The Bible

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by usfan, Oct 2, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow. Only 68 pages in, and i finally get a proper premise! ;)

    You still do not quote the passage, but you gave the reference. I guess those scary bible passages might infect you and turn you into a bible thumper! :roflol:

    Numbers 22:28 Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”

    29Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”

    30The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”

    “No,” he said
    .

    In context, this was a prophet, named Balaam, that an enemy king was trying to hire to curse the Israelites. The Lord spoke to him, forbidding him. But the king offered money, so he went anyway. On the way, an 'angel of the Lord' was going to kill him, but the donkey saw the spiritual apparition and stopped. This made Balaam beat the donkey until it spoke.

    So, if i understand the objection, it is, 'Donkeys don't talk.'

    Flaming angels with swords, direct communication with the Divine, and the power of a curse are ok, but not talking donkeys..

    This is just an argument of incredulity.. disbelief in the supernatural.. the bible is filled with supernatural interventions from an unseen dimension. Why single out this poor donkey?
     
  2. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is obviously not the source, for your listed objections. That was only for the Tacitus quote, which you cherry picked over Lukes writings.

    Evidence? You have corroboration for Tacitus' claims? Your bluff here is called.
     
  3. Greenleft

    Greenleft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,482
    Likes Received:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Because you cannot call it historically accurate as the author was not there to see it.
     
  4. Greenleft

    Greenleft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,482
    Likes Received:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm too lazy to type more than one sentence of religious gobbledy gook.
     
  5. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do the writings here of Tacitus (not faculty staff in the university of Chicago! :roflol: ), corroborate your worldview, and anti-bible beliefs?

    How? His 'history' of the jews is a little sketchy.. why would you accept his perspective and dismiss Moses?
     
  6. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah. So 3rd party accounts from anyone compiling an historical account are invalid? Only first person eyewitnesses can relay historical facts?

    ..plenty of sentences of anti-bible gobbledygook, though! ;)
     
  7. Greenleft

    Greenleft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,482
    Likes Received:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Did Balaam himself go to the Israelites and tell them all about it? And Double hearsay is dismissed in court. The Gospels were not written by witnesses to Yeshua. Only people who knew the witnesses.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2018
  8. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How can I provide evidence for no corroborating sources?
     
  9. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did Tacitus know Moses? Did he hear Herod, personally? You are setting up impossible double standards, requiring first hand eyewitnesses for the bible, but accepting conventional historical scholarship for everything else. Does this not just expose your bias?
     
  10. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Considering Moses likely wrote nothing...
     
  11. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You claim there is corroborating evidence from other historians for Tacitus' accounts. Show me.
     
  12. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ..which you base on...

    Bias?
    Incredulity?

    ..certainly not facts.

    What basis do you have for doubting the authorship of Moses?
     
  13. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, my claim is that no historian from the time corroborates the Bible’s claim.
     
  14. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact that none of Moses’s supposed writings were written down until centuries after he supposedly wrote them.
     
  15. Greenleft

    Greenleft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,482
    Likes Received:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    We do not accept conventional historical scholarship 100%. We just rely on what we have. If more historical accounts of say... the life of Julius Caesar come to light that go against what is commonly accepted as fact, we can adjust our history books and broaden our understanding. Admittedly, there will be things we will probably NEVER know about ancient Egypt for example.

    All Balaam's donkey has is ONE text with ONE witness and we have no clue how the information reached the ears of Moses or whoever wrote Numbers.
     
  16. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    More from Eidersheim..

    There are two facts, which render any historical mistake by St. Luke on this point extremely difficult to believe. First, he was evidently aware of a Census under Cyrenius, ten years later ; " secondly, what
    ever rendering of St. Luke ii. 2 may be adopted, it will at least be admitted, that the intercalated sentence about Cyrenius was not necessary for the narrative, and that the writer must have intended thereby emphatically to mark a certain event. But an author would not be likely to call special attention to a fact, of which he had only indistinct knowledge ; rather, if it must be mentioned, would he do so in the most indefinite terms. This presumption in favour of St_
    Luke's statement is strengthened by the consideration, that such an event as the taxing of Judaea must have been so easily ascertainable
    by him. We are, however, not left to the presumptive reasoning just set forth. That the Emperor Augustus made registers of the Roman Empire, and of subject and tributary states, is now generally admitted. This registration—for the purpose of future taxation—
    would also embrace Palestine. Even if no actual order to that effect had been issued during the lifetime of Herod, we can understand that
    he would deem it most expedient, both on account of his relations to the Emperor, and in view of the probable excitement which a heathen Census would cause in Palestine, to take steps for making a registration, and that rather according to the Jewish than the Roman manner.
    This Census, then, ordered by Augustus, and taken by Herod in his own manner, was, according to St. Luke, ' first [really] carried out when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria,' some years after Herod's death,
    and when Judsea had become a Roman province.
    We are now prepared to follow the course of the Gospel-narrative.
    In consequence of ' the decree of Caesar Augustus,' Herod directed a general registration to be made after the Jewish, rather than the Roman, manner. Practically the two would, indeed, in this instance,
    be very similar. According to the Roman law, all country-people were to be registered in their ' own city ' —meaning thereby the town to which the village or place, where they were born, was attached. In so doing, the ' house and lineage ' (the nomen and cognomen) of each CHAP,
    were marked.1 According to the Jewish mode of registration, the VI people would have been enrolled according to tribes (niDD), families or
    clans (mnDCo), and the house of their fathers (nns TVa). But as the ten tribes had not returned to Palestine, this could only take
    place to a very limited extent, while it would be easy for each to be registered in ' his own city.' In the case of Joseph and Mary, whose descent from David was not only known, but where, for the sake of the unborn Messiah, it was most important that this should be distinctly noted, it was natural that, in accordance with Jewish law, they
    should have gone to Bethlehem. Perhaps also, for many reasons
    which will readily suggest themselves, Joseph and Mary might be
    glad to leave Nazareth, and seek, if possible, a home in Bethlehem.
    Indeed, so strong was this feeling, that it afterwards required special
    Divine direction to induce Joseph to relinquish this chosen place of
    residence, and to return into Galilee." In these circumstances, Mary, *st. Matt.
    now the ' wife ' of Joseph, though standing to him only in the actual relationship of ' betrothed,' b would, of course, accompany her husband jSt" Luke U-
    to Bethlehem. Irrespective of this, every feeling and hope in her
    must have prompted such a course, and there is no need to discuss
    whether Roman or Jewish Census-usage required her presence—a
    question which, if put, would have to be answered in the negative.


    I fixed a bit of the formatting, but not all.. if anyone is interested in the scholarly Christian perspective..
     
  17. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Isn't the census story just a variation of the census stories involving Moses in Exodus chapter 30 and David in 2 Samuel chapter 24?
     
  18. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The writers lied for God.
     
  19. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    *the Exodus perhaps it wasn't a large group maybe 100,000 people total and the rest of the account is true*

    Manna from heaven 6 days a week for 40 years. Sure, that sounds legit.
     
  20. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another get out. The main charge is that Jesus was supposed to be in Nazareth and Egypt at the same time. Don't dodge the subject. Read what is written.

    Matthew 2:13-15. After the supposed visit of the wise men and Herods supposed threat Jesus goes to Egypt and stays there until Herod is dead. Where is your evidence for the ' Massacre of the Innocents'. But the deeds of Herod are well documented in Roman History. Yet not this. Another excerpt stolen from the OT with no evidence for Herod's massacre.
    Luke 2:21-39. After fulfilling the Law - circumcision and redemption of Jesus in the Temple, and Mary's period of purification - they went home to Nazareth. About 40 days according to Jewish ritual. There they stayed until Jesus was 12.
    That rather squashes the journey into Egypt. Of course they could have used an American convertible for the long journey.

    We read that Joseph went to his own town to register. A census was taken to assess people for taxes.Taxes were on property. Joseph was a carpenter from Nazareth - not Bethlehem Ephratah. In fact, it is more likely that he went home to Bethlehem in Zebulun, a few miles from Nazareth. There is no evidence that he needed to go to Bethlehem Ephratah - except a prophecy stolen from the OT about Israel.
    However Uzi Dahari, the deputy director of the Antiquities Authority, said recently “There’s no connection, there’s nothing that suggests Bethlehem of the Galilee (Zebulon) could be connected,” said Dahari, calling Oshri’s thinking impossible. “There’s nothing scientific to prove it,” said Dahari, before throwing his own curve ball. “Anyone who does research and deals with this says that Jesus, the person, was born in Nazareth, and his family was from Nazareth,” said Dahari. “The whole story of Bethlehem of Judea was just to tie him to the house of King David. It’s just a religious excuse.”www.timesofisrael.com/was-jesus-born-in-a-different-bethlehem/ Notice. He does not deny 'the person' of Jesus.
     
  21. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't forget the millions of quails, the lakes of water and the corn for bread
     
  22. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113

    1. His research wasn't very good. He got things wrong. That's not an error? He was a good historian closer to the events concerning Paul, but even then he got things wrong. He gives details of Paul's movements after the 'conversion' (Acts 9), Paul puts him right in Galatians 1 & 2.
    2. Not necessrily. The gospel was written just before or after the Destruction of the Temple by which time the disciples were dispersed. They had left Jerusalem, their HQ, before the war, and Palestine was in tumult.
    3. Unfortunately not true any longer. Christianity, in educated countries, is on the decline. Modern understanding of the Bible and its background is showing that it is not the book that the church has 'suggested' for 2 millenia. Witness the number of ministers of all Christian sects who either leave or express their doubts about much of the Bible. I know 4 ministers, of different denominations, who positively refute parts of the Bible.
    4. We now have evidence that people even 100 years ago did not have, and we are no longer forced into believing the preachers interpretation of the Bible. The walls of Jericho may have fallen, but there's no evidence that any shouts destroyed it. Earthquakes had done it before, and damaged it since. For millenia the Church told us that Adam and Eve really existed. That the world was flooded to the tops of its mountains. If we didn't believe it we were damned to hell. Or even burnt at the stake.
    Like it or not, the Bible has been altered down the years.
    https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...lations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-n
    ttps://www.ranker.com/list/has-the-bible-changed/jacob-shelton

    It's not just alterations but meanings of the Hebrew were ignored for Christian purposes, but students are now placing it in its original context. There never was a Lucifer in the OT, Did any preacher on the Middle ages mention that the book of Revelations was based on OT images/Scriptures with Christian doctrine added. The the Essenes had done exactly the same, adding their own thoughts.
     
  23. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There a hundreds of extant artefacts in Museums all over the world that prove much of ancient Middle East REAL history. Just a few.
    The Smithsonian
    British Museum (The Cyrus Cylinder) and others.
    The Cairo Museum
    The Penn and many other reputable Museums

    Of course, you can't prove Abraham etc but artefacts help to show that the Biblical Abrahamic story cannot be as described - if at all.
     
  24. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Moses described how he died and was buried. Are you saying that he wasn't there? Anyone who can go without water and food for 40 days and nights on 2 occasions without getting sick and dying should certainly know how to write BS in some language.
     
  25. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Abraham is the most disgusting person in the Bible. He sold his *soul* for personal fame and fortune. He was a murderer, thief, and liar as well as a lousy father and sexual pervert. He screwed his sister all of her life. Anyone who regards him as a good role model is sick in the head.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page