Part 38 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Then door to door types like Mormons, JWs and some evangelical Baptists should expect my wrath when they show up on my doorstep for badgering me telling me to believe in the Bible and their specific interpretation. And at the sanctuary of my own home of all places.

 

Another tough question regarding Christianity: According to my research online, Joshua and the Israelites entered Canaan after 40 years in the wilderness anytime between 1500 BCE to 1200 BCE. Yet for most of that time period, Canaan was in fact part of the Kingdom of Egypt.

That means that either Joshua did not conquer dozens of micro nations as described in the Bible, but instead conquered the land from Egypt OR Egypt conquered Canaan AFTER the Israelites settled and divided the land (the period of the Judges before the Kingdom of Israel was established).

Why does the Bible omit this VERY IMPORTANT bit of information?



(I'll post this on two threads because I really want somebody to explain this to me)

 

[

Not going into everything which I mainly agree with - supposing that Abraham and Moses actually existed. And I see no reason to believe the story. It has too many errors in it when compared with known and proven ancient history. . IMO studies show a writing of the stories while in the Babylon exile. Plus the fact that Zoroastrianism was 'popular' in Babylon, and that was probably where monotheism came from.
Joshua was in the 'tent' (Tabernacle) but that consisted of several compartments. God was only in the Holy of Holies - at the back of the tent.. A compartment coompletely cut off from the rest

Over time the characteristics of El and other Gods were fused into YHWH

Agreed Taken from Ugarit beliefs where Yahweh is a minor 'god' under El. Ugarit and Hebrew literature have a lot in common. Dr Micheal Heiser (Logos) says 'Like everyone whose doctoral work is in Semitics, I took Ugaritic during graduate school. It was a life-changing course, because it opened up the Hebrew text and Israelite religion to me in so many ways'.
The Bible can only be understood when put in its ancient context.

Wow. It's 00.39 bedtime

 

The work Heiser has done on ancient Israelite belief in a Divine Council is very good. http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf

Scroll to page 7 and review 3 Bible Translations of Deuteronomy 32:43

The two older translations which date prior to the common era (back into BC) preserve the idea that there were many Gods/Divinities.
The Masoretic Text (which dates 700-900 AD) completely removes these references. This is "pious fraud" on steroids. The "Sin of Omission"

When you are done looking at the comparison of these translations. Then go look at a modern translation. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+32&version=NIV

Rejoice, you nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants;
he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people.

1) Any mention of other divinities been removed (as is the case in the MT). This is really bad as it is not like modern translators only have the MT available to them. They also have copies of the Septuagint (LXX) and the Qumran text.

This is really bad.

2) what is worse is that they then go on to bastardize the last passage. Even in the bastardized MT translation the last sentence remains the same as the other texts. "And he will cleanse his peoples land".

So the upshot of this passage is that God will take vengeance on his enemies and "cleanse" the land. Obviously this is referring to a kind of xenophobic cleansing in context. Cleaning out the infidels and those "not like us".

How does one get from there to "make atonement for his land and people" ? Cleansing the land in context means something very specific within the context of this passage. Substituting the term atonement makes this the meaning so obscure that the original meaning is completely lost.

With this kind of pious fraud going on - even by modern translators - how can any religious leader with any academic credibility claim "inerrancy" ? ... and this of course is why most don't. The only denomination that does are the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists (Pentecostals and that ilk).


This is another good one on the Divine Council http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_144.pdf

 

This is however is very much misleading. Legitimacy may or may not have anything to do with "how old" scrolls are. It because the earliest scrolls humans can find today may not at all be the earliest scrolls ever existed. For example, Joe wrote a scroll in 2000 BC. Its faked copies distributed in 1500 BC which becomes the earliest scrolls we can find. The legitimate copies flew all the times in the distant past however the earliest legitimate copies we can find today are the copies flowing in 1000 BC.

In this case, it's fallacious to get to the conclusion that the 1500 BC scrolls are more legitimate. This is not only fallacious, but also deceptive to notice its fallaciousness!

 

The question of legitimacy is addressed in the article. Heiser also states that older does not "necessarily" mean more correct.

The conclusion of the analysis is not based solely on the age of the documents. It is based on numerous other factors such as the fact that religious scholars (of any academic credibility) agree that the Israelites were not strict monotheists. The were to worship only one God but they believed in the existence of many -- a Divine Pantheon.

The translation of the LXX began in the third century BC. Obviously this translation is based on older texts.

The idea that the MT translation (done from 700-900) BC had access to text even older than the texts used by LXX translators is far fetched.

Your analogy makes no sense with respect to the context and content of the article - which you should have read prior to making the silly comments that you have.

 

When was the last time you heard a preacher or clergyman mention Ugarit in a sermon? Or even in a discussion. Or even its influence on the Bible. I wonder how many actually know it. Or the different translations and omissions in, the Bible.
Perhaps preachers consider good advice to be the last 2 lines of a Thomas Grey poem - taken out of context - 'Where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise'

 

Why would anyone bother to 'fake' a document '1500' BCE? We are not talking about retyping and printing. We are talking handwritten scrolls. You can't mass produce these things. Paul's letters were sent to a particular church and then passed from church to church. A copy may have been produced by each church as they received it, and then passed on. And that was when parchment was used to 'write' on.
The meticulous process of hand-copying a scroll takes about 2,000 person-hours (about one year at 40 hours per week).The Torah scroll contains 304,805 letters (or approximately 79,000 words). To talk about 'distributing' faked copies is dreaming.
We're living in the 21st century when things can be done quickly and easily. .

 

You haven't answered anything. You've been shown why Noahs flood cannot have happened - but you refuse the Bibles description of the hydrological system, the ac tions of water etc. All basic science. You've been shown the errors on the Abraham and Moses stories which history denies. No. You haven't answered anything

 

Hi
I have a question. Maybe I will post it for you later. However, I passed by to give you thumb up. Good work

 

Not true, I'm on Part 38 and so I've answered thousands of questions, all the while keeping in line with the Christian faith. Just because you don't like the answers that doesn't mean I haven't answered anything, well I guess I haven't answered anything to your liking, which wouldn't be surprising since you're not a believer in the Christian faith.

I have been given opinions/biases/guesswork/etc. and these my good man are not facts. Like I've probably said a thousands times before, no one can prove/disprove God or anything else regarding the Holy Bible.

Again, it's nothing but opinions/biases/guesswork/etc...not facts...and that's a fact jack!

We Read in Scripture:

18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. ---Romans 1:18-20 NLT

 

I agree that science can't prove anything about god or the supernatural. There is no way for humans to test god, and science requires that all hypotheses be testable.

But likewise, religion doesn't have any method of identifying how nature works. Religion is oriented to answering questions such as why are we here, not the questions of how the physical universe works.

That shouldn't be considered an assault on religion. The Bible clearly has a number of significant allegories. Being allegories doesn't reduce their meaning. There doesn't have to be a worldwide flood for the Noah story to have meaning - in fact, interpreted as an allegory is more, not less meaningful.

I think the main trick is to keep science and religion separate. When mixed, the outcome is garbage.

 

Here is a bit of logic that makes the flood of Noah look more rational:

Are we humans the most technologically advanced species in universe?

Are we humans the most technologically advanced species in the universe / Multiverse?

1. 
   
   
   • *
     Almost certainly not
     28 vote(s)
     66.7%
   • 
     Yes
     4 vote(s)
     9.5%
   • 
     I hope so....
     3 vote(s)
     7.1%
   • 
     I hope not....
     7 vote(s)
     16.7%

Change Your Vote

http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/

https://www.near-death.com/experiences/exceptional/christian-andreason.html#a08

You might find this interesting:

Latter Day Saints, The Mormons, my analysis so far!

 

Is the point here that aliens came, did it, and then mopped up the evidence of a worldwide flood along with evidence of how they pulled it off and that they were here at all?

 

If you want to take it that way .... sure... but there is a lot of evidence of a worldwide flood if you actually want to research it some.

 

There is no evidence for a flood such as described in the Bible. You can have devastating floodS (plural) worldwide, but not A (singular) worldwide flood as described in the Bible. There is not enough water above, on or beneath the earth for such a flood. It's hydrologically impossible.

 

That's not actually evidence of a worldwide flood.

Carter goes through totally amazing (and unsupported) hoops to try to show that genetics doesn't DISPROVE such a flood. Most of that is through his computer models. But, he gives no indication of including any of the myriad factors that affect population. He just wants people to believe his computer models while throwing away what has been discovered by many decades of scientific investigation of human ancestry.

He suggests humans "should have" developed agriculture earlier. Why? Without an understanding of these early peoples, he wants us to believe that the relatively late advance to agriculture is an indication that science is wrong about all of evolution!! He denies existing population science on that grounds that in his opinion there should be huge numbers of human bodies found, and that the slow rate of finding ancient bodies invalidates science. But, bodies of animals don't stay intact. Think what a walk in the woods would be like if a significant percent of all animals that ever lived could be found!

He also suggests that shrinking to 10,000 people is essentially extinction - but his whole argument is about a population starting with TWO people and then shrinking to TWO people.

His comment about viruses and the notion that humans can't survive due to mutations is especially weird. Yes, he found a strain of flu virus that went extinct - that couldn't compete. However, that's exactly what one would expect given even a modicum of biology education. Of course there are strains that will go extinct as per evolution. He claims there is no effective way for undesirable mutations to be removed from the population - but, extinction is one major method for that to happen. He uses a particular flu strain as an example - a strain that went extinct (according to him). But, flu is a great example of the success of evolution. Flu virus strains have been rapidly evolving to be ever more successful - not toward failure. The question isn't whether flu will go extinct - it's quite clear that is not going to happen. The issue is what will humans do to continue the battle against a rapidly evolving assault by flu and other viruses.

There is a limit to how many significant mistakes someone can make and not be totally discounted. No scientist would be allowed to continue with this degree of nonsense.

 

It's amazing what you can get out of myths and fairy stories. I must read 'Alice through the Looking Glass' again, I might have missed something. He's nuts

 

God told us it rained for 40 days for all the water to cover the entire earth.

We Read In Scripture:

17 For forty days the floodwaters grew deeper, covering the ground and lifting the boat high above the earth. 18 As the waters rose higher and higher above the ground, the boat floated safely on the surface. 19 Finally, the water covered even the highest mountains on the earth, 20 rising more than twenty-two feet above the highest peaks. Genesis 7:17-20 NLT

How could anyone in those places record anything if they all perished in the flood, let's not forget that God only spared 8 people on earth, the rest all died from the Great Flood.

 

The account says all the world was flooded.
In the Gospels it says all the world was taxed by Rome.
and it says all the world had heard the Gospel.

What does "world" mean?
I grew up believing the "universe" was everything there is.
Now it's just a bubble in a foam-like entity. And that's what
has changed in just the last thirty-forty years?

 

The greatest myth and fairy story ever told is that mythical fairy story that everything in existence came out of nowhere (from nothing), everything just popped into existence by happenstance.

 

There is huge physical evidence of how our universe came about. There is NO evidence of any religious creation story.

And, please remember that physicists do NOT suggest that this universe came from nothing. Coming from nothing is what religion says, not science.

 

So, the universe came from something, if it didn't come from nothing.
Let's hold that thought.
Let's say That Beginning was the Big Bang (BB)
Then the BB couldn't have been the beginning because there was "something" there before it "banged."
This could be this M-theory of colliding membranes in hyper-space causing many BB's.
... or something which formed these membranes.
ad infinitum.
But at some point there was nothing, which became something.
And that's impossible. It violates the laws of physics which hold that events are caused by things.

Something outside of the physical universe had to have created the First Event.
Because the first event needed physical laws, mass, space, time, energy etc..

 

There is no evidence suggesting that there was a "time" where there was absolute nothingness.

Time came with the other dimensions of our universe. It doesn't apply to anything outside our universe. So, I added the quote marks.

If there is some larger context for time, we don't have evidence of it.

It's always tempting to apply concepts of our universe to what may or may not be outside our universe, but I don't see that as a legitimate approach. At present, we don't even know if our own universe is infinite or whether the big bang we know about is a local event.

Every religion I've heard about has it's religion based answer that in general is toally free of evidence. The fact that experimental physics have more questions than answers (and that theoretical physicists have more answers than questions!!) on some of these topics doesn't add any validity to ideas that have no evidence.

 

Hey, where've you been, hopefully not sick? I've missed your craziness.