dk

Ion: "We only know that...":
Gee, dk, you claim that you know more than the archaeologists do know.
Tell them what you know, and if you pass their examination, I will give you credence.
Until then, you are a nobody.
dk: No, I claim archaeologists disagree, and substantiated my claiming by listing a reliable source, several books written by archeologists and a criticism of the criterion used by Divers.
(snip)
Ion: have you articulated anything after my rebuttal of Exodus based on archaeology, dk?
can you?
dk: If archeologists disagree with one another then there is no consensus, I demonstrated that archaeologists disagree. End of story.

dk

Dominus Paradoxum: By the way, if you want some substantiation for those claims about Columbus, I (and I'm sure some other users here) would be very happy to scour the internet looking for sources. They were very bountiful the last time I checked.
dk: I don’t think Columbus was a saint or a butcher, but I do dispute the myth of the noble savage perpetuated by Ivory Towered multicultural pinheads. On Columbus’ second voyage he was horrified to find the men he’d left behind killed by the cannibalistic Arawaks. To suggest a thousand or less Spaniards conquered Incas and Aztec armies that numbered several hundred thousand defies reason. A more rational explanation says the Spaniards found ready allies amongst indigenous populations. These weren’t peaceful savages, but a population held in terror by ritual cannibalism and human sacrifice. Hey, do you think the Aztecs or Incas paid minimum wage to those that built their pyramids and other impressive buildings? I’m not vested in the argument, but its pretty clear that Incas and Aztecs ruled by the law of ritual terror. You can believe whatever fairy tales you like, but its clear to me they posit a great example of revisionist history, designed to portray a Noble Savage where abject tyranny ruled. Take a lesson from the history of Alexander the Great, he conquered most of the known world in a few years, and did so because people generally believed they would have a better life under his rule. I submit the people ruled by the Inca and Aztec Empires felt the same.

Ion

That's not what I see, dk.
I gave you a list of archaeologists having a consensus.

(Also, we never discussed the archaeology of somebody named Divers.

Mental lapses leading to reckless posts by you dk?

We discussed Dever.

William Dever.)
Well said: "If...".

The fact is that archaeologists do not disagree with one another, they agree with one another that the Biblical Exodus didn't happen.

dk

o

• Dominus Paradoxum: I'm not saying that the the Old Testament laws are "deficient" in some way, I'm saying that some of them were downright evil in and of themselves.
  dk: The Jews have lived by the laws of the OT for thousands of years, so what you or I think about the OT becomes frivolous. The prosperity of the Jews bares witness to the practicality of the Law.
  o
• Dominus Paradoxum: Take the the following, for example:
  18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.-Deuteronomy 21:18-21
  dk: You might want to ask a rabbi what the verse means, but a disobedient child puts themselves, their family, neighbors, progeny and the community at unreasonable risk. In the US an unacceptable number of kids and victims of kids are killed every year from drunk driving, suicide and random acts of violence. The cost of unmarried teenage mothers, and abortion to society is inestimable. Many parents are terrorized, beaten and abused by their own sons and daughters that suffer from drug addiction and other unquenchable appetites. Your criticism simply lacks context.
  o
• Dominus Paradoxum:
  The question is, then, do you believe that disobedient children deserve to be stoned to death?
  dk: I believe the standard given in the Bible was “stubborn and rebellious”. By golly, I think suicide, drunk driving, and random acts of violence top the charts as the leading cause of death amongst teenagers. The point is that our modern permissive societies put children in harms way by encouraging teens to be “stubborn and rebellious”.
  o
• Dominus Paradoxum:
  Or do you believe that it was perfectly moral at the time the commandment was given? How about a passage that was mentioned earlier in this thread, which said those who tempted the Israelites into idolatry should be stoned to death? Was that commandment moral at the time that it was given? And you have evaded, twice now, something which does concern the New Testament, namely "Why does [God] create souls in a state of origional sin when he could very well choose to create them in a state of grace, if he wanted them to be saved?" Have you any answer to this question? Because if you do, I would very much like to know what it is. And I already know, as you are probably going to say, that there is nothing we could do to 'earn' grace. Very well. But assuming that God wants all to be saved, and that he has the means to do so by a free gift of grace, then why, if he be a rational agent, does he consciously withold this gift from the vast majority of his children, when he knows very well that this will probably result in their eternal perdition, when he could so eaisly prevent it? You will probably say it is a "mystery", something our finite human intellects cannot comprehend. That just means that your god is by any just standard irrational, because he cannot be expected to act in the way that a rational agent would. And if he is not irrational, then he is malicious, because he chooses to damn the majority of mankind.
  dk: I’ve offered you resources that explain what the Bible means in the context of Salvation History, I’ve also submitted the prosperity and merits of Jewish people as a living testimony. It might surprise you but Orthodox Jews have prospered on every continent on earth, amongst many diverse cultures by raising good loving productive children, and have done so for 3,000 years on the basis OT Law. In contrast modern secular Europe can’t raise enough loving productive children to keep infrastructure in repair and operate the industrial engine they inherited. In the US its widely recognized that most children are raised in high risk environments leading to unacceptable rates of murder, drunken homicide, STDs, sexual assault and suicide. I’ll bet less than 1 kid under the OT Law was stoned to death by the community elders amongst many Orthodox Jews, while several hundred thousand kids were checked into hospitals in the US alone for “stubborn and rebellious acts”. Israel when Deuteronomy was written was a closed society under the Covenants of Moses. Obviously the Covenants made with Adam became Noah’s Covenant, which in turn became Abraham’s Covenant etc... The Covenants were between God and his chosen people, and over time they became something new as each Covenant was accepted; in the same sense that US of 1776, 1850, 1900, 1950 and 2000 became something new as each new Amendment was adopted. Some argue the US has abandoned the initial experiment to become an overly bureaucratic judicial oligarchy, but without question the integrity of Jews across the millennium has maintained the Jew, who if anything seems to become more Jewish, even to reclaim a Jewish State. To understand the OT one must understand the Israeli people. I’m serious, if you want to understand what OT law means you need to go talk to an Orthodox Rabbi.

I should be clear that Christians view the OT as prefigured by the NT of Jesus Christ, or in terms of Grace not Law.

Ion

Why, dk?

If the Old Testament is true, then it is corroborated by non-religious evidence.

That's not the case:
the Old Testament is not corroborated by secular evidence.

Thus, you turn in circles within your religion, with zero corroboration from the outside.

For example, your criticism of William Dever's archaeology is what you lifted from a theological web site, and then superficially forgot what you copied and confused Dever with Divers.

Archaeologists write this:

"After a century of excavations trying to prove the ancient accounts true, archaelogists say there is no evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, were ever enslaved ever wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years or ever conquered the land of Canaan under Joshua's leadership. To the contrary, the view is that Joshua's fabled campaigns never occured...".

"And some of the story's features are mythic motifs found in other Near Eastern legends, said Ron Hendel, a professor of Hebrew Bible at UC Berkeley.".

By all means, dk, tell Ron Hendel:

"I’m serious, if you want to understand what OT law means you need to go talk to an Orthodox Rabbi."

and if you convince him, you come back here because you convince me too.

Until then, you are a theologist turning in circles within your religion of inane and stale beliefs in 'human laws', while finding zero corroboration from outside the religion.

lpetrich

dk: I don?t think Columbus was a saint or a butcher, but I do dispute the myth of the noble savage perpetuated by Ivory Towered multicultural pinheads. ... (on what ignoble savages the Arawaks and the Aztecs had been...)

So what? Columbus and Cortes and the like were more than willing to imitate these people in brutality and butchery.

Like baptizing babies and then smashing their heads (Psalm 137, get it?); the idea is to send them to Heaven, a presumably very laudable motive.

dk: The Jews have lived by the laws of the OT for thousands of years, so what you or I think about the OT becomes frivolous. The prosperity of the Jews bares witness to the practicality of the Law.

This is absurd. The Jews have long been a very cliquish sort of people, and that's what has helped keep them going. And traditionalist Jews have had a lot of customs that are far from practical -- and that help make them socially indigestible. Like forbidding pork. And meat with milk. Pigs may be an awkward livestock animal in semidesert climates like much of the Middle East, but Jews continued to refuse to eat pork in pig-friendly areas like northern Europe. DK ought to note that the New Testament very explicitly revoked the OT's rejection of pork. A form of permissiveness that made it easier for the early Christians to get converts in pig-friendly areas. Something like why Prince Vladimir of Kiev decided on Christianity rather than Islam as his kingdom's new religion -- Islam forbade alcohol, which he couldn't stand.

(Dominus Paradoxum quoting the OT on stoning of rebellious offspring...)
dk: You might want to ask a rabbi what the verse means, but a disobedient child puts themselves, their family, neighbors, progeny and the community at unreasonable risk.

In other words, "They're evil!!! Kill! Kill! Kill!" Anyone who thinks like that cannot complain very much about Hitler or Stalin or Mao, who had very similar justifications for their atrocities.

dk: In the US an unacceptable number of kids and victims of kids are killed every year from drunk driving, suicide and random acts of violence. ...

How is that fundamentally different from misbehavior committed by any others?

And the OT is vague about what counts as stone-worthy rebellion. What is the minimum level of troublemaking that makes one worthy of being stoned to death?

dk: The cost of unmarried teenage mothers, and abortion to society is inestimable.

Abortion PREVENTS births. And does getting an abortion turn one into a raving, wild-eyed, dangerous madwoman?

If anything, abortion helps PREVENT crime, by preventing the birth of children that their mothers had not really wanted. "Every child a wanted child" is a good way to reduce crime.

dk: I?ve offered you resources that explain what the Bible means in the context of Salvation History,

And how is that supposed to be justified? DK, you ought to realize that you are dealing with people who consider such theological constructions as valid as accounts of the activities of the deities of Mt. Olympus. Or as valid as most Protestants consider veneration of the Virgin Mary and the saints.

dk: I?ve also submitted the prosperity and merits of Jewish people as a living testimony. (a lot more Orthodox Jewish evangelism snipped....)

Except that many Jews are nowadays Conservative or Reform or secular.

Dominus Paradoxum

I can't believe you actually admitted that you think "stubborn and rebellious" children should be stoned to death.:banghead:

At least you're honest.

Now, you've evaded my main point three times. If your god is so "loving", as the new testament proclaims, then why does withold his free gift of grace from the majority of mankind, when (According to your own dogma!) he both wills their salvation AND has the means (i.e. omnipotence) to grant it?

And about columbus: Who said anything about cortez or the arawalks? Regardless of what he may have deservedly done to the cannibals, the fact remains that he did butcher thousands of relatively peaceful native americans on the north american continent, who had nothing to do with the azetecs or cannibalism. I don't know what you're talking about with the "nobel savages" remark, if you think that all native americans are automatically "savages" your a racist.

dk

Well that's not what I said, so your response denotes dishonesty.

The Noble Savage was a myth popularized by Rousseau, then refloated again 150 years later (1850) by archeologists. Ter Ellingson is an anthropologist and Associate Professor in the Department of Ethnomusicology at the University of Washington, and recently published "The The Myth of the Noble Savage" to describe developments in the 20th Century. Get a brain.

Ion

Look who is talking to Dominus Paradoxum about getting a brain:

dk, who believes the Old Testament (including Genesis and Exodus) is materially true, in spite of the archaeological evidence to the contrary and in spite of modern standards of trivial consistency.

dk

o

• dk: I don?t think Columbus was a saint or a butcher, but I do dispute the myth of the noble savage perpetuated by Ivory Towered multicultural pinheads. ... (on what ignoble savages the Arawaks and the Aztecs had been...)
  lpetrich:
  So what? Columbus and Cortes and the like were more than willing to imitate these people in brutality and butchery.
  dk: Columbus and Cortez were explores sent to find and bring back riches by whatever means necessary. What they found in the Americas was totally unexpected, inexplicable and unscripted.
  o
• lpetrich: Like baptizing babies and then smashing their heads (Psalm 137, get it?); the idea is to send them to Heaven, a presumably very laudable motive.
  dk: No I don’t get it, but read 2 Kings 8:12 and the King of Syria clearly intended to visit genocide upon Israel. In contrast the diseases, wars and suffering brought to the Americas by Europeans was accidental, a cultural collision on a continental scale. Baptism was the least of the conquistadors wrongs. Still, on what basis is it rational to equate ritual cannibalism/human sacrifice with Baptism?
  - If I were a member of a primitive tribe subjected to (ruled by) human sacrifice/ritual cannibalism then in a heartbeat I would chose to be baptized in the service of a God that died so I might live. You may not agree, but Western Civilization was coming to the New World sooner or later, if not in 1492 then surely in the next few decades. The diseases exchanged when the continents collides reflect a wall of isolation, the Atlantic Ocean, breaking down, not ill will.
  - Democracy was on the other hand promulgated for its prowess to make Total War under the “Social Contract” by an order of requisition. Frances neighbors limited by the Kings treasury were easy conquests, in fact it was the Russian Winter that defeated Napoleon. Democracy changed the tactics of warfare by making every man and women a part of the industrial military complex. Since then the economy of war has escalated a 1,000 times in scale. I suspect you’re a fan of democracy, and so am I. There are many redemptive aspects of democracy, so long as people are allowed to keep their souls. My point is that the OT honestly details the most brutal aspects of human nature, while modern secular democracies tend to cater to the insatiable appetites of immoral opportunists.
  o
• dk: The Jews have lived by the laws of the OT for thousands of years, so what you or I think about the OT becomes frivolous. The prosperity of the Jews bares witness to the practicality of the Law.
  lpetrich:
  This is absurd. The Jews have long been a very cliquish sort of people, and that's what has helped keep them going. And traditionalist Jews have had a lot of customs that are far from practical -- and that help make them socially indigestible.
  dk: There are a lot of cliquish sort of people, not just Jews. Israelis is unique because they prospered by “The Word of the One True God” across the millennium, across every continent on earth. No other people have so persevered and prospered. Nobody’s obliged to believe in “The One True God” if they don’t believe it suits them, still the Jews did and were preserved. The Jews have been a blessing to the world precisely because they put their Faith in the law, and were well served. The history and worth of the Jewish people is an objective fact of history, not some unreliable philosophical speculation like psychology, sociology, economics and political science.
  o
• lpetrich:
  Like forbidding pork. And meat with milk. Pigs may be an awkward livestock animal in semidesert climates like much of the Middle East, but Jews continued to refuse to eat pork in pig-friendly areas like northern Europe. DK ought to note that the New Testament very explicitly revoked the OT's rejection of pork.
  dk: Pork needs to be well cooked or people get all kinds of nasty microbes. The dietary laws of the Jews were a protection against disease in a world where refrigeration, tin cans and spices didn’t exist to preserve food.
  o
• lpetrich:
  A form of permissiveness that made it easier for the early Christians to get converts in pig-friendly areas. Something like why Prince Vladimir of Kiev decided on Christianity rather than Islam as his kingdom's new religion -- Islam forbade alcohol, which he couldn't stand.
  dk: Hey by golly, it turns out two drinks a day keeps the heart ticking, and the blood flowing.
  o
• lpetrich:
  (Dominus Paradoxum quoting the OT on stoning of rebellious offspring...)
  dk: You might want to ask a rabbi what the verse means, but a disobedient child puts themselves, their family, neighbors, progeny and the community at unreasonable risk.
  lpetrich: In other words, "They're evil!!! Kill! Kill! Kill!" Anyone who thinks like that cannot complain very much about Hitler or Stalin or Mao, who had very similar justifications for their atrocities.
  dk: If you are determined to believe, against all reason, that Jews, Christians and Moslems are all evil murders then there’s nothing I can say to persuade you.
  o
• dk: In the US an unacceptable number of kids and victims of kids are killed every year from drunk driving, suicide and random acts of violence. ...
  lpetrich:How is that fundamentally different from misbehavior committed by any others?
  dk: People understand one another by the laws that government them, then act accordingly. The violence, suicide, and criminal acts that children suffer reflect the laws, what people understand about one another, and the true state of the Union.
  o
• lpetrich: And the OT is vague about what counts as stone-worthy rebellion. What is the minimum level of troublemaking that makes one worthy of being stoned to death?
  dk: Well let me see, the last incorrigible Jewish kid stoned by the town elders happened sometime before the Maccabean Revolt. You’ve now taken the pretext out of context and that’s human nature.
  o
• dk: The cost of unmarried teenage mothers, and abortion to society is inestimable.
  lpetrich: Abortion PREVENTS births. And does getting an abortion turn one into a raving, wild-eyed, dangerous madwoman?
  dk: Many immoral acts prevent births, from genocide to forced sterilization. Legalized abortion teaches mothers, fathers and children to understand their enemies, the enemy being one other. As a matter of fact when foul play occurs family members go to the head of the line.
  - Good point, are there more raving, wild-eyed, and dangerous madwomen since abortion was legalized? Hmmm, since abortion was legalized the # of women/mothers imprisoned, # of suicidal women, # of depressed women, # of institutionalized children, and the rate of domestic violence by women against their children have increased at an astonishing rate. Though just because there are per capita, and across all socioeconomic strata more dangerous, wide eyed, raving women, it’s difficult to determine a root cause. It seems to me abortion is one of many possible factors but how much of a factor is inestimable.
  o
• lpetrich: If anything, abortion helps PREVENT crime, by preventing the birth of children that their mothers had not really wanted. "Every child a wanted child" is a good way to reduce crime.
  dk: That’s what Margaret Sanger said back in the 1930s, and 40 million abortions since 1972 seem to have had a reciprocal affect. Not only are fewer babies born, but more babies are unwanted, abused, abandoned and neglected.
  o
• dk: I?ve offered you resources that explain what the Bible means in the context of Salvation History,
  lpetrich: And how is that supposed to be justified?
  dk: How do you justify asking a question, then ignore the answer?
  o
• lpetrich: DK, you ought to realize that you are dealing with people who consider such theological constructions as valid as accounts of the activities of the deities of Mt. Olympus. Or as valid as most Protestants consider veneration of the Virgin Mary and the saints.
  dk: That’s not my problem, but yours. I’ve linked the concept of human rights to OT Law, specifically the 1st Commandment that puts government under the Law, not above the Law.
  o
• dk: I?ve also submitted the prosperity and merits of Jewish people as a living testimony. (a lot more Orthodox Jewish evangelism snipped....)
  lpetrich: Except that many Jews are nowadays Conservative or Reform or secular.
  dk: It is estimated in Israel that about 20-30% of Jews are Orthodox and 50% traditional. Elsewhere the demographics vary from place to place. It sounds like your best argument asserts that Jews are converting to secularism. I think you’ve got a legitimate point, but it’s irrelevant to the discussion. From my perspective people understand one another from the Law, so it makes sense that laws derived from scientific principles lead people to become secular. My point is that people aren’t suited to scientific laws because they are more than mere animals. Animals don’t do science, write history, paint, or find music beautiful. The US first interpreted the Constitution as a purely secular document around the mid-20th Century, and since then culture has degenerated significantly i.e. red rover red rove has degenerated into drive by shootings, impressionist art has evolved into urinal art, Mozart has evolved into Gangster rape. To be honest, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the trend. Man does not live by bread alone, so the spirit of the Law warrants careful reflection and thought by everyone, and that’s exactly what’s happening. We are either united or divide by the Law because it forms the basis upon which people understand one another, and human nature.