigrants.

There are also some few, small Jewish communities, numbered as few as three hundred Egyptians.

Originally Posted by Minion

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).

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.

Quote:

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

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:

Quote:

He did not hesitate to back up his theological views with the use of force. In Alexandria, he assembled an "ecclesiastical mafia" that could instigate a riot in the city if needed. It was an arrangement "built up and perpetuated by violence." (Barnes, 230). Along with the standard method of excommunication he used beatings, intimidation, kidnapping and imprisonment to silence his theological opponents.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Minion

I've been in these arguments before and unless you have an ancient Hebrew scholar on hand, they go nowhere.

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).

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

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