Religion The God Question - part 2

[Procrastinator35]

Roy v P35 this should be fun. i'll back the logic and facts of Roy v the fluff and pretentiousness of P35 in a complete obliteration by page 121.

LOL....Once a clueless nuffie, always a clueless nuffie.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Ok. Now that I have a bit more time to reply to this earlier post.



That's very debatable. Many of them in fact don’t. They study the Old Testament in isolation without putting in the context of what we know from the time the Old Testament was purported to have been written. That includes archaeology, palaeontology, linguistics, astronomy and comparative literature. In fact textual criticism is very important in determining the veracity of a document, especially copied manuscripts and scrolls. The higher the volume of the earliest texts (and their parallels to each other), the greater the textual reliability and the less chance that the transcript's content has been changed over the years.



All that makes them ‘expert’ in, is the text of the Old Testament. And if they are expert in the Old Testament text, then they should be very familiar with the inconsistencies and doubling up in the text, even though they may not realise the actual anachronisms, as detailed below.



Only because most of them are ignorant in the studies that I mentioned above.

It is very clear from the evidence, and indeed from the Bible itself, that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible. Passages such as Deuteronomy 34:6 ("no man knoweth of his sepulchre to this day"), implying an author living long after Moses' death); Number 21:14 (referring to a previous book of Moses' deeds) and Genesis 12:6 ("and the Canaanite was then in the land", implying an author living in a time when the Canaanite was no longer in the land). There’s also the appearance of duplicated stories, such as the two accounts of the creation in the first and second chapters of Genesis and the two accounts of Sarah and a foreign king (Gen. 12 and Gen. 20).

We know that certain books of the Bible were first written down between the 8th and 5th century BC because the books set in earlier times, such as the Book of Samuel and the first five books in the Bible show too many anachronisms to have been contemporary accounts.

For example there is mention of late armour (1 Samuel 17:4–7, 38–39; 25:13), use of camels (1 Samuel 30:17) and cavalry (as distinct from chariotry) (1 Samuel 13:5, 2 Samuel 1:6), iron picks and axes (as though they were common – the time of Samuel was in the Bronze Age) in 2 Samuel 12:31, sophisticated siege techniques (2 Samuel 20:15), a battle with 20,000 casualties (2 Samuel 18:7), and refer to Kushite paramilitary and servants, clearly giving evidence of a date in which Kushites were common, after the 26th Dynasty of Egypt, the period of the last quarter of the 700's BC.

The battles outlined in the Books of Samuel, Judges etc. involving the destruction of the Canaanites have no parallel in (and in fact are refuted by) archaeological record, and it is now widely believed that the Israelites themselves originated as a sub-group of Canaanites. (I can go into the evidence for that if you wish).

The reference to Ur of the Chaldees in Genesis 11.31 is particularly telling. It must have been written after 800 BC, as from archaeology this appears when the Chaldeans settled Ur. The Chaldees were not the rulers of Ur until the late 7th century BC and possibly as late as around 550 BC which corresponds fariyl well to when Genesis is thought to have been constructed in its final form. From the available evidence, the ancient Chaldeans seem to have migrated into Mesopotamia sometime between c. 940–860 BC and No evidence has yet been discovered indicating that the Chaldeans existed in Mesopotamia (or anywhere else in historical record) at the time Abraham (circa 1800–1700 BC) is believed to have existed.

Moses himself is supposed to have existed in the Late Bronze Age. Moses is supposed to have lived between 1391–1271 BC (according to the Jews) and Christian writers Jerome and James Ussher vary his lifespan between 1592 - 1472 BC - and 1571 - 1451 BC . Either way Moses could not have called Abraham’s hometown "Ur of the Chaldees").

Likewise 1 Chronicles 29:7, mentions ten thousand daric as an ancient gold coin in the time of David. The ‘daric’ was introduced by Darius the Great of Persia some time between 522 BC and 486 BC.

It has also been noted that the list of towns ascribed to Judah in the Book of Joshua corresponds precisely to those known to be within Judah's borders in the reign of King Josiah in the seventh century BC. Archaeology also reveals that some of those very same cities listed in the Book of Joshua (the events of which should take place in the Late Bronze Age - 1550 BC - 1150 BC) were only inhabited in the 7th century BC.

So on the basis of above, many scholars now believe that the earliest form of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible (the J-Source) may have been written as early as the eighth century BC in Jerusalem and completed by about the 5th century BC. This would indicate more than one author - probably many - stretched across a period of approximately 300-350 years. Most of the books of what we now know as the Bible appear to have been have been written between 750 BC and 630 BC and finally codified in the reign of King Josiah, while other pieces were added in the fifth century to form the Old Testament as we know it.

Below is a summary of what the most accepted method of constructing the Bible according to the available evidence. There are variations on this of course, but whatever the case, it’s very clear that the Old Testament is the work of a number of authors over a lengthy period of time.

Textual scholars have suggested four authors or possibly schools of authors for most of the Old Testament. Broadly they are:

• the Yahwists (J) : put down in early written form claimed in the 18th century by some scholars as early as possibly c. 950 BC in the southern Kingdom of Judah. Hans Schmidt in 1976 argued that J knew the prophetic books of the 8th and 7th centuries BC, while the prophets did not know the traditions of the Torah, meaning J could not be earlier than the 7th century and that as the J source drew upon Babylonian sources, it was probably written during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BC (500s). Joel S. Baden in 2009 puts the J source even later.
  
• the Elohist source (E) : first written c. 850 BC in the northern Kingdom of Israel, but compiled into the Bible in its current form much later possibly in 500 BC
  
• the Deuteronomist (D) : written c. 600 BC in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
• the Priestly source (P) : written c. 500 BC by Jewish priests in exile in Babylon

The E source appears to come from the northern part of Israel. Its name comes from Elohim, the term used in the Hebrew and Canaanite languages for the Gods. It is characterized by, among other things, an abstract view of God, using Horeb instead of Sinai for the mountain where Moses received the laws of Israel.

It habitually locates ancestral stories in the north, especially about the Tribe of Ephraim (which happened to be the tribe Jeroboam the first king of Israel (after it broke away from the rule of the House of David) and as a result it probably was composed in that region. The Elohist contains stories of the political position of the Joseph tribes: the birth of Benjamin, and the pre-eminence of Ephraim (all found in Genesis).

There’s also a few differences between this section and the Yahwist. It strongly implies that Isaac was actually sacrificed by is father as Isaac never appears again after the story and Abraham goes onto to have other children. The Yahwist source of course has Isaac surviving and a ram being sacrificed instead. There are other differences as well.

The Book of Deuteronomy appears to be an independent document (D-source). The D-source is believed to have been written in the days of King Josiah (639-609 BC) and also includes the Books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings (including the story of Goliath, re-mentioned in the Quran).

As I said in an earlier post, a broad scholarly consensus has emerged that describes the origin and growth of the D-source the Deuteronomist in the late 7th century BC. So for completeness I’ll re-state it here.

Following the destruction of Israel (the northern kingdom) by Assyria in 721 BC refugees came south to Judah, bringing with them traditions, notably the concept of Yahweh as the only god who should be served, which had not previously been known. Among those influenced by these new ideas were the landowning aristocrats (called "people of the land" in the bible) who provided the administrative elite in Jerusalem. In 640 there was a crisis in Judah when king Amon was murdered. The aristocrats put the ringleaders to death and placed an eight year old child, Josiah, on the throne. Judah at this time was a vassal of Assyria, but Assyria now began a rapid and unexpected decline in power, leading to a resurgence of nationalism in Jerusalem. In 622 BC, Josiah launched his reform program, based on an early form of Deuteronomy 5-26, framed as a covenant (treaty) between Judah and Yahweh in which Yahweh replaced the Assyrian king. By the end of the 7th century Assyria had been replaced by a new imperial power, Babylon.

The trauma of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BC (6th century BC), and the exile which followed, led to much theological reflection on the meaning of the tragedy, and the Deuteronomistic history was re-written and re-edited as an explanation. Israel had been unfaithful to Yahweh, and the exile was God's punishment. By about 540 Babylon was also in rapid decline as the next rising power, Persia, steadily ate away at it. With the end of the Babylonian oppression becoming ever more probable, Deuteronomy was given a new introduction and attached to the history books as an overall theological introduction. The final stage was the addition of a few extra laws following the fall of Babylon to the Persians in 539 BC and the return of some (in practice only a small fraction) of the exiles to Jerusalem. This has been argued by several scholars including the ‘chick’, Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou.

Then there was the P-source (the Priestly source) which some speculate come from priestly writings. P is responsible for the first of the two creation stories (Genesis 1), for Adam's genealogy, part of the Flood story and the genealogy of Abraham back to Shem as well as a couple of other areas.

The Priestly source contributed chapters 25–31 and 35–40 of Exodus including the instructions for making the Ark of the Covenant and the story of its fabrication. The Priestly source also contributed to Chapters 1-27 of Leviticus and Numbers 1–10:28, 15–20, 25–31, and 33–36, including, among other things, two censuses, rulings on the position of Levites and priests (including the provision of special cities for the Levites). The Priestly source in Numbers originally ended with an account of the death of Moses and succession of Joshua ("Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo..."), but when Deuteronomy was added to the Pentateuch this was transferred to the end of Deuteronomy.)

The four sources were combined by a series of editors, firstly by combining J and E to form a combined JE. Since the majority of each text was composed of traditions about events and people associated only with one or other part of the nation (Israel or Judah), combining them would not cause conflict. However, where they differ, (for example one refers to the holy mountain as Sinai and the other as Horeb) neither text could be suppressed, and the differences had to be kept in order that the resulting text was generally acceptable to an audience of both groups.

It is considered unknown how much of the two original texts was cut to produce JE. J is the only source used in JE for the stories of the creation, flood, and genealogies. E starts abruptly with the appearance of Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 20, which makes it appear that some of it was left out.

During the exile JE was unified with P and D by a different editor. JE was then combined with D to form a JED text, and finally JED with P to form JEDP, the final Torah/Pentateuch.

So the bottom line is that the first four books of the Bible were combinations of the J, P and E sources and the fifth was from the D source.

The later Books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah appear to have been put together in the fifth century BC and finished in their final form during the 3rd century BC. It's cleat that there were different authors here as the two books of Chronicles cover much the same material as the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic history. Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah were probably finished during the 3rd century BC. As for what book were to be included in the canon Old Testament is another story entirely. Whatever the case it's clear that the Old Testament is largely the product of the human imagination with an all too human agenda.



Understanding of what exactly? Someone else’s interpretation of the text?



I fear it is you who is shallow.



I’ll keep making conclusions from the evidence that is available and the conclusions from experts who have studied this in far more detail than I have and who have considered that evidence in the context of other external evidence to reach said conclusion.



That just demonstrates your ignorance.



I critically study and read as widely as I can. You, it appears, do not. I would be suggesting that it not myself who has ‘no idea’.

I love you!
In a intellectual way

 

[chelseacarlton]

I'd say boondy has been stripped bare and paraded embarrassingly in front of his peers and if he deletes his account there would be no shame in that at all.
You are Nelson and the Roy lion is the tall guy in the small car.
Aha

 

[The Unforgiven]

He seems very well traveled.

He's well travelled down there, if you catch my drift...

 

[The Unforgiven]

Back in my day, girls had maps of Tasmania.

Now they seem to prefer Brazil.

With all the deforestation going on in Tasmania, it'll look like Brazil before you know it.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Smackdown

 

[The Unforgiven]

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/boro...of-fact-resistant-humans?mbid=social_facebook

 

[The Unforgiven]

 

[HARKER]

Give it another generation or two and only the shackled will still be in favour of a movement towards any possible God.
It's just the weirdest (read saddest) thing, that we're still in need of some divine interlude to try and make sense of our existence.

Can anyone truly imagine a scenario in generations to come where a free mind would still bind itself to an ancient need? How sad would that be?

 

[The Unforgiven]

Give it another generation or two and only the shackled will still be in favour of a movement towards any possible God.
It's just the weirdest (read saddest) thing, that we're still in need of some divine interlude to try and make sense of our existence.

Can anyone truly imagine a scenario in generations to come where a free mind would still bind itself to an ancient need? How sad would that be?

While I love your sentiment, I struggle to see a period short of this millennia where humanity rids itself of the scourge that is religion. With America the way it is, with many of the Middle Eastern countries ruled by Sharia Law - the future for generations looks grim.

 

[HARKER]

While I love your sentiment, I struggle to see a period short of this millennia where humanity rids itself of the scourge that is religion. With America the way it is, with many of the Middle Eastern countries ruled by Sharia Law - the future for generations looks grim.

I can, but it will take time.
In my short time on this planet, I've seen huge changes in peoples true beliefs.
They may still subscribe to religion but many don't truly believe.

In a way, that's almost sadder to know that people will say they believe just to not upset another. ******* crazy and quite dishonest, if you ask me.

 

[chelseacarlton]

I can, but it will take time.
In my short time on this planet, I've seen huge changes in peoples true beliefs.
They may still subscribe to religion but many don't truly believe.

In a way, that's almost sadder to know that people will say they believe just to not upset another. ******* crazy and quite dishonest, if you ask me.

What is this?

 

[little graham]

They may still subscribe to religion but many don't truly believe.
.

I can guarantee your view of religion is not an educated one. It's a cultural one. You should get some glasses for your third eye.

The native Americans are heavily religious. A beautiful people with remarkable wisdom.

 

[Duritz]

The Egyptians praised the Sun, as a deity, they had many names for him. We laugh at them now, for praising the Sun as the giver of life on earth, but were they wrong? How would we be travelling without the sun?

 

[HARKER]

I can guarantee your view of religion is not an educated one. It's a cultural one. You should get some glasses for your third eye.

The native Americans are heavily religious. A beautiful people with remarkable wisdom.

Your guarantees obviously mean a lot...........to yourself.

All you have is to cite native American Indians.........and even there you say that they're beautiful people. What has that to do with anything?

I don't even know what you're trying to say. What are you saying?

 

[HARKER]

The Egyptians praised the Sun, as a deity, they had many names for him. We laugh at them now, for praising the Sun as the giver of life on earth, but were they wrong? How would we be travelling without the sun?

So let's praise oxygen then also.
What about plants to eat and water to drink.
There's going to be a lot of praising going on if that is the standard of worship we abide by.........and it still doesn't prove anything God.

 

[Total Power]

Your guarantees obviously mean a lot...........to yourself.

All you have is to cite native American Indians.........and even there you say that they're beautiful people. What has that to do with anything?

I don't even know what you're trying to say. What are you saying?

If you take a look at this posting history, you would not bother replying to him, a conspiracy theorist of its worst kind. He reckons Darwin was responsible Aboriginal genocide

 

[Total Power]

So let's praise oxygen then also.
What about plants to eat and water to drink.
There's going to be a lot of praising going on if that is the standard of worship we abide by.........and it still doesn't prove anything God.

That is what pantheism is all about, god = nature, older religions like hinduism and ancient egyption rituals were pantheistic, unfortunately since the arrival of the abrahamic religions, this has turned into a complete joke about a loving kind caring god.

 

[Duritz]

So let's praise oxygen then also.
What about plants to eat and water to drink.
There's going to be a lot of praising going on if that is the standard of worship we abide by.........and it still doesn't prove anything God.

Plants and oxygen exist because of the sun.

The Egyptians worshipped the sun as the giver of life. It gave all the things we need for life, including ourselves.

Try to keep up bruv. Feeeeels.

 

[HARKER]

That is what pantheism is all about, god = nature, older religions like hinduism and ancient egyption rituals were pantheistic, unfortunately since the arrival of the abrahamic religions, this has turned into a complete joke about a loving kind caring god.

We understand that we needed to try and make sense of our world and of ourselves many years ago.

We now have a non-hijacked form of worship to follow and that is science.
Science is good as it doesn't ask you to pray to it. It doesn't set out to make you feel guilty for who you are and nor does it make you do crazy things under the guise of science.

It's just that some still don't like what science presents and the thought of not having an eternal life under a caring and loving being, is just not on.
Even here the wider agenda of most religions is to control. Keep all the sheep at staff's reach.

 

[HARKER]

Plants and oxygen exist because of the sun.

The Egyptians worshipped the sun as the giver of life. It gave all the things we need for life, including ourselves.

Try to keep up bruv. Feeeeels.

O.K. So you praise the sun. Got any pics?

.......and by the way: Who made the sun? Oh, God did......Right.....or did he? So confusing.

BTW. Gasses make up the sun. Do you praise gas also?

 

[HARKER]

If you take a look at this posting history, you would not bother replying to him, a conspiracy theorist of its worst kind. He reckons Darwin was responsible Aboriginal genocide

Conspiracy theorists are fine.....as long as they're just not following what others are saying, just because it fits for them.

Bad conspiracy theorists give good conspiracy theorists a bad name.

 

[Total Power]

We understand that we needed to try and make sense of our world and of ourselves many years ago.

We now have a non-hijacked form of worship to follow and that is science.
Science is good as it doesn't ask you to pray to it. It doesn't set out to make you feel guilty for who you are and nor does it make you do crazy things under the guise of science.

It's just that some still don't like what science presents and the thought of not having an eternal life under a caring and loving being, is just not on.
Even here the wider agenda of most religions is to control. Keep all the sheep at staff's reach.

I agree to a certain extent, science helps us "understand" nature, but us being a part of nature we cant "escape" nature or the laws of nature. The laws of nature to some are god. Even great scientists like Sagan have praised panthiesm and cosmology presented in Hinduism! theres a youtube video of Sagan analysing pantheistic science and cosmology. Guys like Heisenberg, Schrodinger were full of praise as well, they are not idiots. Try to look beyond Abrahamic religions and commercialized s**t these days.

 

[HARKER]

I agree to a certain extent, science helps us "understand" nature, but us being a part of nature we cant "escape" nature or the laws of nature. The laws of nature to some are god. Even great scientists like Sagan have praised panthiesm and cosmology presented in Hinduism! theres a youtube video of Sagan analysing pantheistic science and cosmology. Guys like Heisenberg, Schrodinger were full of praise as well, they are not idiots. Try to look beyond Abrahamic religions and commercialized s**t these days.

We've been theorising since the year dot and regardless of who subscribes to what, only time and science will allow us to come to an ultimate conclusion.

As things stand today, some may have got it right. We just don't know who yet, though.

 

[Total Power]

We've been theorising since the year dot and regardless of who subscribes to what, only time and science will allow us to come to an ultimate conclusion.

As things stand today, some may have got it right. We just don't know who yet, though.

Agreed, but imagine the cosmology presented in Rigvedas 4,000 years ago! way before anything westernised! unfortunately these things are swept under the carpet and you will struggle to find anything related to non abrahamic religions these days in mainstream media. Everything is about Yehwah, Jesus or Allah! yep. Have a read here . Guys like them or Sagan were no idiots. You can read about Schrodinger and Bohrs influence here too

Got nothing to do with god, but when the wisdom presented in these books written 4,000 years ago, barely gets a mention in todays media, it doesnt surprise me. Thats all i am saying.