Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pendaric · 01-06-2006, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingLouie

Every last line could be nothing but lies and storytelling, from Genesis to Job to Revelations.

And this - no, that's just flat wrong. We know from external sources that some parts of the bible are reliable reflections of history. The Babylonian exile, for example, is a documented historical fact. The existence of King David, whilst not well attested, does have independent evidence.

I'm not coming from a starting point that everything in the bible is myth and legend.

KingLouie · 01-06-2006, 05:45 PM

Baldie,

I'm not totally myself for these last few days or so. You're going to have to forgive me a little bit.

From the Jungles,

Kang Louie

glyptodon · 01-07-2006, 04:19 AM

I seem to recall from a class in Egyptian history that there is in fact evidence of a Jewish population having been in Ancient Egypt, from records of Jewish names and such. I'm afraid I don't remember the source of those data.

seebs · 01-07-2006, 04:06 PM

I have gotten the impression that the Hebrew view of history is so different from our own as to make the question very hard to answer. For instance, Walter Wink's argument about Genesis 1 is that its only purpose is to be contrasted with the Babylonian creation myth. It's not about what happened; it's about the worldview to adopt.

This matters some when evaluating claims about what God is like based on the OT; we don't necessarily know how reliable the source is, or what they were trying to say.

seebs · 01-07-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingLouie

If I required proof to believe that Noah actually did what it said he did, or that Jonah got swallowed up by a whale, then why would I stop with there, with that? Why would I not require proof for everything that happened in between, from "Let there be light" to "Love thy neighbor?" I don't have any proof of things in this unfortunately small, mostly blinded human gaze and perspective. So I have to go with what makes the most sense to me.

This is a healthy perspective, IMHO.

Vorkosigan · 01-08-2006, 06:28 AM

Quote:

But the existence of a man named David as the founder of the Judean (southern) dynasty need not be doubted- the Dan stele refers to him as the founder of the Judean maonarchy less than a century and a half after the rise of states in that region

Totally incorrect. Tel Dan attests at most to a House of David which could mean anything. It never mentions a particular individual, and may not refer to the Bible David at all.

In any case I believe it to be a fake. I can't prove it yet, though.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 01-08-2006, 06:30 AM

Quote:

If you had all your possessions in front of you, would you bet everything you owned on this line: that matter simply emerged on its own accord, we people included?

Yes. Because that's what the evidence points to. Anything not supported by methodology and evidence is a pleasant fantasy, at best; a nightmare, at worst.

Vorkosigan

Sauron · 01-08-2006, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seebs

Originally Posted by KingLouie
If I required proof to believe that Noah actually did what it said he did, or that Jonah got swallowed up by a whale, then why would I stop with there, with that? Why would I not require proof for everything that happened in between, from "Let there be light" to "Love thy neighbor?" I don't have any proof of things in this unfortunately small, mostly blinded human gaze and perspective. So I have to go with what makes the most sense to me.

This is a healthy perspective, IMHO.

I don't see how.

He has discussed two kinds of things in this paragraph:

1. fantastic extraordinary events
2. common everyday events

He's just lumped them all together and say "if I have to have faith for #1, then why stop there? Why wouldn't I need faith for#2". That ignores the difference between 1 and 2. Just because #1 requires extraordinary proof does not mean that #2 does.

His position is not much different from the broken theist argument that tries to equate "faith" in the resurrection to the "faith" required to turn on your computer or drive your car. One really is faith; the other is not.

rob117 · 01-08-2006, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Totally incorrect. Tel Dan attests at most to a House of David which could mean anything. It never mentions a particular individual, and may not refer to the Bible David at all.

In any case I believe it to be a fake. I can't prove it yet, though.

Vorkosigan

Even Finkelstein accepts the Dan stele as genuine. I know of no serious archaeologist who believes it's a fake.

Sauron · 01-08-2006, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

But the existence of a man named David as the founder of the Judean (southern) dynasty need not be doubted- the Dan stele refers to him as the founder of the Judean maonarchy less than a century and a half after the rise of states in that region (the interpretaion of btdwd "Beth-Dod" is not seriously considered).

Absolutely not so. The fact that there is a reference to the "house of David" does not prove that a historical David ever existed. By that argument, there must have been a Romulus & Remus suckled by a wolf, since Rome attributes its origins to them.

The royal house of Sweden, traces itself back to a lineage known as the Ynglingar, the "House of Yng", if you will. The founder of that house was (purportedly) Yngvi-Frey, one of the Norse gods (the Vanir).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Yngling

There is a common human attempt to derive political legitimacy by claiming that the royal line is rooted in the gods, or in some other mytho-poetic figure.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-06-2006, 05:45 PM	#22
KingLouie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Admin Consensus Is That Terriers are O.K. Posts: 1,608	Baldie, I'm not totally myself for these last few days or so. You're going to have to forgive me a little bit. From the Jungles, Kang Louie

01-07-2006, 04:19 AM	#23
glyptodon Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: WA, USA Posts: 78	I seem to recall from a class in Egyptian history that there is in fact evidence of a Jewish population having been in Ancient Egypt, from records of Jewish names and such. I'm afraid I don't remember the source of those data.

01-07-2006, 04:06 PM	#24
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	I have gotten the impression that the Hebrew view of history is so different from our own as to make the question very hard to answer. For instance, Walter Wink's argument about Genesis 1 is that its only purpose is to be contrasted with the Babylonian creation myth. It's not about what happened; it's about the worldview to adopt. This matters some when evaluating claims about what God is like based on the OT; we don't necessarily know how reliable the source is, or what they were trying to say.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.