I enjoy the good humor. Part of my Sunday morning retinue is going to the bar (beer-joint). We play a game there. I do not know what it is called, but someone will say,
"Under the Grandstands" by Seymore Hare. A Favorite is "What did the termite say when he walked into the saloon?" Is the BAR TENDER here?

Most of the patrons do not "get" the last joke, but they particpate in our game that requires laughter. Our running bear is running bare.

Devnet, thanks for the insight on names. I am interested in parallel stories. In The Antiquities of the Jews on page 69 we have a story about Moses being the general of the Egytians in a war against Ethiopia. The editor, William Whiston, remarks, This history of Moses, as general of the Egyptians, is wholly omitted from our bibles ... As a pesher(ist) I know about multiple names for locations and multiple names for people so I know, that somewhere in Josephus and, likewise, somewhere in the Bible this story will be told with another location and another general.

What the final analysis will be is that king David's empire was quite small (Rhode Island) and that the kingdoms were never united. The final result is the "power of the pen" with the "meat" (clergy) giving the "milk" (congregation) "Santa Claus" stories with the requirement that the congregation believe these stories under the penalty of death.

thanks, offa

See my response in the "Open Forum."

rodahi

devnet, I got the information on "Bera" possibly meaning "gift" from a commentary and from Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon.

Thanks for the info about the contraction of "ben ra" into "bera". That was interesting. I know of those particular rules in Hebrew, but I haven't seen them put into use for "ben" until now. Why is this not done more often? Most things I've read seem to keep "ben" separate.

Finally, I'm not sure I got my point across about the names. I'm not talking about things like "running bear". I'm talking about someone taking a name like Adolf Hitler and "twisting" it into something derogatory like Adope Spitler (for lack of a better example). Perhaps "Bera" is a pejorative corruption of the king's real name.

Either way, you're probably right. This is more than likely a type of propaganda. That still doesn't make the entire event fiction...

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited April 29, 2001).]

But where's Nomad, Bede, Metacrock and all the other defenders of the Bible? I've put forward a challenge: explain how the Bible can be regarded as a document of fact when it has pejorative names which are typical of fictional storytelling. "Bad Son" (Bera) and "Wicked Son" (Birsha) are not real names - for the most part, just nicknames. An omniscient God who wrote this would know the real names. IMO, Birsha has as much factual credence as does Cruela of 101 Dalmatians.

My whole point in my argument for metaphysical naturalism, the worldview that nature is all there is, is that the Bible and the Qur'an are both works of propaganda, therefore they contain miracles and revelations. It is clear that there are no miracles or revelations today, so the question is whether they occurred in the past. But since the Bible and the Qur'an have an axe to grind, I consider their miracles and revelations as fictional. I know there are neither miracles nor revelations today, and I believe there were no miracles/revelations in the past either, and there will be none in the future.

"Why Metaphysical Naturalism?"
http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/mnintro.html

You decide all this based on a couple of names? A little shakey isn't it?

Where did you get the idea that miracles don't occur today? That may be your experience, but not necessarily others.

Ish

Do you know of any miracles? Documented, independently-observed, proven with solid evidence? I think we would all like to know.

Michael

No, this is one of many factors which lead me to that decision. There are many more problems which make the case for the Bible as a totally human document: science (evolution - not found in Bible), history (no mention of a world event - the staying of the sun in the sky for a whole day in Joshua 10 - in any other book), causality (no connection between deeds of men and outcomes; for example, no connection between eating pork and dying in a flood, at least not today). The Argumentum ad Nomina is just another corroborator for my argument. My main point: Adam and Eve were never any real people. The Bible has no more factual credence than Homer's Iliad. Right, the Bible may help in archaeology, just as Homer's Iliad helped Schliemann find Troy, but as a document of accurate fact it simply won't do.

Think about this: do you ever see someone yanking an object remotely, as Skywalker and Vader did in Star Wars? Only on TV, right? That's where stunts can be made. And miracles too: only in books like the Bible and Qur'an, right? Where anyone can right anything.

I don't care what others experience. When I was an Orthodox Jewish fundie the rabbi told me of the "feeling of divine light" coming from donning the t'fillin (phylacteries), yet I didn't feel anything. The rabbi's feeling did not interest me in the least. As far as I'm concerned, people who see miracles or have revelations from God are probably on drugs.

So, if I say I believe in Miracles I must be on drugs? How can I refute that?

I can't win this one on a board of Atheists, but I'll present my view anyway.

I believe in Miracles. I believe they have happened to other people. I even believe I've had at least one in my own experience. I say this from the heart, and I've never done a drug in my life (except maybe caffeine ).

Maybe you could look at it like this. There are people who believe there are aliens out in space somewhere. They search for them because they believe they might be there. They have never found any evidence, past nor present (though people make claims). Now, do aliens exist or don't they? Some say yes though they can't prove it, they only "feel" it. I think extra-terrestrial life is a possibility (and it would make no difference to my belief in God if we found them or they found us). Do you believe there might be aliens out there somewhere? But you don't believe in the remotest possibility of miracles or the supernatural?

I don't claim this to be a perfect example, but I wouldn't discount things because you haven't personally experienced it (yet?).

As to the Bible being fiction, I just don't buy it. There are too many historical facts behind it in my opinion (more so than in Homer's works and look what they turned up). Your argument is interesting, but is really only your opinion.

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited April 29, 2001).]

First off, there is a difference between reasonable extrapolation, like extraterrestrials, and irrational "I believe it because it's absurd" faith.

Also, does archeological confirmation of some features of Homer's epics mean that we ought to worship the deities of Mt. Olympus?