Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Magus55 · 07-01-2003, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godless Dave
Yes, but Genesis is based on earlier stories from cultures that did have mutliple gods, and the Hebrews were polytheistic at one time. It is possible the priests who put the Old Testament together ca. 500 BC neglected to correct the plural to singular. Contradictions didn't seem to bother them; after all there are two contradictory creation stories right at the beginning of Genesis. Although I would think it more likely that they left it in on purpose, and it either refers to the Heavenly host of angels etc. or is a use of royal "we" - although again I don't know if royal "we" was a feature of ancient Hebrew.

First of all, where is your 500 B.C date coming from in regard to the age of the Torah? Moses wrote the first 5 books ( well 4,plus most of Deutaronomy) in around 1400 B.C. And yes, while the Hebrews were worshipping false gods, Yahweh reprimanded them for it in Exodus, and made a law against it.

And there is no contradictory creation story. Its been explained many times. Its the same story, but Gen 2 is focused on day 6, while Gen 1 is an overview.

Evangelion · 07-01-2003, 11:37 AM

Are you going to answer his question, Celsus?

Celsus · 07-01-2003, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evangelion
Are you going to answer his question, Celsus?

Which question are you refering to and by whom?

Evangelion · 07-01-2003, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Unfortunately I know nothing about Hebrew grammar. Can someone who does tell me if kings or other important personages ever used the royal "we" in Hebrew?

Nope. But it doesn't matter.

Genesis 1:26 is more realistically read as God's address to His angels.

Evangelion · 07-01-2003, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Which question are you refering to and by whom?

This one, by Magus:

First of all, where is your 500 B.C date coming from in regard to the age of the Torah?

You posted an intial response which contained a whole string of questions (demanding that Magus provide proof for his "Pentateuch written in 1400 BC" claim), but I note with interest that you have since removed them in favour of your current query.

Celsus · 07-01-2003, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evangelion
This one, by Magus:
First of all, where is your 500 B.C date coming from in regard to the age of the Torah?

You posted an intial response which contained a whole string of questions (demanding that Magus provide proof for his "Pentateuch written in 1400 BC" claim), but I note with interest that you have since removed them in favour of your current query.

If you notice, the assertion was posted by Godless Dave which I have corrected him about.

Joel

Evangelion · 07-01-2003, 11:51 AM

Mea culpa.

What date do you prefer?

Radcliffe Emerson · 07-01-2003, 12:00 PM

The earliest follows of Christianity, who would have been the closest to the alleged Jesus did NOT teach about the Trinity. They didn't even believe Jesus was divine.
They did not teach:
The virgin birth
resurrection
miracles
eternal damnation

And when other beliefs interfered, the earliest Christians were eventually branded as heretics because they weren't harsh enough against non-Christians.

In fact, almost 90% of what Christians are required to believe today were NOT taught by the earliest Christians, and were forced into being rules first at the Council of Nicea in 325 ad.

Same for the bible, the books in it now were voted on at that same council by a group of ORDINARY MEN being forced to make a statement by Constantine.
Nothing inspired, nothing spiritual, no "supreme being" was behind it.
I'm sorry, but anyone who believes this garbage needs to have their head examined.

Celsus · 07-01-2003, 12:05 PM

Evangelion,

I have answered you in the split thread, as it seems more relevant there.

Godless Dave · 07-01-2003, 12:06 PM

moved to new thread

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

07-01-2003, 11:37 AM	#22
Evangelion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Walsall, UK Posts: 1,490	Are you going to answer his question, Celsus?

07-01-2003, 11:51 AM	#27
Evangelion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Walsall, UK Posts: 1,490	Mea culpa. What date do you prefer?

07-01-2003, 12:00 PM	#28
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	The earliest follows of Christianity, who would have been the closest to the alleged Jesus did NOT teach about the Trinity. They didn't even believe Jesus was divine. They did not teach: The virgin birth resurrection miracles eternal damnation And when other beliefs interfered, the earliest Christians were eventually branded as heretics because they weren't harsh enough against non-Christians. In fact, almost 90% of what Christians are required to believe today were NOT taught by the earliest Christians, and were forced into being rules first at the Council of Nicea in 325 ad. Same for the bible, the books in it now were voted on at that same council by a group of ORDINARY MEN being forced to make a statement by Constantine. Nothing inspired, nothing spiritual, no "supreme being" was behind it. I'm sorry, but anyone who believes this garbage needs to have their head examined.

07-01-2003, 12:05 PM	#29
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	Evangelion, I have answered you in the split thread, as it seems more relevant there.

07-01-2003, 12:06 PM	#30
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	moved to new thread

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.