-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
fair enough,you have not misspoken,,,I if you notice back tracked from where you are speaking to Haran,and Ur,,,,"Take note that Ararat where Noah and his sons settled is about 350 miles from Gobekli tepe,,and that you can also follow the towns of migration from their in the scriptures corresponding to Abraham,,,,,
axiomatic geometry appeared in India as early as 2,000 BC.
is that 'proof' that Euclid copied his math from Vedic sources?
or that there is one truth, and it has been arrived at by different societies at different times?
if other peoples recognized that the heavens and the earth were created by one God, it does not necessarily follow that all peoples copied this idea from one ancient myth.
it does however lend credence to theistic creation being true.
C
When a crime is committed do detectives just go to the crime scene and say
"well, no one was there at the time. Case closed"???
No. They look for evidence and try to figure out what happened. I'm sorry you have a
problem with the evidence that's accumulated over the last 200 years in modern
scholarship but that's not my problem.
This is a red herring and a shifting of the burden of proof. It's off topic and the burden is on you to prove that someone rose from the dead not on the one who is unconvinced and making no counter claim. If you would like to start a new thread and debate the Resurrection I'll be happy to do so. Just create a post and show me the link.
Most importantly, if Yahweh is a false deity Jesus' divinity is also false because Jesus supposedly was
the God of the OT (Yahweh) right? There's no way around this. The evidence I've presented clearly
shows Yahweh was just one of many gods worshipped in the Ancient Near East. Yahweh became the
national god of Israel because he was Saul's favorite.
"Though circumstantial, the converging pieces of evidence suggest that Saul's choice of Yahweh as the
patron god of his state was based on his Edomite background. Once Yahweh was the national god, his
worship was spread over the territory of the Saulide state. The reign of Saul, then, must be regarded
as a turning point in both the political and the religious history of Israel. The Israelite worship of
Yahweh - a "foreign" deity, after all - was a concomitant effect of the formation of the Israelite state:
because Israel's first king was a devotee of Yahweh - and not unnaturally so, in view of his Edomite
background - Yahweh became the official god of Israel. Henceforth, the Israelites would be the
"people of Yahweh" - even if many of them remained long attached to gods other than Yahweh."
- Van Der Toorn pg. 286
Family Religion in Babylonia, Ugarit and Israel: Continuity and Changes in ... - K. Van Der Toorn - Google Books
"well, no one was there at the time. Case closed"???
No. They look for evidence and try to figure out what happened. I'm sorry you have a
problem with the evidence that's accumulated over the last 200 years in modern
scholarship but that's not my problem.
This is a red herring and a shifting of the burden of proof. It's off topic and the burden is on you to prove that someone rose from the dead not on the one who is unconvinced and making no counter claim. If you would like to start a new thread and debate the Resurrection I'll be happy to do so. Just create a post and show me the link.
Most importantly, if Yahweh is a false deity Jesus' divinity is also false because Jesus supposedly was
the God of the OT (Yahweh) right? There's no way around this. The evidence I've presented clearly
shows Yahweh was just one of many gods worshipped in the Ancient Near East. Yahweh became the
national god of Israel because he was Saul's favorite.
"Though circumstantial, the converging pieces of evidence suggest that Saul's choice of Yahweh as the
patron god of his state was based on his Edomite background. Once Yahweh was the national god, his
worship was spread over the territory of the Saulide state. The reign of Saul, then, must be regarded
as a turning point in both the political and the religious history of Israel. The Israelite worship of
Yahweh - a "foreign" deity, after all - was a concomitant effect of the formation of the Israelite state:
because Israel's first king was a devotee of Yahweh - and not unnaturally so, in view of his Edomite
background - Yahweh became the official god of Israel. Henceforth, the Israelites would be the
"people of Yahweh" - even if many of them remained long attached to gods other than Yahweh."
- Van Der Toorn pg. 286
Family Religion in Babylonia, Ugarit and Israel: Continuity and Changes in ... - K. Van Der Toorn - Google Books
Last edited by a moderator:
has it occurred to anyone else that it is pretty close to absolutely meaningless to try to date Judaism by archaeological remains in Babylon, Egypt, Canaan or anywhere else?
not everything a people believes has ever been inscribed in stone.
religious history is full of examples of heretics, mis-understood and misapplied doctrine, so that any record found does not necessarily reflect a full picture or even a majority picture of the beliefs of a people.
a very small percentage of artifacts and records of ancient peoples is preserved at all.
of that very small percentage, an even smaller percentage is unearthed by archaeologists.
of that small percentage of a small percentage, only a small percentage can be said to be properly understood, because such a vast majority of the thinking of an ancient people is either not recorded in the first place, not preserved, and/or never found by modern people.
you're looking at a handful of fragments of clay tablets out of untold millions that existed, and pretending to be an expert on ancient beliefs because of it. i wouldn't be too sure of my conclusions if i were you.
not everything a people believes has ever been inscribed in stone.
religious history is full of examples of heretics, mis-understood and misapplied doctrine, so that any record found does not necessarily reflect a full picture or even a majority picture of the beliefs of a people.
a very small percentage of artifacts and records of ancient peoples is preserved at all.
of that very small percentage, an even smaller percentage is unearthed by archaeologists.
of that small percentage of a small percentage, only a small percentage can be said to be properly understood, because such a vast majority of the thinking of an ancient people is either not recorded in the first place, not preserved, and/or never found by modern people.
you're looking at a handful of fragments of clay tablets out of untold millions that existed, and pretending to be an expert on ancient beliefs because of it. i wouldn't be too sure of my conclusions if i were you.
D
If you ask 'when did God first reveal Himself' you're asking after the God of revelation: you can read about Him in the Bible. So my answer: 'when He created them,' was accurate.
I sense however you're more interested in the god(s) of icongraphy, archaeology, the philosophy of religions etc. They're all respectable scientific disciplines... but that's just what they are: scientific disciplines. At least since Laplace science doesn't feel the need for the 'hypothesis of God' anymore. We as christians like to discuss Him though, He is the One who gives our lives purpose and meaning. There's nothing wrong with discussing biblical archaelogy (if it's treated as a purely academic discipline), but I'm not sure that discussion should be held here.
I sense however you're more interested in the god(s) of icongraphy, archaeology, the philosophy of religions etc. They're all respectable scientific disciplines... but that's just what they are: scientific disciplines. At least since Laplace science doesn't feel the need for the 'hypothesis of God' anymore. We as christians like to discuss Him though, He is the One who gives our lives purpose and meaning. There's nothing wrong with discussing biblical archaelogy (if it's treated as a purely academic discipline), but I'm not sure that discussion should be held here.
C
That's not exactly true. We can date the Hebrew language and compare it to early Biblical texts
that show the stages of development.
"linguistic evidence showing that the Hebrew of the texts corresponds to the stages of development of the Hebrew language in the periods in which the hypothesis says those respective texts were composed;"
Current thought about the Documentary Hypothesis | Richard Elliott Friedman
"Archaic Biblical Hebrew from the 10th to the 6th century BCE, corresponding to the Monarchic Period until the Babylonian Exile and represented by certain texts in the Hebrew Bible (Tanach), notably the Song of Moses (Exodus 15) and the Song of Deborah (Judges 5). Also called Old Hebrew or Paleo-Hebrew. It was written in a form of the Canaanite script. (A script descended from this is still used by the Samaritans, see Samaritan Hebrew language.)"
Hebrew language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
um, perhaps your reading comprehension failed,
but what i'm saying is that these PHD's are looking at handfuls of rubble that represent only a very small percentage of the knowledge and ideology of the people that they are studying, and what they have does not in any way represent a complete or trustworthy picture of life, religion or philosophy of peoples thousands of years ago.
any of them with a shred of honesty and self-awareness should be able to tell you that the archaeological record is enormously incomplete and that when they write book after book of theories regarding the beliefs and practices of ancient cultures, they are based 99.9999% in supposition.
you on the other hand are not doing your own research, but reading these tomes of supposition as though they are fact, and ignoring the actual fact that the Bible contains writings that have been faithfully copied and preserved for thousands of years, dating back to before the few broken fragments of clay tablets that your 'scholars' have dug up and labored to translate.
it's as though we set an encyclopedia on fire, then find 3 square inches total of readable material in the ashes, from 6 different pages, and from those we re-create all the history of the world.
meanwhile we have a full set of an encyclopedia on the shelf, but we're ignoring it, or when the history we imagined conflicts with it, we assume our intact encyclopedia is wrong and corrupted.
but what i'm saying is that these PHD's are looking at handfuls of rubble that represent only a very small percentage of the knowledge and ideology of the people that they are studying, and what they have does not in any way represent a complete or trustworthy picture of life, religion or philosophy of peoples thousands of years ago.
any of them with a shred of honesty and self-awareness should be able to tell you that the archaeological record is enormously incomplete and that when they write book after book of theories regarding the beliefs and practices of ancient cultures, they are based 99.9999% in supposition.
you on the other hand are not doing your own research, but reading these tomes of supposition as though they are fact, and ignoring the actual fact that the Bible contains writings that have been faithfully copied and preserved for thousands of years, dating back to before the few broken fragments of clay tablets that your 'scholars' have dug up and labored to translate.
it's as though we set an encyclopedia on fire, then find 3 square inches total of readable material in the ashes, from 6 different pages, and from those we re-create all the history of the world.
meanwhile we have a full set of an encyclopedia on the shelf, but we're ignoring it, or when the history we imagined conflicts with it, we assume our intact encyclopedia is wrong and corrupted.
C
Oh really? Let's see how polytheism was "censored" as time went on shall we?
Deuteronomy 32:8-9
Dead Sea Scrolls 4QDeut j : "When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bny 'l[hym]). For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance".
And here's another one: Deuteronomy 32:43
Dead Sea Scrolls 4QDeut j : "Rejoice, O heavens, together with him, and bow down to him all you gods ('lym), for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and will render vengeance to his enemies, and will recompense those who hate him, and will atone for the land of his people".
Deuteronomy 32:8-9
Dead Sea Scrolls 4QDeut j : "When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bny 'l[hym]). For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance".
Septuagint: "When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God (aggelón theou). And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance".
Masoretic Text: "When Elyon gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel (bny yshr'l). For Yahweh's portion was his people, Jacob was the lot of his inheritance".
And here's another one: Deuteronomy 32:43
Dead Sea Scrolls 4QDeut j : "Rejoice, O heavens, together with him, and bow down to him all you gods ('lym), for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and will render vengeance to his enemies, and will recompense those who hate him, and will atone for the land of his people".
Septuagint: "O heavens, rejoice with him, bow to him, all sons of God. O nations, rejoice with his people and let all the angels of God strengthen themselves in him. For he will avenge the blood of his sons. Be vengeful and render vengeance and recompense justice on his enemies, and recompense those who hate him, and the Lord will cleanse the land of his people".
Masoretic Text: "Rejoice, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his enemies, and will atone for the land of his people".
Adulteress story?
"[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]"
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 7:53-8:11
The ending of the Gospel of Mark?
"[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]"
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16:9&version=NIV
Same with the Johannine Comma.
"The general consensus today is that that passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript tradition in subsequent copies."
Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What was that about being "faithfully copied" and "preserved" again?
Adulteress story?
"[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]"
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 7:53-8:11
The ending of the Gospel of Mark?
"[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]"
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16:9&version=NIV
Same with the Johannine Comma.
"The general consensus today is that that passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript tradition in subsequent copies."
Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What was that about being "faithfully copied" and "preserved" again?
C
That's the point. We obviously don't have the original words and stuff was added to and subtracted
from. I thought you said they were "faithfully copied" and "preserved"? Obviously, that's easily refuted.
The important part that you should take away from this though is in the Dead Sea Scrolls Deut. 32:8-9
Elyon or "El" is giving Yahweh the land of Israel and from the context Yahweh is a son of El. I'd say that
changes quite a lot actually!
Actually the texts of Ugarit, Atra-hasis, and the Babylonian Enuma Elish date to before any of the
Hebrew Bible was written.
Your original point was "that it is pretty close to absolutely meaningless to try to date Judaism by archaeological remains in Babylon, Egypt, Canaan or anywhere else?" I assume you now realize that's false due to your silence.
T
Dude, Bill Cooper knows his stuff. You don't seem to realise that just because something isn't in an academic journal etc. doesn't mean it's worthless. Christians of all stripes have no room in the academic world, most of all biblical creationists. They're not given any space, otherwise they'd totally have their research included in mainstream journals. Also, let's not pretend that academic journals are non-biased and fair. See the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents" to see how antagonistic the world is towards Christians in universities etc.
T
You're starting with the wrong premise. The one true God is the real God and He came first. The pagan deities are corruptions of the one True God but also the result of extreme ancestor worship in the ancient world. They came later. Any similarities that remain between the two are there because they borrowed (either conciously or subconciously) from the one true God to create their own gods and goddesses in their own image.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, as a matter of fact I have read hundreds of books and even written one. When you come to understand what the Bible is you will discover that scripture relativises all other knowledge that comes through the process of full socialization. Only the Bible is the product of the mind of God. All else comes from the mind of man and is of relatively little value.
