FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-11-2001, 11:01 PM   #21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Hello Loren. I hope you do not mind if I ask for some specifics.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by lpetrich:

* In the Book of Jonah, Jonah convinces the people of Nineveh to repent of their sins, but there is no record of this event has been found in the ruins of Nineveh, and it is unrecorded elsewhere in the Bible.</font>
Arguments from silence are not convincing LP. Please do better. Remember that archaeology is a very young science, and no one claims that everything (or even a tiny fraction of what may be out there) has been discovered yet.

Give me actual contradictions to look at, not speculation.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">* There is no destruction of Canaanite cities corresponding with when the Israelite invasion was supposed to occur.</font>
Specifics please. With some sources.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">* There is no evidence of a few hundred thousand people wandering in the Sinai Peninsula 3500 years ago.</font>
So? Does that mean that everything that could be discovered has been? Have you heard about the palace of the Queen of Sheba? How about Cleopatra's digs found in the Meditranean and just being recovered now?

Again, stick with specifics please.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">* There is no record of the Exodus in Egyptian records, even one twisted to seem like some great triumph.</font>
This is quaint. Yet another argument from silence, and worse yet, the Egyptians DIDN'T record a resounding defeat at the hands of their own slaves. How odd.

Please do better than silences and as yet undiscovered things LP. I would like to see actual specific errors and contradictions. Surely there must be one or two you can come up with. I, for one, would expect that there are at least a couple.

Nomad
 
Old 06-11-2001, 11:05 PM   #22
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Echo:

Like I said in an earlier post, I'm not interested in proving the bible true/false or the BoM true/false. My interest in this thread is the methodology one uses to determine that either the bible or BoM is true or false. It seems that non-Mormons have rejected the BoM solely on the basis of evidence- either the lack of substantiating evidence for it or the presence of evidence against it. Faith doesn't seem to have anything to do with it.
But where the Mormons are concerned, faith has just about everything to do with it. They have asked God himself if the BoM is true and he has done so. Mormons don't tell me they "believe" the BoM to be true, they tell me they KNOW it to be true because God has filled their heart with the knowledge of its truth.

So which is the preferable methodology?</font>
Hello Echo

Since I have never made any such claim regarding my own faith and the Bible (IOW, God has never told me anything about it, or the BoM for that matter), I am not sure what methodology you are speaking of here.

Do you think that Christians accept the Bible on the same basis as do Mormons? If so, what is your evidence to support your belief?

Nomad
 
Old 06-11-2001, 11:09 PM   #23
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by MOJO-JOJO:
</font>
Hello Mojo

If I may, who are you talking about? Do you consider me to be a Christian? If so, I must tell you that I have no idea what you are talking about in your post. Quite frankly, it makes absolutely no sense.

On the other hand, if you do not consider me to be a Christian, how did you arrive at this judgement?

I would suggest that you be prepared to talk with a wider variety of Christians than you have been accustomed to meeting up to this point. You might be surprised by what you learn.

Peace,

Nomad
 
Old 06-12-2001, 12:04 AM   #24
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hi Nomad, thanks for your response.

My main point, if any, (and on a slow news night I might add), was that the two Mormons who turned up on my door step (and Seventh Day Adventists are always coming here as well - I really should put up a sign) were both bright eyed and bushy tailed and seemed to have complete faith in the BoM, as well as the KJV (I understand that this is the only version of the Bible that they accept - correct me if I am wrong).

This is the wrong forum, and the wrong thread to extend the discussion along these lines, but I would ask you a similar question that I asked Ish.

Since they accept the biblical God and the biblical Jesus, how wrong are they?

Norm
 
Old 06-12-2001, 03:15 AM   #25
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Greetings, Nomad.

Glad to see you still defending the barricades of superstition.

What evidence do you have from archeology that contradicts the Bible?

I don't, personally, have any. What evidence do you have from archeaology that confirms your "supernatural" beliefs? However, I do have some very powerful archeaological evidence that some of the geographical places and people mentioned in Homer's writings did, in fact, exist. Do you suppose that constitutes adequate justification to declare his writings divinely inspired?

What evidence do you have from other sciences that disproves any claims in the Bible?

I don't, personally, have any. What evidence from other sciences do you have that proves any of the "supernatural" claims made in the Bible?

If you want something that you can sink your choppers into, try this:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science.html

(Short aside)
I spent some time at Fairport, NY, which is just a stone and tablet throw from the Palmyra hill where J.Smith found his so-called sacred works. With hopes held high, I went there with my metal detector. I only found some old pull-top caps and some rusty, blood-stained, nails. Well it looked like blood. (Ever do a any research into the pre-find background of J. Smith? Interesting.)

norm

I'll go back to the other forums now. I just missed reading nomad's Christian apologia technique.
 
Old 06-12-2001, 05:42 AM   #26
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

So? Does that mean that everything that could be discovered has been? Have you heard about the palace of the Queen of Sheba? How about Cleopatra's digs found in the Meditranean and just being recovered now?

The Palace of the Queen of Sheba? Which one?
The one in Nigeria? The one at Axum? The one in the Saudi peninsula?

Michael
 
Old 06-12-2001, 05:51 AM   #27
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Hello Loren. I hope you do not mind if I ask for some specifics.

This is quaint. Yet another argument from silence, and worse yet, the Egyptians DIDN'T record a resounding defeat at the hands of their own slaves. How odd.

Please do better than silences and as yet undiscovered things LP. I would like to see actual specific errors and contradictions. Surely there must be one or two you can come up with. I, for one, would expect that there are at least a couple.

Nomad
</font>
As usual, Nomad has the evidentiary requirements backward. You are the one claiming that the Hebrew slaves -- for which there is no evidence -- defeated the pharoah's army -- for which there is no evidence -- wandered in the Sinai for forty years -- for which there is no evidence -- then pulled down a bunch of walled cities in Canaan -- for which there is no evidence.

Just supply us with positive evidence for your claims, and we'll take the mythical history of the OT seriously.

"The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.

Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer. Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24."

"contained in Genesis through Joshua"--"The whole 'Exodus-Conquest' cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical..." (p. 121, Devers, What did the Bible Writers Know.

The evidentiary burden is on he who asserts. Please show that there was a city of Ai for Joshua to destroy.


Michael
 
Old 06-12-2001, 07:49 AM   #28
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fromdownunder:

My main point, if any, (and on a slow news night I might add), was that the two Mormons who turned up on my door step (and Seventh Day Adventists are always coming here as well - I really should put up a sign) were both bright eyed and bushy tailed and seemed to have complete faith in the BoM, as well as the KJV (I understand that this is the only version of the Bible that they accept - correct me if I am wrong).</font>
Hi Norm

Yes, I have had a number of Mormons work for me, and most of them are like this, especially the newly converted. They are also extremely industrious, conscientious and generally quite pleasant. They make very good employees and friends.

And yes, they only accept the KJV Bible, and then only in that "it has been properly translated and understood". This latter rule stems from the fact that a breakaway version of the LDS had the gall to actually copyright the original translation of the KJV that Joseph Smith wrote, making it impossibe for the main LDS Church to use this translation. Since the original KJV contradicts them on a number of key theological issues, they have resolved this problem by telling their worshippers that it must be properly translated before it can be understood.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">This is the wrong forum, and the wrong thread to extend the discussion along these lines, but I would ask you a similar question that I asked Ish.

Since they accept the biblical God and the biblical Jesus, how wrong are they?</font>
This issue is, on it's own, huge. But if I had an objection to Mormonism, I would begin with their flawed understanding of the Trinity, and that they believe that the Godhead contains three separate Beings (not just Persons). Thus, they condemn the Nicene Creed as heresy.

They also tell us that the Father has a physical body, and that the father of Jesus was Adam. Finally, they consider Jesus and Lucifer to be "Spirit Brothers", a highly dubious claim to say the least.

There are a number of other serious theological disputes, but the ones listed above are the biggest from my point of view.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited June 12, 2001).]
 
Old 06-12-2001, 07:50 AM   #29
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Hello Echo

Do you think that Christians accept the Bible on the same basis as do Mormons? If so, what is your evidence to support your belief?

Nomad
</font>

Do ALL Christians base their belief in the bible on faith? I doubt it. I don't presume to speak for all of them either.
Do I have "proof" that some do..sure! I have day to day interaction with Christians who consistently and incessantly tell me that if I only have faith the bible will appear true to me..if I only believe it is true, I will see that it IS true..if I only just ask God he will show me it is true and provide me with the correct understanding of it. This may not be your experience with the bible, but it is indeed the viewpoint held by plenty of your brethren..one need only visit one of the many bible fellowship newsgroups to find plenty of posts exhibiting this view.

 
Old 06-12-2001, 07:56 AM   #30
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
Hello Loren. I hope you do not mind if I ask for some specifics.

This is quaint. Yet another argument from silence, and worse yet, the Egyptians DIDN'T record a resounding defeat at the hands of their own slaves. How odd.

Please do better than silences and as yet undiscovered things LP. I would like to see actual specific errors and contradictions. Surely there must be one or two you can come up with. I, for one, would expect that there are at least a couple.

Nomad
</font>
Here's another good example of the argument from silence: There is no archaeological support for the BoM.

 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:38 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.