Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Apikorus · 01-02-2003, 01:56 PM

Was Samson any less unscrupulous and sneaky than Shimon and Levi, who, as the story goes, tricked all the males of Shechem into undergoing circumcision, and then, while they were recovering from the pain of the ordeal, slew them without mercy?

Hawkingfan · 01-02-2003, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy
2 Chronicles 2:14 seems to indicate the Danites intermarried with the Phoenicians (a violation of the Law).

But David, from Judah, did things much worse than that in violation of the Law.

Quote:

The tribe of Dan is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 12 and 27, but it played no part of import in the subsequent history of Israel.)[/B]

Neither did many of the other tribes.

Quote:

The name Dan disappears from the geneological lists in the Chronicles, and is absent from the tribes listed in Revelation 7:5 and following.)[/B]

Do you think it "disappeared" purposely? I don't.

Quote:

Samson was a Danite, and he seems to embody the characteristics of the tribe. He was unsteady, unscrupulous, violent, sneaky in his tactics. This may further explain why Dan is dropped from the geneological tables.[/B]

I think you are guessing and I also find it hard to believe those characteristics are unique to the tribe of Dan.

Quote:

Also, it must be pointed out that the Anti-Christ is believed by many to come from the tribe of Dan (Deut 33:22 cf Gen 49:17), thus also explaining his deletion from the tables. [/B]

Yet, we do not have a definite answer.

braces_for_impact · 01-02-2003, 02:05 PM

thebeast said:

Anyway, to a answer the Islami, the reason I don't believe Moaaamud is because he's the only one who claims to have alledgedly spoken to the angel what'shisname...! And according to the law, the testimony of one man is not enough to establish truth, therefore, since not only mohaaamad succeeds in contradicting every book in the bible, he also make such ludicrous comments that he flew a horse... come on! A flying horse. Who the **** do you think I am?

So you don't believe in flying horses? But you do believe in talking asses, wordwide floods, unicorns, guys stronger than He-Man, and people walking on water?

:banghead:

Hawkingfan · 01-02-2003, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spurly
Hawkingfan, I am not the beast, but I will try to clear up some of the instances you mentioned. Please note, that my thoughts are just that, my thoughts. Other Christians may differ. But here goes:

Thanks for your honesty, kindness, and pointing out that these are interpretations; and for saying that they differ from other Christian's answers (as we can see by comparing yours with Thomas').

Quote:

From what I read this could be due to a scribal error, and we have no way of knowing which one of the two is correct. But does it really matter? Not.

This could be a copyists error that got included into the text. Again, it is not big deal, though the proper number is probably 22.

Again, this could just be a copyists error that was later embedded into the manuscript. The question I have again is does this really amount to a hill of beans. By the way - he was probalby 18, not eight.

I have spent quite abit of space answering your alleged discrepancies. But the thought just occurred to me that these are all aobut minor things that can be accounted for quite easily. None of these affect a major doctrine of Christianity. So what difference do these make in the overall scheme of things for the Christian - really none at all.[/B]

This is exactly what I was trying to get people to realize. I wanted people to quit saying that the bible is 100% accurate whenever there are obvious "scribal errors". I only have one problem with your last paragraph. There should not be any errors whatsoever in a "perfect" book inspired by god. The reason we do not hold any other book (or "books"--we also criticize the Koran) to such a high standard is because no other book(s) makes such a claim. Again, Donald Morgan says it best in the introduction and disclaimer of his site:

"While Biblicists are capable of offering some sort of explanation for nearly any biblical problem that can be uncovered, such explanations should be unnecessary. The point is not whether some explanation can be conceived, but rather that a perfect and loving God certainly could, should, and would do a much better job of it were he to have anything to do with the writing of a book.
The evidence which follows, taken from the Bible itself, is but a small portion of that which exists. This evidence demonstrates that the Bible cannot be the literal, complete, inerrant and perfect work of a perfect and loving God. It also demonstrates that the Bible is not especially useful even as a guidebook. In addition, because the Bible reflects every important belief of traditional Christianity--the foundation of Christianity itself rests on shaky ground."

jayh · 01-02-2003, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy

Samson was a Danite, and he seems to embody the characteristics of the tribe. He was unsteady, unscrupulous, violent, sneaky in his tactics. This may further explain why Dan is dropped from the geneological tables.

This is a profoundly racist statement. We know that people do not have ethnic based genes for bad behavior. Didn't Yahweh understand that?

Quote:

Also, it must be pointed out that the Anti-Christ is believed by many to come from the tribe of Dan (Deut 33:22 cf Gen 49:17), thus also explaining his deletion from the tables.

Scriptural reference to back this up?

Jay

spurly · 01-02-2003, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jayh
on and on and on.

I point this out, Kevin, not to be a pain, but to make a point. Sure for every one of these things someone somewhere conjectured a whole range of details (not suggested at all by the 'inspired' account) that MIGHT, POSSIBLY, MAYBE, IF YOU DON'T LOOK TOO CLOSELY, USING BIZARRE DEFINITIONS OF THE WORDS ("depends on what the meaning of is is") explain it.

That simply is a bit much. A history book that had so many direct contradictions that could only be explained by the readers surmising additional undocumented material would be laughed out of print.

We seem to have two different conclusions to draw from this:

1) The book is inspired and flawless, but like our hypothetical history book author, the supreme intellect of the universe couldn't remember to put in the salient points and left us to guess at what possibly was meant (of course we are to assume at the same time that all the other stuff we read in there about good and bad, heaven and hell, etc, is not as misleading as the visible historical stuff, that it really means plainly what it says)

2) The book is, like many other ancient cultural histories a treasure trove of information, but not to be taken seriously at every detail.

Objectively, which makes more sense?

As someone pointed out, this poses problems only for literalist Christians. Many others have a more liberal belief system that understands the Bible as a concept document, complete with historical and ethical issues.

j

I guess I fall somewhere in between number 1 and number 2. Do I believe that God inspired the writers of Scripture? Yes. What does that mean? To be honest, I don't really know. That's the best answer I have.

But I also believe that only the original manuscripts were inspired documents. Over the years, through copying and translation, some errors did enter the text. It is the job of the discerning Christian to see those contradictions (like were pointing out earlier in this thread), and try to make sense of them.

To seriously study the manuscripts to see if part of them (like Mark 16:9-20) were actually part of the original manuscripts that were inspired.

But I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak. Through study and experience I have come to believe that Truth is to be found in the words that are found in Scripture.

Why didn't God totally protect his word so that these errors didnn't pop up? I don't know. I don't have a good answer for that.

Anyway, I hope you allow me to put myself in between the two options you listed above. (I never was one to like pigeon holes anyway

)

Kevin

Butters · 01-03-2003, 05:24 AM

Quote:

But I also believe that only the original manuscripts were inspired documents. Over the years, through copying and translation, some errors did enter the text. It is the job of the discerning Christian to see those contradictions (like were pointing out earlier in this thread), and try to make sense of them.

How do you come to the conclusion that the originals were inspired documents, when you don't even know what they said?
How does a Christian "discern" what is true or not. Christians claim to know the "truth", but cannot agree on what that "truth" is.

Quote:

To seriously study the manuscripts to see if part of them (like Mark 16:9-20) were actually part of the original manuscripts that were inspired.

How do you do that? Just curious.

spurly · 01-03-2003, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Butters
How do you come to the conclusion that the originals were inspired documents, when you don't even know what they said?
How does a Christian "discern" what is true or not. Christians claim to know the "truth", but cannot agree on what that "truth" is.

I guess I have to admit that it is partially on faith in what I can not see and can not know for sure. However, I think there is enough evidence in the scriptures to know that God had to have his hand in writing them.

As far as what "inspired" means, I haven't come to a conclusion on that, but I think the general sense of them came from God.

Quote:

Spurly said: To seriously study the manuscripts to see if part of them (like Mark 16:9-20) were actually part of the original manuscripts that were inspired.

How do you do that? Just curious.

Since I don't have access to the manuscripts, and I am not a language expert, I have to defer to others who have spent their lives studying them. I have to read both sides - liberal and conservative criticism - and come to a logically conclusion. That's the only way I know how to do it.

Kevin

Hawkingfan · 01-03-2003, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spurly
I guess I have to admit that it is partially on faith in what I can not see and can not know for sure. However, I think there is enough evidence in the scriptures to know that God had to have his hand in writing them.

This shows perfectly the double-mind set that many Christians have. In your first sentence, you state that it is by faith you believe in the bible. The statement was made because you have admitted that there are problems (no matter how small or how few in number) in the bible that question it's perfection (and therefore, origin) and it would take faith in order to believe otherwise. The statement aknowledges the validity of the atheist mindset, a rational one.

But your second statement is of the Christian mind catching yourself because you are afraid of what you have admitted. Because if you were still thinking critically, you would see that the "evidence" shows that God did not have a hand in it. It only takes one discrepancy in the bible in order for the bible to be considered errant, and therefore absent of the unseen hand.

Family Man · 01-03-2003, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spurly
However, I think there is enough evidence in the scriptures to know that God had to have his hand in writing them.
Kevin

Care to inform us what evidence there is for God's hand in writing it?

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

01-02-2003, 01:56 PM	#41
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Was Samson any less unscrupulous and sneaky than Shimon and Levi, who, as the story goes, tricked all the males of Shechem into undergoing circumcision, and then, while they were recovering from the pain of the ordeal, slew them without mercy?

01-02-2003, 02:05 PM	#43
braces_for_impact Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In a nondescript, black helicopter. Posts: 6,637	thebeast said: Anyway, to a answer the Islami, the reason I don't believe Moaaamud is because he's the only one who claims to have alledgedly spoken to the angel what'shisname...! And according to the law, the testimony of one man is not enough to establish truth, therefore, since not only mohaaamad succeeds in contradicting every book in the bible, he also make such ludicrous comments that he flew a horse... come on! A flying horse. Who the **** do you think I am? So you don't believe in flying horses? But you do believe in talking asses, wordwide floods, unicorns, guys stronger than He-Man, and people walking on water? :banghead:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.