US textbook omits evolution

[CharacterFirst]

Roylion, I agree, but that leaves Christianity in a bind. Jesus, according to the NT, accepted the old as true. If the vast majority is myth, it follows he's not God. No sign that he regarded them as myth.

This might help.

 

[bombermick]

He's certainly more reasonable than six-day creationists, but there's still a huge hole. The book of Matthew contains a genealogy that runs from Abraham to Jesus. If Adam was not real, then there's no reason to say Abraham was.

 

[CharacterFirst]

He's certainly more reasonable than six-day creationists, but there's still a huge hole. The book of Matthew contains a genealogy that runs from Abraham to Jesus. If Adam was not real, then there's no reason to say Abraham was.

Genres.

 

[Bennett.]

For those guys who wished me well etc thanks.
All tests came back clear, although the MRI was a little freaky.
Evidently some medication I have been taking seems to have
corrupted the other and was causing it to be super-potent and toxic,
hence the dizziness, blurred vision, headaches, blackouts etc.

Anyway, back to the fight

 

[bombermick]

Good to hear!
What do you mean, character?

 

[Roylion]

I think Roylion you know which books to quote from, but may not understand the power and truth behind the words.

Listen to what the "real" biblical scholars say about it -

Ahh. "Real" biblical scholars. So what do you class as "real" Biblical scholar?

See, I define a biblical scholar as one who undertakes Biblical Studies - a set of various, and in some cases independent disciplines for the study of the collection of ancient texts generally known as the Bible.These disciplines include but are not limited to archaeology, Egyptology, textual criticism, source criticism, form criticism, linguistics, history, sociology and theology.

Now of course N.T.Wright was the Bishop of Durham and his area of expertise in Biblical studies is theology. He's well known as a conservative Christian apologist. Certainly a scholar and an expert in the New Testament but a Christian apologist with a vested interest nonetheless.

And as I said the consensus of Biblical scholarship suggests that the first part of Genesis is a combination of two older quite differing accounts..with perhaps both recalling an oral tradition of a move from hunter-gather society to an agricultural one. Most scholars agreed that Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Dueteromomy —came from four sources, the Yahwist, Elohist, the Deuteronomist and the Priestly Source each telling the same basic story, and joined together by various editors.Since the 1970s there has been a revolution in scholarship: the Elohist source is now widely regarded as no more than a variation on the Yahwist, while the Priestly source is increasingly seen not as a document but as a body of revisions and expansions to the Yahwist (or "non-Priestly") material. So according to the consensus of scholars, the Yahwist section begins with the creation story at Genesis 2:4 (the creation story at Genesis 1 is from the Priestly source); this is followed by the Garden of Eden story, Cain and Abel, Cain's descendants (but Adam's descendants are from the Priestly source), a Flood story (the Priestly source has his own flood story and the two are tightly intertwined), Noah's descendants and the Tower of Babel.

John Van Seters suggested in 1998 in McKenzie's and Graham's work The Hebrew Bible today: an introduction to critical issues, that the reason Genesis was written was because the Persians, after their conquest of Babylon in 538 BC, agreed to grant Jerusalem a large measure of local autonomy within the empire, but required the local authorities to produce a single law code accepted by the entire community. The two powerful groups making up the community—the priestly families who controlled the Temple and who traced their foundation-myth to Moses and the wilderness wanderings, and the major landowning families who made up the "elders" and who traced their own origins to Abraham, who had "given" them the land—were in conflict over many issues, and each had its own "history of origins". The Persian promise of greatly increased local autonomy for all provided a powerful incentive to cooperate in producing a single text. Hence Genesis.

Rolf Rendtorff and Erhard Blum, see the first five books of the Bible as growing through the gradual accretion of material into larger and larger blocks before being joined together, first by a Deuteronomic writer in the late 7th century BCE), and then later by a Priestly writer (in the 6th/5th century), who also added his own material. Virtually all modern scholarship now agrees that Genesis was written at the earliest in the 7th century BC and the finishing touches were made in the 4th century BC.

 

[Roylion]

They had their scriptures which were put together into he OT.

The Old Testament part of the Bible itself was only put together around the reign of Josiah of Judah in roughly around 620 BC.

Much of the Old Testament is believed to have been written by a school of writers that modern scholars call the Deuteronomist. The works of this movement of writers - probably an order of Judaic priests - is found in the book of Deuteronomy obviously, in the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings and also parts of the book of Jeremiah. These books tended to be written largely in the reign of the reformer King Josiah.

A broad scholarly consensus has emerged that describes the origin and growth of Deuteronomism. It goes like this.

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 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, and the exile which followed, led to much theological reflection on the meaning of the tragedy, and the Deuteronomistic history was written 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 and the return of some (in practice only a small fraction) of the exiles to Jerusalem.

So the Old Testament, which we know today, had been mostly completed by about the 4th century BC.

And of course the "God of the Bible" most commonly known as Yahweh, was originally only worshipped/adopted as the sole god by a small ethnic group who emerged peacefully and internally in the Palestinian hill country around 1200-1000 BC. This is supported overwhelmingly by the archaeological evidence

The ancient Canaanites who preceded the Hebrews (and from whom the Hebrews derived) worshipped El or Eli (or Anu to the Sumerians) was the creator, the supreme god - one of many, the father of mankind and all creatures. Originally El/Eli was the father of many other gods including Baal-Hadad, Mot, Yam and Yahweh. El appears as one of many gods in the ruins of the royal archive of the Ebla civilization, in the archaeological site of Tell Mardikh in Syria dated to 2300 BC, long before the advent of the Kingdom of Israel (c. 1000 BC at the earliest) or even Abraham (c. 1900-1600 BC).

El was recorded as the husband of the goddess Asherah. Amongst the Hittites, Asherah was the consort of Elkunirsa ("El the Creator of Earth") and mother of either 77 or 88 sons.

There are forty references to Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and she is described elsewhere variously as the wife or mother of Yahweh and most commonly as the wife of El. The consensus of Biblical scholars suggest that Asherah was worshipped alongside El, long before a small group of Canaanites decided that another god 'Yahweh' was the primary and later the only god.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

. In terms of human genetics, the Biblical story of Adam and Eve cannot be historically correct. The concept that all humans descended from just two historical persons is impossible. Genetic evidence indicates all modern humans descended from a group of at least 10,000 people, about 200,000 years ago due to the amount of human genetic variation. If all humans descended from two individuals several thousand years ago, as Young Earth creationism supposes for example, it would require an impossibly high mutation rate to account for the observed variation.

Yeah, I think most Christians tend to agree with this to some extent. Can't speak for all, of course.

In the same mode, this is what I struggle with when evolutionists want to claim that all life came from that amoeba that crawled out of the swamp. Could all life possibly come from this creature? Wouldn't it require the same impossibly high mutation rate?

Also, I read recently on a newspaper site (can't remember which one) that there appeared to be evidence of the emergence of sexual intercourse as a method of procreation, and that it was some way down the track from the initial onset of life. If that was the case, how were there so many different types of living creatures before that? Cell division?

I'm not trying to turn this into an evolution vs creation debate (please - no!!). Not trying to upset or bait anyone. I was just wondering, that's all..

 

[bombermick]

No, because life starts from multiple organisms and far more time is available, obviously. Humans originating in the Middle East is easily disproved.

Interesting info there Roy. Thus, the Jews adopted gods much like Constantine did when incorporating parts of paganism.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Ahh. "Real" biblical scholars. So what do you class as "real" Biblical scholar?

I was quoting you.

Certainly a scholar and an expert in the New Testament but a Christian apologist with a vested interest nonetheless.

This is not a strong argument though is it? Everyone has"vested interests". It doesn't invalidate their positions, on either side.

The clip came from a longer one - a broader representation here.

And as I said the consensus of Biblical scholarship suggests that the first part of Genesis is a combination of two older quite differing accounts..with perhaps both recalling an oral tradition of a move from hunter-gather society to an agricultural one.

You are missing a vital point. Most biblical scholars suggest that the Genesis creation accounts are radically different the other ANE myths.

It was a polemic, and so uses similar styles and info etc, but turns them on their head. It was 'apologetics' for the Jews. It is not accurate to say it is a melding of two other stories, as if to discredit it.

Most scholars agreed that Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Dueteromomy —came from four sources, the Yahwist, Elohist, the Deuteronomist and the Priestly Source each telling the same basic story, and joined together by various editors.

There are liberal and conservative scholars on both sides of the source criticism discussion. Source criticism may be overplayed by some liberal scholars.



Certainly some parts of the OT has come to us in an edited form, and was complied around the exile period, but that has no bearing on it truthfulness.

Virtually all modern scholarship now agrees that Genesis was written at the earliest in the 7th century BC and the finishing touches were made in the 4th century BC.

"A strong conclusion of modern scholarly study of the Old Testament is that, as a collection of sacred
writings, it is a postexilic phenomenon. Again, very few scholars would care to deny a prehistory—in some cases a lengthy and extensive prehistory, whether oral or written—to at least some portions of the Old Testament."

 

[CharacterFirst]

And of course the "God of the Bible" most commonly known as Yahweh, was originally only worshipped/adopted as the sole god by a small ethnic group who emerged peacefully and internally in the Palestinian hill country around 1200-1000 BC. This is supported overwhelmingly by the archaeological evidence

The ancient Canaanites who preceded the Hebrews (and from whom the Hebrews derived) worshipped El or Eli (or Anu to the Sumerians) was the creator, the supreme god - one of many, the father of mankind and all creatures. Originally El/Eli was the father of many other gods including Baal-Hadad, Mot, Yam and Yahweh. El appears as one of many gods in the ruins of the royal archive of the Ebla civilization, in the archaeological site of Tell Mardikh in Syria dated to 2300 BC, long before the advent of the Kingdom of Israel (c. 1000 BC at the earliest) or even Abraham (c. 1900-1600 BC).

El was recorded as the husband of the goddess Asherah. Amongst the Hittites, Asherah was the consort of Elkunirsa ("El the Creator of Earth") and mother of either 77 or 88 sons.

There are forty references to Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and she is described elsewhere variously as the wife or mother of Yahweh and most commonly as the wife of El. The consensus of Biblical scholars suggest that Asherah was worshipped alongside El, long before a small group of Canaanites decided that another god 'Yahweh' was the primary and later the only god.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. We all know the Jews were not great at keeping a covenant relationship with God. From the golden calf thru to Baal worship, thru to child sacrifice.

Are you trying to say that b/c the biblical writers allude to this, and we know from archaeology etc that is was the case, we can't trust the writers and God is therefore discredited? B/c this just does not follow.
http://www.theologynetwork.org/biblical-studies/getting-stuck-in/the-concept-of-idolatry.htm

 

[Pie eyed]

I didn't mention the Government. Straw man. You guys are not reading the thread. You are missing context etc.


I am not anti science, I think its great. It's the best subject fr two of my kids.
Science is just a tool we use to examine and learn about God's creation. You need to read some of the thread you lazy bugger, not just assume you know what people think.

You must not have read much Dawkins and co. Or looked at what the Humanistic and atheists foundations of Vic and Aust think should be way we go.

"Most atheists are vehemently opposed to all religions."
"Instead, education about all religions, the harm they create and their unevidenced status, is the only ethically correct course of action."
"Theistic induction is a form of mental child abuse."

All taken from -

Explain the context?

 

[CharacterFirst]

Explain the context?

read the thread.
I've moved on mate.

 

[Pie eyed]

I think Roylion you know which books to quote from, but may not understand the power and truth behind the words.

Listen to what the "real" biblical scholars say about it -

LOL.
Yep! Only the faithful could possibly understand what the words of the bible actually mean, read what they insist they mean in the face of the actual text and context.
As with many who claim special meaning where there is none "real" bible scholarship is called into play, as opposed to any scholarly opinion which does not agree fully with ones personal belief.

I try to explain this when I try to bring people the true meaning of Batman comics, but am constantly drowned out by those who are not "real" Batman aficionados. Damn those false Batman fans...damn them.

 

[Pie eyed]

read the thread.
I've moved on mate.

You have not moved on you are still just avoiding the facts and quoting baseless dogma.

 

[crownie]

Do as I say, not as I do for you then...

glad someone didn't let that comment go through to the keeper

 

[evo]

And as I said the consensus of Biblical scholarship suggests that the first part of Genesis is a combination of two older quite differing accounts..with perhaps both recalling an oral tradition of a move from hunter-gather society to an agricultural one. Most scholars agreed that Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Dueteromomy —came from four sources, the Yahwist, Elohist, the Deuteronomist and the Priestly Source each telling the same basic story, and joined together by various editors.Since the 1970s there has been a revolution in scholarship: the Elohist source is now widely regarded as no more than a variation on the Yahwist, while the Priestly source is increasingly seen not as a document but as a body of revisions and expansions to the Yahwist (or "non-Priestly") material. So according to the consensus of scholars, the Yahwist section begins with the creation story at Genesis 2:4 (the creation story at Genesis 1 is from the Priestly source); this is followed by the Garden of Eden story, Cain and Abel, Cain's descendants (but Adam's descendants are from the Priestly source), a Flood story (the Priestly source has his own flood story and the two are tightly intertwined), Noah's descendants and the Tower of Babel.

One only has to read the Noah's Ark story to see this is obviously so. What better evidence that the Abrahamic religions are "man made" than the fact that they are cobbled together from so many sources.

 

[Roylion]

One only has to read the Noah's Ark story to see this is obviously so. What better evidence that the Abrahamic religions are "man made" than the fact that they are cobbled together from so many sources.

There's no doubt they're man-made.

Yahweh, (the God worshipped by all three Abrahamic religions - even though they might not call him Yahweh) is a case in point. Originally Yahweh little more than a Canaanite deity, perhaps originating specifically in Edom. According to a widely accepted theory (the "Kenite hypothesis"), the Edomite god YHW was brought north to the Canaanite hill country and the early Israelites by migratory Edomite desert tribes, of whom the Kenites were one. The religious life of ordinary Israelites, like that of other peoples throughout the Ancient Near East, was organised around the family-based cult of the ancestors and devotion to a local god, the "god of the fathers".The first king, Saul was a Gibeonite, a tribe with its roots in Edom, and in order to unify the new kingdom and cement his own authority Saul promoted his own god, Yahweh, as god of the kingdom. Previously, each extended family or clan was the "people" of a particular god, but now the entire Israelite community became the "people of Yahweh" and hence a monotheistic society.

Yahweh even had a wife.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou, a senior lecturer in the department of Theology and Religion at the University of Exeter suggests very strongly that originally Yahweh and the goddess Asherah were seen as a pair - husband and wife. She based her findings on ancient texts, amulets and figurines unearthed primarily in the ancient Canaanite coastal city called Ugarit, now modern-day Syria. All of these artifacts reveal that Asherah was a powerful fertility goddess and her connection to Yahweh, is spelled out in both the Bible and an 8th century B.C. inscription on pottery found in the Sinai desert at a site called Kuntillet Ajrud. The inscription asks for a blessing from 'Yahweh and his Asherah.'

A handful of similar inscriptions have since been found, all of which help to strengthen the case that the God of the Bible once had a wife." J. Edward Wright, president of both The Arizona Center for Judaic Studies and The Albright Institute for Archaeological Research, says that several Hebrew inscriptions mention "Yahweh and his Asherah." He stated that: "Asherah was not entirely edited out of the Bible by its male editors. Traces of her remain, and based on those traces, archaeological evidence and references to her in texts from nations bordering Israel and Judah, we can reconstruct her role in the religions of the Southern Levant."

In further support Aaron Brody, director of the Bade Museum and an associate professor of Bible and archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion also stated that: "The ancient Israelites were polytheists, with only a small minority worshiping Yahweh alone before the historic events of 586 B.C." That year an elite community within Judea was exiled to Babylon and the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. This led according to Brody "to a more universal vision of strict monotheism: one god not only for Judah, but for all of the nations."

 

[evo]

very interesting post

In further support Aaron Brody, director of the Bade Museum and an associate professor of Bible and archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion also stated that: "The ancient Israelites were polytheists, with only a small minority worshiping Yahweh alone before the historic events of 586 B.C." That year an elite community within Judea was exiled to Babylon and the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. This led according to Brody "to a more universal vision of strict monotheism: one god not only for Judah, but for all of the nations."

I don't understand why Judaism is regularly credited with being the first monotheistic religion in the region. It is well known that the pharoh Ahkenaten decreed Aten the one true God circa 1300 B.C. Granted it didn't take with the Egytptians and they reverted to polytheism after his death, but it shows that there was precedent, of which Israelites would have been aware.

 

[Partridge]

God does not feel pity for you Partridge, he feels love.

I am an evangelical, which means someone who believes the good news. I am sorry you think I am dishonest nd corrupt. I am not sure why you feel that way. It seems such a trivial thing to "despise"someone over, esp. when you claim you don't even believe any of it.

I bet there is no knowledge you have that I don't have due to my faith in Christ. See if you can list some?

Think you've misunderstood that part CF. By "evangelicals" I mean preachers who gouge money from easily deceived believers - specifically the television evangelicals popular in the US (and elsewhere too). I have no problem at all stating I despise them. Especially when only too frequently their deception is exposed (Ted Haggard, Kent Hovind etc).

So nothing was meant towards you CF.

 

[bombermick]

Very interesting info there, Roy. Is there any evidence for David's existence and his ascension to the throne? Considering he's meant to come after Saul ...

 

[Roylion]

very interesting post

I don't understand why Judaism is regularly credited with being the first monotheistic religion in the region. It is well known that the pharoh Ahkenaten decreed Aten the one true God circa 1300 B.C. Granted it didn't take with the Egytptians and they reverted to polytheism after his death, but it shows that there was precedent, of which Israelites would have been aware.

Yes I agree. Sigmund Freud made a connection between Atenism and Judaism. No doubt given their connection to Mesopotamia (Sumer, Babylon and the Persian empire), Zoroastrianism also had an impact on Judaism and hence Christianity, especially given that much of the Old Testament was constructed post exile.

 

[Roylion]

Very interesting info there, Roy. Is there any evidence for David's existence and his ascension to the throne? Considering he's meant to come after Saul ...

There are significant doubts about the historicity of parts of the Bible. The Old Testament is essentially a collection of myth, legend, law, poetry, prophecy, philosophy and bits of history.

Quite apart from the fact that there is no archaeological or historical evidence for the existence of early Biblical figures such as Abraham, Jacob and Moses, I've already stated that the archaeological evidence points to an Israelite community arising peacefully and internally in the highlands of Canaan and does NOT support the Biblical story that Israel escaped from Egypt, met Yahweh on a mountain-top in the wilderness, agreed to become his chosen people, and conquered Canaan with his help. The archaeological record does not, in fact, support the account of the conquest given in Joshua: the cities which the bible records as having been destroyed by the Israelites were either uninhabited at the time, or, if destroyed, were destroyed at widely different times, not in one brief period. The most high-profile example was the "fall of Jericho", when new excavations in the 1950s by Kathleen Kenyon revealed that the city had already been abandoned by the time of Joshua.

To answer your question there's also no evidence that suggests that David and Solomon were Kings of a united Israel that ruled from the Euphrates River to the Red Sea as described in the Bible. The book of Samuel, and initial parts of the books of Kings, portray Saul, David and Solomon ruling in succession over a powerful and cosmopolitan united kingdom of Israel and Judah, There's no archaeological or external literary evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. In fact based on the evidence, many scholars are coming to the conclusion that the biblical writers in the 7th-6th centuries BC (300-400 years after the time of David) deliberately invented the empire, power, and wealth, of Saul, David, and Solomon, as described in Samuel. Kings etc., by appropriating the deeds and achievements of the Omride kings of Israel (King Ahab and so on). They did so, in order to denigrate the polytheistic Omrides and promote the monotheistic worship of Yahweh in the Kingdom of Judah.

Added to this there are no contemporary independent documents of David and the events of his life described in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. The Books of Samuel for example, (supposed to have been written by Samuel himself) clearly shows too many anachronisms to have been a contemporary account of 'David'. For example there is mention of late armor (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, 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. Yet Samuel, if he existed at all, has been dated to at least 350-400 years before all of these.

At the time 'David' was supposed to have existed, Jerusalem is believed by many archaeologists to have been an unimportant city or maybe not even as large as a city in the time of David and Samuel. Some believe it was tiny and the kingdom unimportant. The 'kings' were more like small tribal chieftains, such as of the type described in the Egyptian Amarna letters. A 'Dadua' is recognised in the Amarna letters as the ruler of Hebron about the time that many scholars consider the Biblical King David would have lived.

That scholars believe there may have been an actual David at all is due not only to the Amarna letters but also to the Tel Dan basalt inscription which was found in 1994. It mentions Ahab, Jehoram and the House of David. Also mentions Hazael King of Damascus (also in the Bible) The inscription reads in part "I killed Joram son of Ahab king of Israel, and I killed Achazyahu son of Joram king of the House of David." In the Bible King David was the ruler of Hebron. Also, there is the famous inscription of Mesha King of Moab, that also according to scholar Andre Lemaire also mentions the house of David. Mesha is mentioned in 2 Kings Chapter 3. The stele also mentions Omri King of Israel (who appears in the Bible).

Hope that all made sense.

 

[bombermick]

Makes perfect sense. I knew about the mythical status of early biblical figures, but I wasn't sure if "later" figures like David existed. Sounds like they did, but not in the form the bible portrays them to be.

Surely if Israel fled Egypt the Egyptians would have kept some records of it.

 

[Monniehawk]

Are you saying dragons are historical proof of man living with dinosaurs? Before I spend any time debating the point ...

Nah! you could never offer that as proof - or even a serious suggestion, in the same way that you could never offer the Pyramids or primitive field drawings as proof of alien contact.
But the concept of dragons is almost archetypal across cultures. Generally a large, powerful lizard like creature. Adornments such as wings, fire-breathing, etc, are less common, and it intrigues me where the concept originated from. Crocodiles?