Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 05-04-2004, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Here God is just predicting that he will harden Pharoahs heart. Read verse 13 and you will see that Pharoah initiates the hardening himself.

jtb: Exodus 7:13: And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

No, a better translation is the NKJV: And Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the Lord had said

ALL Biblical translations, INCLUDING the NKJV, agree that God initially hardened Pharaoh's heart in Exodus 7:13, as I have explained in detail in my April 5th post (the post you are quoting here).

Quote:

You have merely assumed that if one translation of a verse fails to mention WHO hardened Pharaoh's heart, then Pharaoh himself did it.

It is a rational assumption given what we know about human nature.

It is an irrational assumption that defies the Bible.

Quote:

Ex.7:13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

No the NASB is a better translation: Yet Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

...In Exodus 7:3, where GOD promises that HE will harden Pharaoh's heart.

Quote:

Pharaoh doesn't get the chance to harden HIS OWN heart until Exodus 8:15.
8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

8:32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.

9:34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.

No, he hardened it before these verses see above.

No, he did not.

Quote:

When it doesn't specifically say that God hardened his heart it is generally understood that Pharoah hardened it given that only God or yourself can harden your own heart.

"generally understood" by whom? Fundie apologists?

It is generally understood that God was entirely responsible for ALL the heart-hardening in Exodus, even the verses which describe Pharaoh as hardening his own heart (because, by then, the Bible has established that God arranged it).

Quote:

jtb: So, the heart-hardener is:

4:21 God
7:3 God
7:13 God
7:22 Unspecified
8:15 Pharaoh
8:32 Pharaoh
9:7 Unspecified
9:12 God
9:34 Pharaoh
10:1 God
10:20 God
10:27 God
11:10 God
14:4 God
14:8 God
14:17 God

No see corrections above.

You have not presented any "corrections".

The list stands.

Quote:

jtb: Exodus 7:13 is particularly relevant, as it's the first time that the heart-hardening actually happened (rather than God discussing his intention). Bible translations follow:

KJV: And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

NLT: Pharaoh's heart, however, remained hard and stubborn. He still refused to listen, just as the Lord had predicted.

(...note that the prediction is "But I will cause Pharaoh to be stubborn so I can multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in the land of Egypt")

NASB: Yet Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

(...note that the lord had said that HE would harden Pharaoh's heart)

NKJV: And Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the Lord had said.

(...note that the lord had said that HE would harden Pharaoh's heart)

Webster's: And he hardened Pharaoh's heart that he hearkened not to them; as the LORD had said.

Young's: and the heart of Pharaoh is strong, and he hath not hearkened unto them, as Jehovah hath spoken.

(...this implies that Pharaoh might have been at fault, but this is contradicted AGAIN by Exodus 7:3, where the lord had said that HE would harden Pharaoh's heart)

No, God doesn't say WHEN He would harden Pharoahs heart.

What part of the phrase "as the Lord had said" do you not understand?

Exodus 7:13 plainly states that God would harden Pharaoh's heart, AS HE SAID HE WOULD in Exodus 7:3.

Quote:

...So there you have it.

In EVERY TRANSLATION, God either SPECIFICALLY hardens Pharaoh's heart in Exodus 7:13, or Pharaoh's heart hardens in 7:13 AS GOD HAD SAID in Exodus 7:3, where GOD said that HE would harden Pharaoh's heart.

...Isn't it amazing what you learn if you actually READ the Bible?

You are only partially correct, see my comments above for more accurate assessment.

I am entirely correct. You have presented fiction and falsehood, not "more accurate assessment".

Jack the Bodiless · 05-04-2004, 03:07 AM

Quote:

jtb: You have failed to address my point that if BOTH verses applied to consensual sex, there would be NO verse that applied to the rape of a young, single woman.

If a young, single woman WAS raped, the Hebrews would have turned to their "holy book" to see what the punishment was. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 spells it out.

No, the Torah was not exhaustive, sometimes the laws were used to glean general principles to deal with specific cases not dealt with in the law.

This specific case IS dealt with in the law.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 spells it out. There is no reason to pretend otherwise.

Quote:

Ed: I never said that rape was a major crime in ancient times.

jtb: FINALLY we're making progress...

Nevertheless it was a crime, unlike many other societies at the time.

Correction: you prefer to believe that it was a crime.

The Bible clearly states that the rape of a young, single woman is a MINOR crime against the woman's FATHER, who can be financially compensated.

The rape of a single adult was NOT a crime in itself (presumably it would have been treated as assault).

Quote:

Ed: Deut. 22:25-26 deals with rape and though it deals specifically with a betrothed woman the ancient judges most likely extrapolated it to other cases like rape of an unmarried woman.

jtb: Highly unlikely, for three reasons:

1. The death penalty applies to adultery, not rape.

Obviously not always because this verse deals with rape not adultery. Adultery is consensual, this was obviously NOT consensual because she cried for help.

This WAS adultery according to Hebrew law and custom, because it is wrong to have sex with another man's wife, as she is his property.

Quote:

jtb: 2. If it happened in a town, the victim would be put to death if she didn't cry out: there is no need to punish her if she was single.

She didn't cry out because it was consensual. That can warrant the death penalty in some cases.

...And yet you immediately contradict yourself:

Quote:

No, that is fornication, which is not worthy of the death penalty.

The death penalty applies to adultery.

Quote:

jtb: An unmarried woman is perfectly capable of herding goats. And if she WAS in further danger from other men: well, that says a lot about the morality of "God's chosen people". Maybe if God had made rape a serious crime, this wouldn't happen...

Who said it was God's chosen people? In most cases it would have been the surrounding pagan nations, some of them used to send raiding parties into Israel.

Are you seriously suggesting that the "morally superior" Hebrews will stand by and do nothing if a raiding party crosses their border to rape an unmarried single woman? They won't intervene unless she marries someone?

Quote:

jtb: No new LAWS to protect women were introduced in the NT.

Thats because Christ and the apostles were not setting up a theocracy, but later Judeo-christian societies used Christ's and Paul's teachings to make laws that would give women greater rights and protections, and lift them up during the Age of Chivalry.

Irrelevant. We are discussing Old Testament times.

Quote:

jtb: It is still a mystery why you embrace some of the Bible's evils and reject others.

Ed: You have yet to demonstrate that evil exists.

jtb: God-ordained genocide, rape of captives, no serious punishment for non-adulterous rape in general, human sacrifice of captives, human sacrifice of firstborn children (later rescinded).

Most of these you have admitted..

No, I only admitted the second one and only theoretically, see above. But yet you still have not explained why these things rare evil. Maybe they were part of the evolutionary process for humans to reach the level they are today, so actually these things are good.

You have not tried to pretend that the God-ordained genocides didn't happen, as you HAVE tried to pretend that the human sacrifices didn't happen.

Ed · 05-05-2004, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

(Ed's attempted refutation of the Deuteronomy - 1st-mil Neo-Assyrian treaty connection...)

Here's a nice article on that subject; it points out that the long list of curses in Deuteronomy parallel Neo-Assyrian treaties like one where some vassals swear loyalty to Assyrian king Esarhaddon (ruled 681-669 BCE).
Quote:
More important is the presence of a curse which is substantially repeated in Deut 28 :23. The Assyrian curse reads: "May they make your ground (hard) like iron so that none of you may flourish. Just as rain does not fall from a brazen heaven, so may rain and dew not come upon your fields..." In Deut 28:23: "The sky over your heads will become like bronze and the earth under your feet like iron." So similar are these curses that Borger writes:..."The Deuteronomist must have derived this somehow, taking it over as an impressive image from an Assyrian source. Did it perhaps occur in a treaty between the Assyrians and the Judaeans ?"

The similarities with the older covenants are have far more similarities than just the curses.

Quote:

(Exodus and Egypt being surrounded by sandy desert...)
Ed: In ancient times people rarely traveled more than several miles from where they were born, so it is unlikely that they would have known the details about Egypt unless the writer had actually been there.

lp: Details which have remained the same for centuries after the alleged Exodus.

Non sequitor.

Quote:

(captured women that men had taken as wives...)
Ed: During their month of mourning, they learned that the hebrew society was far superior to the former societies that they had been raised in and knew that it would be ideal to raise children in such a situation.

lp: WinAce enjoys collecting comments like that.

It's like Osama bin Laden declaring that the World Trade Center survivors will recognize the moral superiority of Islam on account of what they had gone through.

No, a better analogy would be the Americans killing the Nazi father of girl in Nazi Germany and her first hating the US but later learning how her fathers death was necessary to stop evil.

Ed · 05-06-2004, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed
Besides the evidence about the age of the covenants, I also mentioned earlier how the scholar Umberto Cassuto demolished the Divine Name theory which is basically the cornerstone to the whole Documentary Hypothesis. This was also done by scholar John Raven and others.

lp: And what is this "Divine Name" theory?

And if Ed thinks that that's all there is to the Documentary Hypothesis, he is dead wrong.

It is the theory that because there are multiple names used for God that there is multiple authorship. I know that is not all there is to the DH, but that is the primary framework for dating and authorship. And there are problems with most of the other aspects of the theory also.

Quote:

Ed: See above where I refute lp's attempted refutation of the treaty theory.

lp: A hollow and selective "refutation".

Ha ha ha good one!

Jack the Bodiless · 05-07-2004, 08:22 AM

...I am about to take a week's vacation.

Somehow I doubt that this discussion will have made progress by the time I get back.

Ed · 05-10-2004, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed: ...Evidence????

just how far will you go to preserve your fantasy? Just how much are you prepared to invent?

Ed: I thought you were trying to say that the verse only applied to banning CHILD sacrifice, my point was that since the verse says sons or daughters the ban applies to both children AND adults.

jtb: Ed, I'm finding it very hard to believe that EVEN YOU can be THIS obtuse.

There is NO VERSE which bans the sacrifice of people who are NOT the sons or daughters of the Hebrews.

You KNOW that Deuteronomy 12:31 does NOT apply to the sacrifice of non-Hebrew captives. It is OBVIOUS that it does not apply. We have ESTABLISHED that it does not apply.

That is not what I said, talk about obtuse!

Quote:

Ed: If it was ok to sacrifice pagan humans then he never would have condemned the actions of the pagans in Deut. 12:31.

jtb: That verse does NOT say that it's wrong to sacrifice pagans.

It says that the PAGANS are wrong to sacrifice their SONS AND DAUGHTERS.

Yes, but either way pagans are going to die, if He wanted to kill pagans then he would not have condemned what they were doing.

Quote:

jtb:Why are you so hopelessly confused?

BTW, as "murder" is defined as UNLAWFUL killing, it doesn't help your case at all. It is quite obvious from the Bible that the massacre of prisoners is lawful.

Ed: No, the ancient hebrews considered herem part of war killing, which was not forbidden by the sixth commandment. But the sixth commandment prohibited premeditated killing not connected with war and capital punishment. Therefore, any premeditated sacrificial killing would have been considered murder.

jtb: The sixth commandment DOES NOT prohibit premeditated killing. This is obvious, because Moses commands the Hebrews to KILL most of their captives, AFTER the battle.

But it was related to the battle, they considered herem part of the killing of war. Like a mop up job after the battle.

Quote:

jtb: If you want to argue that the murder of captives is OK because it's "connected with war": then so is the human sacrifice of captives. This was done by MANY ancient peoples, to give thanks to the gods for victory in battle.

But only the hebrews were allowed to do it, for any other modern or ancient people it is morally wrong.

Quote:

jtb: Nonsense. Moses was telling them to KILL the women and children, EXCEPT for the virgins, who were to be kept alive for a specific purpose (as booty). And God got a share of that booty. So you're making stuff up, as usual.

Ed: Yes, and how God got his share was by giving them to the priests for wives.
And if they were going to be killed anyway, why would they need to be virgins?

jtb: Because you're not supposed to sacrifice stuff you don't want! God gets a share of the BOOTY. Non-virgin female captives weren't considered "booty": they had no value to the Hebrews.

Evidence?

Quote:

Ed: Thats right everything INCLUDING money is called a heave offering, so the heave offering of money is used NOT destroyed just as the virgins were used as wives NOT destroyed or killed. So my statement stands unrefuted.

jtb: ...WHAT "heave offering of money"?

There is NO "heave offering of money" in Numbers 31.

No, there are other cases in the OT where the term heave offering is used with money. See my quotation earlier where I quote a verse where this is so. So not everything in a heave offering was destroyed.

Quote:

jtb: And there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that "the virgins were used as wives NOT destroyed or killed". You KNOW that you're making that up, so why do you state it as if it was a fact?

Who appointed you as a prophet, Ed?

God wants all Christians to be prophets, ie proclaim his truth.

Quote:

jtb: You can't even pretend that it's UNLIKELY that the virgins were sacrificed, given what we know about the Hebrew fondness for blood sacrifice and genocide. The Bible specifically says they were part of the sacrifice, and there is NO reason to believe otherwise.

Fraid not, see this whole thread.

Ed · 05-10-2004, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

jtb: The priests HAD to be involved, because it was FORBIDDEN for non-priests to perform religious rituals after the priesthood had been set up: see 2 Chronicles 26:16-21.

Ed: A man that makes such an unorthodox vow is unlikely to be concerned about such orthodox trivia as bringing a priest all the way from Jerusalem or taking his daughter there. Also he obviously was biblically illiterate so he may not have even known about such a requirement.

jtb: ...Evidence that Jephtah was "biblically illiterate"?

Of course he'd do the job properly! Why assume otherwise?

His actions show his illiteracy. That is how you judge someone's knowledge about something, their actions related to that subject matter.

Quote:

jtb: I have already pointed out that it's ridiculous to assume that the sixth commandment prevents the killing of humans. The Bible plainly says otherwise. Deuteronomy 18:10 is also irrelevant, because it's quite obvious that Jephtah's daughter WAS sacrificed.

Ed: See my post above about the ancient hebrew undestanding of the sixth commandment.

See my post above about why your interpretation is nonsense.

Ed, we both KNOW that you're making stuff up. We both KNOW that you have no actual knowledge of "the ancient hebrew undestanding of the sixth commandment".

...So what's the point of pretending otherwise?

Again, just how much stuff are you prepared to invent?

It is not invention, it is called research.

Quote:

jtb: So, after denying every case of human sacrifice presented in the Bible (except Jephtah's daughter), and asserting that there is NO evidence that the Hebrews performed human sacrifice... you now admit that the Hebrews were sacrificing humans?

Fascinating.

Ed: Of course, that is what Jeremiah and Ezekiel were referring to, ie that heretical hebrews were doing it.

Why would HEBREWS suddenly start sacrificing their firstborn children for no reason?

They must have believed that God required it, yes?

Because the later hebrews practiced syncretism. They combined the pagan practices of human sacrifice with the hebrew practice of animal sacrifice.

Quote:

jtb: Of course, even Jeremiah and Ezekiel never say that the sacrifice OF CAPTIVES is wrong.

Because herem was not considered sacrifices by the hebrews. See my detailed explanation about the major differences between herem and hebrew sacrifical rites.

Quote:

jtb: However, this is irrelevant: even if the sacrifice of newborn infants WAS still going on, the sacrifice of Jephtah's adult (or near-adult) daughter would STILL be exceptional. It is presented as a moral lesson: "don't make rash promises". Baby-sacrifice is irrelevant to that lesson..

Ed: All the evidence points to there not being any human sacrifice among the jews at the time of Jephthah, so it would be QUITE exceptional.

jtb: All of WHAT evidence?

The historical record.

Quote:

jtb: What the story of Jephthah's daughter clearly demonstrates is that in those days the father had right to kill his own children and nobody questioned anything.

Ed: Not among the hebrews, murder of any age human was punished by death. But this was during the chaotic period of the Judges when enforcement of the law was sporadic.

jtb: How was Jephtah punished?

Ed: He wasn't.

jtb: There is NO HINT that Jephtah's actions were considered "illegal" either by God or by the priesthood. He made a rash promise and suffered the consequences, but the SACRIFICE is presented as a "just" outcome of his promise.

Where is it presented as just? If it was presented as just then his daughter would not have cried. She would have just gladly submitted to his father's will with a smile.

Ed · 05-12-2004, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed: No, God likes VOLUNTARY sacrifice to save people's lives, which is what Jesus did, but He condemns INVOLUNTARY sacrifice. Big difference.

jtb: ...Except, of course, that he does NOT condemn involuntary sacrifice. We have now established that there is no general condemnation of human sacrifice anywhere in the Bible.

So why do you continue to invent these claims, Ed?

Of course, there should have been no need for Jesus to die either. This bizarre tale is more evidence of the importance of ritual human sacrifice.

Although there is no explicit command to not sacrifice non-hebrews, it plainly can be deduced thru several different threads of moral principles as I have demonstrated in this thread.

Ed · 05-15-2004, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Originally Posted by Ed
Considering the length of time covered by the bible, ie from the BIg Bang to 100 AD the number of supernatural events is very few compared to mythologies.

lp: Except that if one adopts similar old-Universe interpretations of other mythologies, one finds similar rates of miraculous events.

Except there are no other religious writings that teach that the physical universe had a definite beginning except the bible.

Quote:

Ed: Also there are no overblown, spectacular, childishly exaggerated events.

LOL!!!

I have no idea why Ed thinks that that is the case, because there are several such events:

Noah's Flood
The ten plagues of Egypt
The parting of the Red Sea
Manna from Heaven
Joshua telling the Sun to stop moving
Jonah being swallowed by that sea monster
Herod killing all those baby boys
Jesus Christ turning water into wine
JC multiplying loaves and fishes
JC walking on water
JC driving some demons into some pigs, which then stampede into a lake
JC cursing a certain fig tree
Three-hour darkness, an earthquake, and corpses walking when JC was crucified
JC's resurrection
The whole Book of Revelation (hard to compete with that masterpiece of theological Grand Guignol)

All of those except the last are just miracles. You need to compare how the miracles are described. Look at how they described in some of the non-canonical writings and mythololgies. There is a major difference.

Quote:

Ed: Psychological depth is at a maximum especially in the NT and in myths it is at a minimum.

How does one figure that out?

It is called character development.

Quote:

lp: However, there is no fundamental difference between:

Jesus Christ being the son of a god and a virgin
Romulus being the son of a god and a virgin

Romulus was the result of sexual intercourse. Jesus Christ was not. That is big difference.

Quote:

Ed: Also see what the expert on myths C.S. Lewis says in his work "Reflections". And Dr. Peter Kreeft at Boston College.

lp: However they came to their conclusions.

Why don't you try learning?

Quote:

Ed: No, 99% of the time God allows people to do evil things without intervening so that they can face the consequences of their actions. Just because He does not intervene does not mean he accepts it.

jb: I wonder how Ed figured that out -- that seems like a very lazy god.

From the bible and experience. How do you tell if a god is lazy or not? What are the criteria and how did you find out about them?

lpetrich · 05-16-2004, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Except there are no other religious writings that teach that the physical universe had a definite beginning except the bible.

Other than the numerous other creation stories that have been told.

(Me on "overblown, spectacular, childishly exaggerated events" in the Bible)

Quote:

All of those except the last are just miracles. You need to compare how the miracles are described. Look at how they described in some of the non-canonical writings and mythololgies. There is a major difference.

A "difference" which I do not notice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Psychological depth is at a maximum especially in the NT and in myths it is at a minimum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

How does one figure that out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

It is called character development.

And how is that supposed to be the case?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

However, there is no fundamental difference between:

Jesus Christ being the son of a god and a virgin
Romulus being the son of a god and a virgin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Romulus was the result of sexual intercourse. Jesus Christ was not. That is big difference.

A "difference" that makes no real difference - a divine impregnation is a divine impregnation. Ed's position is:

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Mary -- The Christian God

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

05-07-2004, 08:22 AM	#235
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	...I am about to take a week's vacation. Somehow I doubt that this discussion will have made progress by the time I get back.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.