Clivedurdle

And your conclusion is?

RED DAVE

To: Larsguy47

From: RED DAVE

Please give us a source other than your speculation that supports your assertion of a co-regency between Solomon and Reheboam.

RED DAVE

Jack the Bodiless

...Wow. I cannot distinguish this from a parody.

God is a real evil SOB, isn't he? I'm glad he doesn't exist: but, if he did, this outcome would be entirely God's fault!

And the Bible's errors being due to "concealment": that's new. Not a single reason why any sane person should believe it, of course: but that doesn't seem to matter. I like the bit about how the Book of Daniel (written in the 2nd century BC) was "suppressed during the Persian era".

Hex

Ummm ... One minor little thing? Co-rulership doesn't work in a monotheistic society. Hence, as an example, we get that minor little civil war thing between Israel and Judea.

Monotheistic societies, with a cosmogeny that is built around one supreme diety for the entire universe, implies that there is, on Earth, one ruler for all of said diety's followers.

If you want an example of that, look to the rationale of the early Islam. One diety = one ruler.

Larsguy47

:devil1: It's sort of fundamental. For instance a professor focussing on ancient mathematics was permitted to examine rare ancient mathematical texts at the British Museum. He apparently found out that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king and that some of the astronomical texts were designed to point to the original chronology that had been revised. When he confronted the British Museum people they promptly kicked him out of the museum! He likely wanted to expose this but knew quite well with the money and influence backing this ongoing institution, it was impossible to do it. Even if he published something his works could easily be suppressed in later years, all copies simply bought up and placed into obscurity. So what he did was hide this information in an indirect manner in one of his books. That's the only way it could survive.

Herodotus employed the same thing. For instance, Darius I was tricked by the Athenians to see a beautiful Greek woman whom he must have seen privately because she promptly cut off his head. The next thing the Persians know, the Athenians are parading the head of the king in front of them on a pole, clearly identifiable because the king's beard was extremely long. For this insult, his son Xerxes decided to exterminate the Athenians and that was the focus of his angry campaign. But later when Xerxes claimed to Artaxerxes and the books were changed and the history was revised, this detail couldn't be mentioned, except indirectly. Thus though 30 years were added to the 6-year rule of Darius I to make his rule long enough for him to be the grandfather to Xerxes, now claiming to be Artaxerxes, his grandson, only 26 years were able to be squeezed out of the Neo-Babylonian Period, thus Darius I survived his own death at Marathon in the revised version. To imply this though, Herodotus gives this totally useless reference about a soldier there at Marathon who sees this vision of a soldier with this huge beard that covers his entire shield that kills the guy next to him. Now why did we need that from Herodotus? It's his own way of placing Darius at Marathon! Had he come out with this directly, he never would have gotten published. So hidden in the "politically correct" history are all kinds of hints and clues as to what really happened. Things one would not suspect or know unless they followed some reliable chronology, which is what you get form the Bible.

So goes the Bible's chronology. If your chronology is deceptive and confusing and complex, it doesn't really offer a clear contradiction to any revisions of the pagans. Ezra/Nehemiah and the Book of Daniel, did though, so an apocryphal version was created so that Nehemiah doesn't have history with the returning Jews and still live down to the time of Darius II now an expanded period of 51-57 years. Or by not being very direct about the common co-rulerships, they automatically have an unseen flexibility of about 49 extra years in their timeline just in case there are revisions in the pagan timeline.


Well, they made their direct chrology for certain periods quite complex for some reason. They didn't just write a straight history, as you know, they wrote two parallel histories. They did that for a reason. One presumption is that it allowed them to hide details more easily.


Well sure, but it boils down to the actual reference. For instance, Jehoram of Israel (JOI) is said to have "become king" in the 2nd of Jehoram of Judah (JOJ). JOJ "became king" (during a stated co-rulership with Jehoshaphat) in the 5th of JOI. That means JOI "became king" in his own 6th year. Now is that being very straightforward? Or cryptic? Turns out, Ahab dies in the 6th year of JOI since they were co-rulers. But you wouldn't know that until you made a couple of other comparisons. So it would have been nice if the Bible simply said, "Okay, this time in the 2nd of JOJ when JOI becomes king, it is the beginning of his sole rulership, his first becoming king and co-ruler being in the 18th of Jehoshaphat." It doesn't do that. It throws you a curve. So the history is definitely COMPLEX, we're just deciding WHY was it written that way. My personal take is that it was deliberately done to discourage revisionism or an absolute timeline that might contradict revisions. You can't be offended by something you don't truly understand.

Well, I appreciate that viewpoint, but what you consider a "mistake" is a matter of opinion and whether you can resolve it effective. Secondly, my position is that it was often the general intent to make outsiders think a mistake was a mistake but it was actually a deliberate deception. But that's just my opinion. The Mesha stele claims Mesha rebelled half-way through the reign of Omri's son, the reigning king. The Bible says Mesha rebelled right after Ahab's death. Lots of people think this is a "mistake" and error for either text. But if there was a co-rulership and Ahab died in the 6th year of Jehoram as the Bible indicates, then indeed, Mesha rebelled halfway through the reign of Omri's son, but also when Ahab died. So both references are perfectly harmonious.

Now if you don't believe the Bible in the first place and you want to challenge those that do, you don't have the option to decide for yourself there was no co-rulership. You have to make the challenge based but what the inerranitst tells you, that is, the Biblical apologists expert's view is the perspective you must challenge.


Actually, I think I found at least seven total denials, but definitely 3-4 before a cock crowed once and 3 between then and the second crowing.

NO... I believe Judas hanged himself by tying a rope around his neck and jumping off a cliff. When the rope jerked back, he splattered his innerds all over the place. How can you fall into a field and kill yourself unless you're higher than the field, like on a cliff? And what does hanging yourself involve? Going from a high place to a low place with the help of gravity with a rope that will break your neck. So I guess he figured it was easier than climbing up in a tree or something and hanging himself by jumping off a cliff was the way to go. You know, of course, that Judas thefore invented bungy jumping don't you. Thus my university thesis for my doctorate will be proving how those who enjoy bungy jumping have a secret guilt about betraying Christ. :devil1:


Yes, yes, yes. That's the cop-out position of everybody who feels uncomfortable with satisfactory explanations given to them that resolve a lot of this so-called errors they are desperately look for.

But, again, I must say, that it is INTENTIONAL that non-believers are deceived.

Acts 13:41 ‘Behold it, YOU scorners, and wonder at it, and vanish away, because I am working a work in YOUR days, a work that YOU will by no means believe even if anyone relates it to YOU in detail.’”

So in other words, it is virtually assured there will be some confort level event that you will feel assured in dismissing the Bible as true. The truth can be right in front of your face, but you won't see it because god has blinded you. He throws stumbling blocks in your way. He leads you to things that will reinforce your disbelief.

Anyway, if Judas jumped off a cliff with a rope around his neck and splattered his innerds against a wall then that satisfies both references so I'm not worried about any "mistake" here in the least.

So far, I haven't found a single contradiction in the Bible. Isn't that amazing!!! Acutally, there is a couple, but I'm certainly not going to tell you about them! You don't even accept the apologists view. Reading the Bible to find your own errors based upon your own superimposed wrong interpretation doesn't bother us, because it's not pertinent. You must contradict the apologist's view, technically, to be pertinent.

Larsguy47

RED DAVE

From Larsguy47:
Source of this story, please.

Lacking a reliable source, it needs to be dropped from any argument you use.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

Yes, not as untrue but unsubstantiated. I don't have the source. I do have a source that Aristotle and Socrates were lovers, apparently it was well known in some circles. But I'm not giving that out so that it will disappear into obscurity.

Years ago when I was doing a lot of research in Los Angeles Area and a lot of information from Josephus was beginning to come to light, there were four copies of Josephus in various libraries in all of Los Angeles County. But eventually there were ZERO COPIES. That's hard to believe.

So consider the above references as bogus, spurious and unfounded. :> I won't mention them authoritatively until I find the reference and quote where he was thrown out of the British Museum after he discovered too much.

No prob.

Larsguy47

Weltall

Paranoid much? If you don't support your off the wall assertions with some kind of proof we're never going to believe you (especially if the only way to make your theory work involves time travel or necrophilia).
That's why there are still copies available at the library (I checked) and you can buy them in any bookstore. Yeah, them shady spooks are hiding the evidence.
Thank you, we'll do that.
I await this breathtaking vindication of your crackpottery with bated breath, as I'm sure do my far more learned comrades.

RED DAVE

From Larsguy47:
From RED DAVE:
From Larsguy47:
There is no reason to believe it, so we'll just believe this story is untrue.

From Larsguy47:
There is no reason to believe it, so we'll just believe this story is untrue.

From Larsguy47:
What circles? There is no reason to believe it, so we'll just believe this story is untrue.

From Larsguy47:
People steal books from libraries all the time.

From Larsguy47:
There is no reason to believe it, so we'll just believe this story is untrue.

From: RED DAVE:
RED DAVE