Removing the stumbling-block

[Serapha]

As far as we know the geneology is correct all the way up to Adam. The only difference is that Adam actually had parents. Big whoop

Just because people with these names were actually part of the geneologies doesn't mean their stories actually happened. Noah wasn't really involved in a global flood and Enoch wasn't really turned into some super-cool angel (as per the Book of Enoch)

Hi There!



You seem to think that there are no archaeological supports at all for the Bible. How untrue!

Every year, the archaeological digs are recovering information that supports the Bible. Were you aware that two more papyri were found just last fall at Ein Gedi in the desert? They haven't been officially reported yet, but they appear to be real estate papers from the first century. The point is this... they aren't finding anything in archaeology to disprove the Bible.


Perhaps you are just reading in the wrong places?


~malaka~

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Hi There!



You seem to think that there are no archaeological supports at all for the Bible. How untrue!

Every year, the archaeological digs are recovering information that supports the Bible. Were you aware that two more papyri were found just last fall at Ein Gedi in the desert? They haven't been officially reported yet, but they appear to be real estate papers from the first century. The point is this... they aren't finding anything in archaeology to disprove the Bible.


Perhaps you are just reading in the wrong places?


~malaka~

Umm... Malaka... He never said that there was no archaeological support for some events in the Bible.

There most certainly is evidence for some of the things in the Bible and a huge lack of support for others.

But just a few posts ago you ranted and raved about someone putting words in your mouth that you did not say, even to the point of suggesting banning that person. Yet here you are doing the same thing.

 

[Serapha]

Umm... Malaka... He never said that there was no archaeological support for some events in the Bible.

There most certainly is evidence for some of the things in the Bible and a huge lack of support for others.

But just a few posts ago you ranted and raved about someone putting words in your mouth that you did not say, even to the point of suggesting banning that person. Yet here you are doing the same thing.

If I have misquoted someone.... or if I have made the statement of what someone else meant to say ... when in fact they didn't say it...


Then report me.

He wasn't putting words in "my" mouth, but adding words to a published work... interpreting what the author meant to say...

As I said, if I am misquoting someone or adjusting quotes.... report me.


bye


~malaka~

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Hi There!







For the mockers and scoffers, I just read two articles today (published for September 2003) that relate that when the first five books of the Bible were written... that certainly, people were alive who had come through the Exodus with Moses. I found that interesting!!!!


You don't need Moses's email address, he left footprints in the sand, and they were real big ones... Oh, yeah, the article was aligned the archaeological supports for the timeline with Moses and Egypt....

And you don't need Jesus Christ's email address... He isn't long distance and there are no roaming charges...


~malaka~

And what would you say if I told you that I felt that God had spoken to me on the subject of Biblical literacy and that His view on it was not that it should be read as a history book and should not be placed above Him?

At one time I was a literalist and a YEC, I almost did lose my faith when I studied up on YEC claims and found out I had been lied to by the movement. But through the help of friends and massive ammounts of prayer I feel I have been lead to a much deeper understanding then I once had about God and the Bible.

I no longer feel the need to justify my faith by trying to prove the Bible as literal, and I no longer endanger it by putting up arguments that "If xyz is true then God is a lie." I no longer have to worry if an author two to three thousand years ago got every detail right, or may have embelished a story alittle.

It is a freedom that I cherish and would be hard put to lay down.

 

[Serapha]

And what would you say if I told you that I felt that God had spoken to me on the subject of Biblical literacy and that His view on it was not that it should be read as a history book and should not be placed above Him?

At one time I was a literalist and a YEC, I almost did lose my faith when I studied up on YEC claims and found out I had been lied to by the movement. But through the help of friends and massive ammounts of prayer I feel I have been lead to a much deeper understanding then I once had about God and the Bible.

I no longer feel the need to justify my faith by trying to prove the Bible as literal, and I no longer endanger it by putting up arguments that "If xyz is true then God is a lie." I no longer have to worry if an author two to three thousand years ago got every detail right, or may have embelished a story alittle.

It is a freedom that I cherish and would be hard put to lay down.

Sure, that would be great, do you happen to have Moses’ email address? How about Jesus? Any of the speakers or authors of the Bible?

No?

Then I guess our interpretations are the best we have, and since it is only an interpretation made by us, mere mortals, then it is just as fallible as we are.
.

Particularly,

"I no longer feel the need to justify my faith..."

If you were so confident in your beliefs... then why bash others????


This converstation is over, Mr. Wildermuth... for nothing exalting to God is coming out of it.



bye!



~malaka~

 

[troodon]

Wow, I just lost a huge post. One sec

 

[troodon]

Troodon, according to you the bible can't be trusted.

Every word of the Bible can be trusted in regards to spirituality and theology. What does it matter if the Hebrews fudged a little on the historical details? Does that have anything to do with Christianity?

Do you think Jesus Christ really rose from the dead?

Yes, our Lord and savior Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Want me to make an avatar with a cross or have an obviously Chistian handle to "prove" it?

Notice how when you question their interpretation of scripture they begin to question your Christianinty.

Yup, it's sort of funny how they've equated a literal interpretation of the Bible as the only way to be a Christian (whether they admit it or not). Because they cannot imagine being a Christian without YEC backing them up, they cannot imagine us being Christians without the same thing holding up our faith.

I just read two articles today (published for September 2003) that relate that when the first five books of the Bible were written... that certainly, people were alive who had come through the Exodus with Moses. I found that interesting!!!!


You don't need Moses's email address, he left footprints in the sand, and they were real big ones... Oh, yeah, the article was aligned the archaeological supports for the timeline with Moses and Egypt.........

You seem to think that there are no archaeological supports at all for the Bible. How untrue!

As LewisWildermuth said before you decided to stop listening (or reading for that matter) to him; I never said I doubted the Exodus. I have no problem with the Exodus. I think the Exodus actually happened. However, as much evidence for the Exodus that you may have to bear (or is it bare?), you have no archaeological evidence for Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, or even Abraham. I have no problem accepting their existance as a matter of faith, I just don't think that Adam was the first human, that Enoch transformed into Metatron, and the Noah floated on a big boat for a year waiting for the water from global flood to recede into nothingness....

He wasn't putting words in "my" mouth, but adding words to a published work... interpreting what the author meant to say...

Malaka, if I read "The Prince and the Pauper" but afterwards doubt the idea that a peasant and the heir to the throne of France did in actuality trade places, am I putting words into Mark Twain's mouth?

If you were so confident in your beliefs... then why bash others????

Heh, you're the one that called theistic evolutionists "mockers and scoffers" and yet he's bashing you for describing his[/b] ordeal with YEC?

Wow, I just lost a huge post. One sec

Silly person

 

[Ark Guy]

Every word of the Bible can be trusted in regards to spirituality and theology. What does it matter if the Hebrews fudged a little on the historical details? Does that have anything to do with Christianity?

Fudged? Why would the inspired by God bible need to be fudged?
Did they fudge on the gospels? After all if they fudged once..then why not many times?

How do you seperate the fudge from the bread?

 

[wblastyn]

Fudged? Why would the inspired by God bible need to be fudged?
Did they fudge on the gospels? After all if they fudged once..then why not many times?

How do you seperate the fudge from the bread?

Writers at the time often exaggerated events or whatever (the contraidcition between how many horses a king had for instance, I forget the numbers) to make their country seem more important than it actually is.

 

[Serapha]

As LewisWildermuth said before you decided to stop listening (or reading for that matter) to him; I never said I doubted the Exodus. I have no problem with the Exodus. I think the Exodus actually happened.

My friend, you don't have to "think" the Exodus actually happened, you may know it. There is evidence for the Israelites in Goshen (that's Egypt), then any evidence of the Hebrew children ceases, and suddenly "poof"... there they are in the land God gave them


There's only one way to leave a country without a trace... and that is to E-X-O-D-U-S.

However, as much evidence for the Exodus that you may have to bear (or is it bare?), you have no archaeological evidence for Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, or even Abraham.

How untrue. ( I think these will soon be my trademark words....)

Archaeological evidence does not mean that you may have the actual bones of this or that person, but that you have the environment in which they lived and worked. There is evidence for all of the cities of the Old Testament, references to some of the people.... Abraham lived.... and the name Abraham is found in records (the mari tablets) that are concurrent to Abraham's time, as well as other names that are found in Abraham's family. Is it the exact same Abraham? I don't know that it is... but I don't know that it isn't either. The point is... don't discredit Abraham's existence without merit.Furthermore, if you believe the existence of Christ and His words, He spoke of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Adam and Noah






Mt 8:11http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineS...+8:11&version=kjv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.


Mt 24:38
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

Malaka, if I read "The Prince and the Pauper" but afterwards doubt the idea that a peasant and the heir to the throne of France did in actuality trade places, am I putting words into Mark Twain's mouth?

No... but are you publishing on the internet within the text of the copyrighted material what the author intended to say??????



There is a difference in "opinion" and "shoveling"... vance was shoveling.



~malaka~

 

[Serapha]

Writers at the time often exaggerated events or whatever (the contraidcition between how many horses a king had for instance, I forget the numbers) to make their country seem more important than it actually is.

Well, writers in the Bible didn't exaggerate.... What appears to be differences in numerics is relative to "how" horses are counted, not an exaggeration. Some counts are of individual possessions (horses)... and others are of the "whole" chariot team. That type of "counting" is substantiated in other historical references.


~malaka~

 

[troodon]

My friend, you don't have to "think" the Exodus actually happened, you may know it. There is evidence for the Israelites in Goshen (that's Egypt), then any evidence of the Hebrew children ceases, and suddenly "poof"... there they are in the land God gave them


There's only one way to leave a country without a trace... and that is to E-X-O-D-U-S.

Cool, I'm down with that.

How untrue.

( I think these will soon be my trademark words....)

Archaeological evidence does not mean that you may have the actual bones of this or that person, but that you have the environment in which they lived and worked. There is evidence for all of the cities of the Old Testament, references to some of the people.... Abraham lived.... and the name Abraham is found in records (the mari tablets) that are concurrent to Abraham's time, as well as other names that are found in Abraham's family. Is it the exact same Abraham? I don't know that it is... but I don't know that it isn't either. The point is... don't discredit Abraham's existence without merit.Furthermore, if you believe the existence of Christ and His words, He spoke of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Adam and Noah

Alright, so there is paper refering to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Can I ask for a link to information on this? I'm most interested.

No... but are you publishing on the internet within the text of the copyrighted material what the author intended to say??????

Whoops, I thought we were talking about the Bible. I won't get into your little squable about the OP.

Well, writers in the Bible didn't exaggerate

I'm sure they did; and they had a very long time with which to do it.

PS: is all that text red for everyone else? That's what it's showing up as on my computer and I didn't mean for it

 

[Serapha]

Alright, so there is paper refering to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Can I ask for a link to information on this? I'm most interested. Whoops, I thought we were talking about the Bible. I won't get into your little squable about the OP.

Well, I had to go look for a source....

If you put Abraham+mari tablets in the address line... you get several links....


This was the first one in my search....

http://www.j-e-s-u-s.org/quest.htm



I get most of my archaeological information from textbooks or training and not off the internet ... sorry... that particular text is in "Archaeology and Bible History" Joseph Free. You quoted "isaac"... I didn't... because "Isaac" isn't one of the names identified in the mari tablets.



~malaka~

 

[troodon]

Well, I had to go look for a source....

If you put Abraham+mari tablets in the address line... you get several links....


This was the first one in my search....

Ack, I'm sorry.

http://www.j-e-s-u-s.org/quest.htm

That was a very interesting read.

If you don't mind, my favorite part was:

"He interprets one level as contemporary with the third dynasty of Ur; the temples at that period were to Dagan and Ninharsug around 2250-2100 B.C.E"

Interesting how there was already a well developed pagan religion, temples built to that religion, and a 3 dynasty old empire a mere 50-150 years after that big flood, eh?

Also, it seemed as if the entire basis for the historicity of Abraham is really just, "Well, all the evidence allows it so we have to believe it because it's in the Bible." Maybe your book(s) have more specific evidence regarding this subject... Regardless, I do not dispute the existance of Moses or Abraham.

Lastly, is it just a coincidence that one of the moon gods was named Sin? That was interesting.

You quoted "isaac"... I didn't... because "Isaac" isn't one of the names identified in the mari tablets.

Yeah that was my bad. You said Jesus mentioned Isaac and I misread it to mean the documents did. Then again, Christ also said some of his disciples would live to see the second coming (Matthew 16:28). To the best of my knowledge, we're still waiting for it

 

[Serapha]

Yeah that was my bad. You said Jesus mentioned Isaac and I misread it to mean the documents did. Then again, Christ also said some of his disciples would live to see the second coming (Matthew 16:28). To the best of my knowledge, we're still waiting for it

Mt 16:28 - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.


That was fulfilled six days later at the transfiguration of Christ.


~malaka~

 

[troodon]

Mt 16:28 - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.


That was fulfilled six days later at the transfiguration of Christ.


~malaka~

Christ's resurrection was the "coming in his kingdom"? So the reign of Christ as per Revelations ain't happening?

 

[Serapha]

Christ's resurrection was the "coming in his kingdom"? So the reign of Christ as per Revelations ain't happening?

Hi there!



Christ's transformation in front of Peter, James and John allowed them to see the kingdom of God was at hand.

The transformation is not the same as the resurrection.


~malaka~

 

[troodon]

Hi there!



Christ's transformation in front of Peter, James and John allowed them to see the kingdom of God was at hand.

Gah, excellent point! I find the wording of Christ's original statement (prophesy even) to be sort of awkward if this is the case. The original statement sounds much more like he's refering to the second coming; but then again I admit to being able to interpret scripture outside what a literal reading gives me

Also, when I read Matthew 16:28 it seems to me as if he's talking about the disciples seeing the kingdom of Christ. But this doesn't happen in the transifuration. Jesus gets really bright and his clothes start shining. Should I not apply a plain reading to Mt 16:28?

Regardless I am now pretty convinced he was talking about the transfiguration. Thank you.

The transformation is not the same as the resurrection.

I realize this. I get confused far too easily.

 

[Serapha]

Hi troodon!




Glad to share.... be encouraged... I learn something on the Christian forums every day!


~malaka~

 

[lucaspa]

Vance posted:
You paint the YEC's as bad guys. Community dividers, hostile attackers.

Perhaps you have some evidence to support your accusitions.

YECs are the bad guys.

When Arkansas passed Act 590 mandating the teaching of YEC in public school science classes, 26 plaintiffs sued to prevent it. All were Christians/Jews. 23 were ministers or rabbis. The plaintiffs included the Catholic, Methodist, and African-Methodist bishops of Arkansas, a Southern Baptist minister, and the MacLean in the MacLean vs Arkansas was REV. MacLean of the Presbyterian Church. It the Finding of Facts in that trial, the YECs stated flatly that the Creator in YEC did NOT have to be God! That is rank heresy. See the Nicean Creed that is part of this Forum and which is the touchstone for defining "Christian" for the forum. YEC just contradicted that.

Of course, Francis Bacon 400 years ago knew how dangerous YEC was. In 1620 he wrote:
"For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy[ science] but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's." Francis Bacon. Novum Organum LXV, 1620 http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm

Need any more evidence?

Of couse it is the bible that says six days....in 4 places.

It also says one day in Genesis 2:4b.

It is the bible that says Adam was formed from the dust in both the Old and New Testament.
It is the bible that says Eve was formed second from Adams side.

It is Genesis 1:26-27 that has men and women spoken into existence at the same time. So which is right?

Generally speaking...the bible is YOUNG EARTH. Now you have the right to disagree Vance...but to label the YEC's in the manner you did above is shamefull...especially considering the fact tht it is the YEC's who are reading the bible and believing what is written. It is the Theo-Evos that have to RE-WRITE Genesis to fit their interpretation of mans fallible science.

I submit that it is the YECs that have made a false idol out of their interpretation of the Bible. Genesis is neither young nor old earth. The age of the earth was calculated by Bishop Ussher.

Tell me, how do you interpret Luke 2:1? Was all the world taxed? Were Japanese, Sioux, and Russians taxed? Why not? Don't you believe what is written?

Or do you take extrabiblical evidence and re-interpret "all the world" to mean only the Roman world?

Now, if you can take extrabiblical evidence there, why not extrabiblical evidence to reinterpret Genesis? It shouldn't be a problem unless you now worship that interpretation and can't bear to part with your god.