The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight

[hardheadjarhead]

The two stories actually do not contradict, both accounts are true. The first again being very factual and precise presents the cause of death as hanging. Which is not contradicted by the later account. The Later account is being given to believers and the intent of the account of the story is to bring about a feeling of revulsion. According to tradition it would seem that Judas would have hung himself on the edge of the cliff, thus either having the rope break, be untied, or cut, causing him to fall to the rocks below. We do agree that he isn't still hanging there today, correct? Someone would have cut him down or left him there until the rope broke, yes? The story presented in Acts, never contradicts or refutes the death of Judas by hanging. So therefore, there is no contradiction.

Without a supposition of his being cut down, or the rope having broken, that is an absurdity. Without specific reference from Acts to the hanging mentioned in Matthew there is a very clear contradiction. I find it far easier to accept that there were two--if not more--separate accounts of Judas' death circulating throughout the Roman world in the various Christian sects of that day. These two managed to get into the Christian canon in spite of their discordance.

So you've stated there is an "ommission," and then backed off of the omission supposition, and are now back to it. Round and round we go.

It seems your expecting a 5th graders understanding here. It takes more than surface knowledge in order to understand these points. Mere surface acceptance of the one passage or scripture is not a thorough study of the alleged contradiction.

You're suggesting that one must adopt the "understanding" of a believer and discount objective interpretations--and contrary subjective intepretations, are you not? As I posted earlier in quoting Rober Ingersoll, divine scripture ought to be clear, rational, and perfect. A fifth grader indeed would be able to understand it if it were thus (and indeed, the child's soul hangs in the balance). As is, we must first be credulous and secondly accept an interpretation--or intepretations--that many can not due to their lack of credulity. We must believe in order to believe.

And yet again, you refuse to clearly state your case. Post scriptures which show the allegations, not just simply posting, "They are easy to spot". That makes it seem as though you are not truly confident in yoru arguemnt.

I am truly confident that the Bible has accounts in the Old Testament that provide a record of God authorizing, or directly taking a hand in, the slaughter of children...which refers to the original statement I made concerning the "record." Anyone who has actually read the Bible are aware of these atrocities, though you don't seem to be. I challenge you to openly refute this statement: God ordered the slaughter, or directly effected the slaughter, of children.

Your holding "believers of the bible" to standards way out of reach for anyone. Because George believe in the bible, he must also believe that every translation of it by whomever is also 100% inerrant and completely accurate? Thats simply not the case, and holds no water in this discussion.

I'm holding inerrantists to the claim that the Bible is inerrant. If you think there is error in the translations, as you've clearly indicated above and below, then drop out of the discussion.

I suggested nothing of the kind. I merely pointed out that human translation of so many differin kinds lends a huge margin for human error.

At which point in history did error begin to creep in? God didn't anticipate the spreading of the Gospel to non-Greek reading populations? We should accept only Greek and Hebrew versions of scripture, thus disallowing the work of the scholars who have interpreted the NIV and other versions I've mentioned?

You have made an appeal to authority here...yours...in suggesting I don't really understand scripture because I've only read it in English. Forgive me, but I don't accept your level of scholarship over that of the modern translators.

The Bible was translated for a reason, and if it is flawed and in error as you've stated...the responsibility lies with your Deity. He is supposed to be, after all, the ultimate editor of this work. One would think that if he's omnipotent he would set a higher standard for accuracy than the New York Times. As you've shown, he has not.



Regards,


Steve

 

[Ray]

As I posted earlier in quoting Rober Ingersoll, divine scripture ought to be clear, rational, and perfect.

Appeal to authority?

We must believe in order to believe.

That is profound.

I challenge you to openly refute this statement: God ordered the slaughter, or directly effected the slaughter, of children.

As I recall, you are correct. Was it in Deuteronomy and was it the Philistines?

At which point in history did error begin to creep in?

I believe that error began to creep in as the apostle's died. That by 300 AD there was a great/universal apostacy from the truth. I believe that Platonic {and other Greek} concepts of the metaphysical found their way into the church, replacing/revising concepts of the Hebrew God.

God didn't anticipate the spreading of the Gospel to non-Greek reading populations?

I don't speak for the Man, but I believe he anticipated the gospel being preached to eventually all inhabitants of the world.

We should accept only Greek and Hebrew versions of scripture, thus disallowing the work of the scholars who have interpreted the NIV and other versions I've mentioned?

Personally, I think translations into Native tongues is necessary.

You have made an appeal to authority here...yours...in suggesting I don't really understand scripture because I've only read it in English.

I'm in your same boat...I only read/speak English...In addition to reading it, we can ponder it and pray about it. As well as read the works of scholars.

The Bible was translated for a reason, and if it is flawed and in error as you've stated...the responsibility lies with your Deity.

Responsibility for the actions of men and women lies with the men and women who acted. There are some accounts of darned good people in the Bible (like Abraham and Moses) but they are flawed and responsible for their actions. Jesus, on the other hand, is held to be perfect (although Job is described as a "perfect man" and "upright" I don't believe it to mean perfect as Christ was).

 

[heretic888]

Something in particular piqued my interest here...

I believe that error began to creep in as the apostle's died. That by 300 AD there was a great/universal apostacy from the truth. I believe that Platonic {and other Greek} concepts of the metaphysical found their way into the church, replacing/revising concepts of the Hebrew God.

This is quite similar to an accusation that Protestant groups have traditionally lobbed at the Roman Catholic Church: that in the first few centuries following Christ's death, several Pagan ideas were imported into the Church and subsequently 'distorted' or 'warped' the original, pure teachings of the Son of God.

This, of course, is complete and utter bovine feces.

Paul's non-Pastoral letters are littered with Platonic and Orphic metaphysics and philosophy, as well as overt references and allusions to the Mysteries. These all date to before 80 CE. The Gospel of John is explicitly dependent on the Hellenistic principle known as the Logos, and its very first verse is a modification of a line from the Vedas. This gospel is generally dated to before 120 CE.

For that matter, most of the moral philosophy espoused by Christ in the four gospels often relies on Hellenistic ideals. Forsaking one's family and material possessions to take up the Way was an injunction first put forth by Pythagoras when he established the West's first monastery. Taking up the life of a wandering preacher draws back on the philosophy of the Stoics and Cynics. Prizing a celibate lifestyle to follow the Way was preached by Pythagoreanism and Mithraism.

All of the above, by contrast, is generally at odds with traditional Jewish teachings --- in which honoring family and material support for the community is very highly honored. And, by whatever standards, celibacy is certainly not something very cherished in the Old Testament. Nor is monogamy.

Most significantly, the entire doctrine of the Death and Resurrection of Christ --- as well as the ritualistic consumption of Christ's blood and flesh to achieve immortal life --- are ancient ideas in the Pagan world, dating as far back as the cult of Osiris in ancient Egypt. When Paul wrote of becoming one in Christ through a ritual of death and resurrection, there is little doubt that he believed himself to be establishing a Jewish version of the Pagan Mystery cults.

Early Church fathers like Clement of Alexandria referred to Christianity as "perfected Platonism". Justin Martyr and Augustine didn't bother trying to refute the obvious parallels their faith had to the Pagan Mysteries (in fact, they acknowledged them), but instead tried to explain it away with the ridiculous accusation of "diabolical mimicry".

C'mon. Let's be serious here.

laterz.

 

[heretic888]

i found this site
it looks pretty good
although it's not 100% accurate, but close enoough

Well, it can't be too accurate, considering it presumes a historical 'Jesus of Nazareth' actually existed in the first place!

Heh. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Laterz.

 

[mantis]

Oy vey! Now you're converting me. See Canuck's post if you don't believe me. *Tiger sighs*

In the wisdom of all your 23 years on this Earth, I must give you points for persistence. My younger son is your age and similarly convinced that he is correct on many levels.

[Why am I Kenpo Tiger? In kenpo, which is a first cousin to kung fu, the tiger is the manifestation of corporeal strength, and represents the Earthly being in us all. The dragon is the ethereal or cerebral state we all strive for in martial arts. I choose to be recognized as the tiger since I am always learning, despite my time in in martial arts and my rank.]

So, you're stating that I should consult a Moslem about the Old Testament. You are partially correct, since there are various anecdotal stories about Ishmael being a fallen Jew as well as Africans who believe that they are the Lost Thirteenth Tribe. But why would I want to consult a Moslem? True, their belief system seems to be similar to ours, but Jews don't believe in Allah as the manifestation of the Divine Being nor do we believe that there is an afterlife, as Moslems seem to. Judaism is a religion for the living. The Torah is our set of guidelines for life. Indeed, when a Jew dies, the service is all about those who are still alive keeping the deceased alive: "They still live on Earth in the acts of goodness they performed and in the hearts of those who cherish their memory. May the G-d of peace send peace to all who mourn and comfort the bereaved among us. Amen." That is from the Mourners' Kaddish, the prayer said for the dead at every service I've attended in my half century on this earth. It is said not only for one's relations who have passed on but also for the six million so that they are remembered.

jews and christians do believe in Allah as much as muslims. Allah is the arabic-term for God!!
palestinian, egyptian, syrian, iraqi jews and christians do not use the word "God"
I did say consult a muslim, but I also said consult a jew! (even though I think you are one now!) so why emphasize the muslim?! also, what is wrong with consulting a muslim?!
I did not say consult with them about the old testament. I said consult with them about Abraham's and David's scriptures!
Umm.. Actually muslim believe Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob were NOT jewish since Judaism came after them, when Moses came.

well, this discussion is starting to go in a loop. You asked me what the old testament is? i say i believe it "was", at some point specificially at the point of revelation, the words of God as well.
Last thing, could you please explain the "living" part of your answer. I did not understand the concept nor did i understand the quote. thank you

 

[mantis]

Well, it can't be too accurate, considering it presumes a historical 'Jesus of Nazareth' actually existed in the first place!

Heh. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Laterz.

okay, not accurate. but is it good enough to expand the small boxes people imprison their minds within?

 

[heretic888]

Herry - here's one for you.

Um, okay.

Could it be that the belief in the resurrection of Christ was extrapolated from this concept? It would seem so upon casual examination.

I wouldn't be so bold as to presume the Christian belief of resurrection came from any one source. Considering the relative popularity of Ezekiel and similar works during the intertestamental period, it seems quite probable this had a positive influence on Hellenistic Jewish communities such as the Essenes (situated in Qumran) and the Therapeutae (situated in Alexandria).

At the same time, however, it must be remembered that the mythology represented in Ezekiel and Isaiah has its own origins within the Persian religious complex, especially that of Zoroasterianism. Most likely, this profound influence took place during the so-called Babylonian Exile, when the Jewish people were strongly influenced by the astrology and philosophy of their foreign captors (re: 12 tribes correlated with 12 symbols of the Zodiac).

There are even some rather interesting Kabbalistic legends relating how Abraham actually founded astrology during the Exile --- ludicrous, mind you, but the legends are there.

In spite of this, it is also quite evident the Christian belief of resurrection also has its origins in distinctively non-Jewish sources. This seems especially likely, given that in his non-Pastoral (re: 'authentic') letters, Paul directly connects the resurrection of Christ with the resurrection of the Christian and describes it primarily as a spiritual event ("flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God") that has already happened to himself ("I have rose up to heaven in Christ, enthroned in his glory" and "I live no longer, but Christ lives in me"). By connecting the Resurrection with the Eucharist especially, we see the Osirian-Dionysian overtones with the consumption of the godman's blood and flesh to unite with him and thus attain to eternal life.

So, I'd have to agree with Freke and Gandy's 'Jesus Mysteries Thesis' here: Christianity was originally a Jewish adaptation of the Pagan Mysteries. It wasn't just one or the other.

If the righteous are rolling through subterranean channels to Ha-Eretz, what, exactly, might one interpret those to be? Hell?

Perhaps. The mythology isn't very well-developed even within Judaism, though, so it obviously isn't prominent enough to warrant further elaboration in later works.

I think Paul explains the context of 'hell' or 'eternal condemnation' he has in mind fairly well, if you divorce his writings from the Gospel accounts that were really developed decades after Paul had died. He repeatedly explains that his Christian brethren are "dead in sin" or their "bodies be dead". He isn't discussing this as if it is a future event, but as if it is a current condition they possess right now. Likewise with the resurrection, he explains it is a spiritual event that is happening right now.

This is obviously an echo of the Platonic doctrine that the physical body (or, rather, exclusive identification with a physical 'self') is the "tomb of the soul". In other words, you're in Hell right now. Congratulations.

I await your take on this. KT

I hope I satisfied your expectations, KT.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

jews and christians do believe in Allah as much as muslims. Allah is the arabic-term for God!!

Clarification time.

The Arabic Allah is derived from the Aramaic Alaha, which is derived from the Hebrew Elohim, which is derived from the Old Canaanite Alat or Elat. Ironically enough, Alat was a goddess.

Please read The Hidden Gospel: Decoding the Spiritual Message of the Aramaic Jesus by Neil Douglas-Klotz for more details.

You asked me what the old testament is? i say i believe it "was", at some point specificially at the point of revelation, the words of God as well.

Here's my take.

The Torah is a collection of the mythology, ethical precepts, wisdom teachings, and occassional history of a loosely-organized network of nomadic Semitic peoples that wandered Middle Eastern desert some 3,000 or so years ago. During the Bablyonian Exile, many of the 'modern' forms of the Torah were galvanized into the forms we are familiar with today.

The 'Old Testament', by contrast, is a Greek translation of the Torah that dates to the intertestamental period (roughly 200 BCE or so) and was explicitly designed to allow for the importation of Greek philosophical concepts into Judaism. As one scholar put it, the Greek translation of YHVH as 'I am that I am' effectively "Platonizes the Lord himself".

Laterz.

 

[mantis]

Clarification time.

The Arabic Allah is derived from the Aramaic Alaha, which is derived from the Hebrew Elohim, which is derived from the Old Canaanite Alat or Elat. Ironically enough, Alat was a goddess.

Please read The Hidden Gospel: Decoding the Spiritual Message of the Aramaic Jesus by Neil Douglas-Klotz for more details.



Here's my take.

The Torah is a collection of the mythology, ethical precepts, wisdom teachings, and occassional history of a loosely-organized network of nomadic Semitic peoples that wandered Middle Eastern desert some 3,000 or so years ago. During the Bablyonian Exile, many of the 'modern' forms of the Torah were galvanized into the forms we are familiar with today.

The 'Old Testament', by contrast, is a Greek translation of the Torah that dates to the intertestamental period (roughly 200 BCE or so) and was explicitly designed to allow for the importation of Greek philosophical concepts into Judaism. As one scholar put it, the Greek translation of YHVH as 'I am that I am' effectively "Platonizes the Lord himself".

Laterz.

first of all Arabic is older than Hebrew and the Hebrew word is derived from Arabic. Arabic was spoken before Ishmael got to the Makkah area.
second, i said it WAS at SOME POINT and i meant when it was revealed.
I dont know how much omission and changes happened to the Torah, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.
thank you..

 

[heretic888]

okay, not accurate. but is it good enough to expand the small boxes people imprison their minds within?

Ummm... if you want, sure.

Personally, I think that site is just parroting popular opinion about Jewish and Christian history and theology. But, that's just my perspective.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

first of all Arabic is older than Hebrew and the Hebrew word is derived from Arabic. Arabic was spoken before Ishmael got to the Makkah area.

Okay, let's step away from religious mythology for a minute here (we have no idea if 'Ishmael' even existed or not):

Wikipedia: Allah

Wikipedia: Elohim

Wikipedia: El

The authors of the above articles seem to attribute both 'Allah' and 'El' (whose plural form is 'Elohim') to proto-Semitic. I read nothing to indicate Arabic has precedence over Hebrew here. Rather, both languages seem to derive from proto-Semitic.

second, i said it WAS at SOME POINT and i meant when it was revealed.

The only basis for such a position is to invoke a fallacious Appeal To Authority or Appeal To Tradition. I'd prefer to avoid arguments that rest on such circular reasoning.

The Torah as it currently exists is acknowledged by most scholars as being a product of post-Exile Jewish culture. Perhaps the most well-accepted explanation among academia is the so-called 'documentary hypothesis', in which the Torah is viewed as a sort of cut-and-paste amalgamation of five different, pre-existing sources rather than a single source and author. This helps to explain the different names and terms applied to 'God' in the books of the Torah.

I dont know how much omission and changes happened to the Torah, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Yeah, that's the great thing about reading books. You can actually learn new things.

Laterz.

 

[7starmantis]

Without a supposition of his being cut down, or the rope having broken, that is an absurdity. Without specific reference from Acts to the hanging mentioned in Matthew there is a very clear contradiction. I find it far easier to accept that there were two--if not more--separate accounts of Judas' death circulating throughout the Roman world in the various Christian sects of that day. These two managed to get into the Christian canon in spite of their discordance.

C'mon, your simply arguing for the sake of arguing now. Are you suggesting that he is still hanging there? Now because you say it, it is so? This is yet another appeal to authority. If one story in the bible doesn't quote verbatim other stories in the bible, there are contradictions? I'm having a hard time even following your thought process here.
Because you find something easier to accept, doesn't mean its so. You accept what you like, but its clear your accepting what you like and then (after your accpetance) attempting to prove its relevence or truth.

So you've stated there is an "ommission," and then backed off of the omission supposition, and are now back to it. Round and round we go.

Argumentative much? I never backed off anything, I simply explained to you that what you understood me as was wrong, and I clearified.

You're suggesting that one must adopt the "understanding" of a believer and discount objective interpretations--and contrary subjective intepretations, are you not? As I posted earlier in quoting Rober Ingersoll, divine scripture ought to be clear, rational, and perfect. A fifth grader indeed would be able to understand it if it were thus (and indeed, the child's soul hangs in the balance). As is, we must first be credulous and secondly accept an interpretation--or intepretations--that many can not due to their lack of credulity. We must believe in order to believe.

Again, a horrible misquote. I said nothing of the kind. I said your arguing against a "believer" outside of the context of "believers". Its painfully obvious. Your holding "believers" to your own skewed label of what a "believer" should do or believe. I'm not arguing that believers are inerrant, but that the bible is.
The clearity of the bible to you is of no consequence in this discussion, sorry. Also, again you misquote the beliefs of "christians" or teachings of the bible. A soul doesn't not hang in the balance of understanding everything in the bible, thats precisely the problem we are having, you refuse to argue the bible from truth, but from yoru own beliefs on what the bible says or what believers should believe. The only thing the bible teaches that controls your soul is the belief that Jesus was the son of god and propitiation for your sins. Thats it. ARguing a point not shared by those debating you is pointless.

I am truly confident that the Bible has accounts in the Old Testament that provide a record of God authorizing, or directly taking a hand in, the slaughter of children...which refers to the original statement I made concerning the "record." Anyone who has actually read the Bible are aware of these atrocities, though you don't seem to be. I challenge you to openly refute this statement: God ordered the slaughter, or directly effected the slaughter, of children.

Ok, so: "I think the bible says this, anyone who reads the bible knows this, so you have to prove me wrong, because I said so". That drips of faulty logic and dodging issues. I've asked 3 times now and each time you refuse to state your case by saying its obvious, then you weaken your original statement (excluding the rape of women and children) and say anyone who reads the bible knows, and expect that to be taken seriously in a debate?

I'm holding inerrantists to the claim that the Bible is inerrant. If you think there is error in the translations, as you've clearly indicated above and below, then drop out of the discussion.

I guess once again we must abide by your rules of what "The Bible" is defined as, right? Your holding standards so that you cannot be proven wrong. Differences from one version to the next are simply the education, experience, and knowldge of the translators, not the words of god. I can't believe your even trying to argue this point. What I'm saying is that without study of original texts, one must accept others own views on translation....that leave quite a bit of room for error. I didn't say there were errors per se, just room for many. You can't know if there are errors or not without studying the original texts anyway.

At which point in history did error begin to creep in? God didn't anticipate the spreading of the Gospel to non-Greek reading populations? We should accept only Greek and Hebrew versions of scripture, thus disallowing the work of the scholars who have interpreted the NIV and other versions I've mentioned?

Argumentative, see above.

You have made an appeal to authority here...yours...in suggesting I don't really understand scripture because I've only read it in English. Forgive me, but I don't accept your level of scholarship over that of the modern translators.

Argumentative, misquoting.

The Bible was translated for a reason, and if it is flawed and in error as you've stated...the responsibility lies with your Deity. He is supposed to be, after all, the ultimate editor of this work. One would think that if he's omnipotent he would set a higher standard for accuracy than the New York Times. As you've shown, he has not.

So I guess your the authority on placing blame now too eh? Who said he's the editor? I've only said creator of the work, author, not editor.
What "one" thinks is also of no consequence in this debate.

This is going nowhere, you refuse to look at factual evidence that might hurt your points. I refuse to allow you to twist and change this environment to suit your needs....I guess we should just disagree and move on.

7sm

 

[heretic888]

While I don't mean to interrupt you and Steve here, something caught my eye...

The only thing the bible teaches that controls your soul is the belief that Jesus was the son of god and propitiation for your sins. Thats it.

I would be very cautious when claiming the Bible only teaches X about anything. This is not only a sweeping absolutism about a work made up of several dozen different books and authors, but it can also be easily refuted (only one counter-example is needed to show an exception to the 'only X' hypothesis).

Also, as a matter of clarification, I personally don't subscribe to the position that this is the Bible's only position concerning the 'fate' of the soul. The non-Pastoral Paul by and large equates 'eternal salvation' with uniting with the Christ through a mystical experience of death and resurrection on the part of the individual. This paradigm is beyond the scope of merely believing any given metaphysical proposition.

Laterz.

 

[arnisador]

Arabic predates Hebrew? I need to see some more data on this.

 

[heretic888]

Arabic predates Hebrew? I need to see some more data on this.

You and me both.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Appeal to authority?

Not at all. It is a simple quote. Nowhere did I list Ingersoll's qualifications regarding that statement. Had I said "Ingersoll, the great (fill in the blank)" or something of that sort and used it as justification for support for the quote, it would have been appealing to Ingersoll's supposed (and presumably misplaced) authority.

It is not an appeal to authority to quote a person on the merits of the quotation alone--we call that simple attribution. Nor is it an appeal to authority if the person is in fact an authority on the topic in hand--PROVIDED--it isn't phrased thus: "So and so is an expert, thus he's correct." One can find often find other experts to refute "so and so."

If I cite a scholar to back a point, it is technically an appeal to authority if I don’t acknowledge that the topic is hotly debated and refuted by other scholars. If I appear to do that, point it out and I will then acknowledge the other scholars whose opinion bears mention—provided they truly merit it. That alone could spark a separate debate, I suppose.

That is profound.

That is simple circular reasoning, and one we’re occasionally asked to adopt in order to properly interpret the scriptures. When asked for proof, skeptics are often urged to “open their hearts to Jesus.” This requires belief. One has to believe in order to get evidence in order to believe.

As I recall, you are correct. Was it in Deuteronomy and was it the Philistines?

Thank you. I appreciate that you've read the accounts. Some here apparently have yet to do so.

Deuteronomy has some of the worst references to slaughters of children…but none regarding the Philistines.

Personally, I think translations into Native tongues is necessary.

I agree insofar as the translations…and would assume them to be adequate.

Responsibility for the actions of men and women lies with the men and women who acted. There are some accounts of darned good people in the Bible (like Abraham and Moses) but they are flawed and responsible for their actions.

I disagree, Ray.

Abraham marries Sarai (Sarah) his sister, in spite of God's later condemnation of incest. Sarai is unable to conceive, so she encourages Abraham to have sex with her handmaid, Hagar. He does so, and Hagar conceives (there go those traditional family values).

Abraham was set to slaughter his son at God's command as a test of his loyalty. Abraham lies to Abimelech, king of Gerar, and gives his wife over to the king out of fear for his own life. Not a brave man, Abraham.

Moses murders an Egyptian. He later is an accessory in God's slaying of the first born children of Egypt. When Aaron betrays the Lord, Moses orders him to slaughter the 3,000 Israelites who followed Aaron's orders (Moses doesn't punish Aaron for his role in the transgression).

Moses oversees the slaughter of the Amorite men, women and children. On Moses' orders his army kills all the men and male children as well as the married women of the Midianites. The Israelites take the girls and women for themselves. Moses leads his people to kill every last man, woman and child of Og and Heshbon...over three score cities were destroyed.

"And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain...."





Regards,


Steve

 

[mantis]

Okay, let's step away from religious mythology for a minute here (we have no idea if 'Ishmael' even existed or not):

Wikipedia: Allah

Wikipedia: Elohim

Wikipedia: El

The authors of the above articles seem to attribute both 'Allah' and 'El' (whose plural form is 'Elohim') to proto-Semitic. I read nothing to indicate Arabic has precedence over Hebrew here. Rather, both languages seem to derive from proto-Semitic.



The only basis for such a position is to invoke a fallacious Appeal To Authority or Appeal To Tradition. I'd prefer to avoid arguments that rest on such circular reasoning.

The Torah as it currently exists is acknowledged by most scholars as being a product of post-Exile Jewish culture. Perhaps the most well-accepted explanation among academia is the so-called 'documentary hypothesis', in which the Torah is viewed as a sort of cut-and-paste amalgamation of five different, pre-existing sources rather than a single source and author. This helps to explain the different names and terms applied to 'God' in the books of the Torah.



Yeah, that's the great thing about reading books. You can actually learn new things.

Laterz.

you know what.
I agree
you convinced me
(note that wikipedia is only an encyclopedia that gathers its info from people. so you should not really count on it all the time. but i accept for the sake of this discussion)

 

[arnisador]

I really like Wikipedia, but yes, one must be careful--it can be vandalized and get garbage info. in it.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Ok, so: "I think the bible says this, anyone who reads the bible knows this, so you have to prove me wrong, because I said so". That drips of faulty logic and dodging issues. I've asked 3 times now and each time you refuse to state your case by saying its obvious, then you weaken your original statement (excluding the rape of women and children) and say anyone who reads the bible knows, and expect that to be taken seriously in a debate?

This is silly. Open a Bible and read it. Start with the Pentateuch...no, skip Genesis and just move on to Exodus. Take it from there...work up through Joshua, then quit. Skip the Levitical laws, as that's always a kick, but not relevant. Skip the description of the Sanctuary and its little carved cherubim. Don't worry about family lines of descent.

Hell, if you need to just scan the damned thing and you'll come across the passages in question.

Or...goodness...use a search engine and a key word or two. That'll get you there. That'll get anybody there.

I gave some vague references above and in previous posts, 7Star...for the express purpose of watching you dance around this thing and scream for references. I have to confess I'm getting the biggest kick out of your infamiliarity with these allusions. it appears you don't know jack about the Old Testament accounts of the flight from Egypt, the 40 years in the wilderness, or the conquest of Canaan.

Get with it and start reading the Bible, okay?

Start with the books I mentioned above. Any language will do.

What I'm saying is that without study of original texts, one must accept others own views on translation....that leave quite a bit of room for error. I didn't say there were errors per se, just room for many. You can't know if there are errors or not without studying the original texts anyway.

My goodness. YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL TEXTS?

The world of Biblical archeology will reel.


Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

I would be very cautious when claiming the Bible only teaches X about anything. This is not only a sweeping absolutism about a work made up of several dozen different books and authors, but it can also be easily refuted (only one counter-example is needed to show an exception to the 'only X' hypothesis).

Also, as a matter of clarification, I personally don't subscribe to the position that this is the Bible's only position concerning the 'fate' of the soul. The non-Pastoral Paul by and large equates 'eternal salvation' with uniting with the Christ through a mystical experience of death and resurrection on the part of the individual. This paradigm is beyond the scope of merely believing any given metaphysical proposition.

Laterz.

Your right, however its the truth as far as "salvation" and "going to heaven" are concerned. Easily refuted is a subjective set of terms. Because it only takes one counter example doesn't mean its easy to make.

As far as the correctness of my statement, what your describing from Paul is right in line with what I said. You take Paul's writing on quite a bit of faith. Your making assumptions about what Paul is meaning, who influenced him, and the scope of what he is saying. Take his statements and validate them from scriptures around the rest of the bible. What he is speaking of ("mystical experience of death and resurrection") is his explination of "salvation". He is addressing a human being as a dual being, physical and spiritual. As well as "old" and "New". The death and resurection is in your will, not your physical body. This is easy enough to understand by searching other scriptures on the subject. To believe Paul is speaking of some kind of physical experience takes as much (if not more) faith on your part than it does believing he is speaking of a spiritual death and resurection.

Not at all. It is a simple quote. Nowhere did I list Ingersoll's qualifications regarding that statement. Had I said "Ingersoll, the great (fill in the blank)" or something of that sort and used it as justification for support for the quote, it would have been appealing to Ingersoll's supposed (and presumably misplaced) authority.

It is not an appeal to authority to quote a person on the merits of the quotation alone--we call that simple attribution. Nor is it an appeal to authority if the person is in fact an authority on the topic in hand--PROVIDED--it isn't phrased thus: "So and so is an expert, thus he's correct." One can find often find other experts to refute "so and so."

If I cite a scholar to back a point, it is technically an appeal to authority if I don’t acknowledge that the topic is hotly debated and refuted by other scholars. If I appear to do that, point it out and I will then acknowledge the other scholars whose opinion bears mention—provided they truly merit it. That alone could spark a separate debate, I suppose.

All of that is argumentative. You listed his refrence as a point of authority. The semantics of how you listed it are trite, its still a refrence that is quite arguable at best, but I'm glad you agree with that. You did however hold his work as authority when you argued that the bible would have to meet his standards of clearity.

This is silly. Open a Bible and read it. Start with the Pentateuch...no, skip Genesis and just move on to Exodus. Take it from there...work up through Joshua, then quit. Skip the Levitical laws, as that's always a kick, but not relevant. Skip the description of the Sanctuary and its little carved cherubim. Don't worry about family lines of descent.

Hell, if you need to just scan the damned thing and you'll come across the passages in question.

Or...goodness...use a search engine and a key word or two. That'll get you there. That'll get anybody there.

I gave some vague references above and in previous posts, 7Star...for the express purpose of watching you dance around this thing and scream for references. I have to confess I'm getting the biggest kick out of your infamiliarity with these allusions. it appears you don't know jack about the Old Testament accounts of the flight from Egypt, the 40 years in the wilderness, or the conquest of Canaan.

Get with it and start reading the Bible, okay?

Start with the books I mentioned above. Any language will do.

Wow, so now I am to assume that the passages I think about or find in my reading are the same ones you are refering to? I'm pretty sure that I know at least a few of the things your refering to (aside from the rape claim you made earlier up) but I didn't think I should put words into your mouth. If its too much work to provide base for your claim, then let it go and move on to another point.

Haha, this is laughable! Now you gave vague refrences on purpose to watch me sqirm! Thats hillarious. Your making huge assumptions at my knowledge of the bible from a simple request for sources of your arguements and points. Providing source for your points is not my job. If you can't or wont provide source, foget it and move on to another point, its pretty obvious to anyone reading that you either dont have enough to make your case or just can't remember where they are. Either way, take your own advice and try reading or using a search engine. Your refusal to post sources only proves that your here just to argue without giving a second thought to honest debate. That is called audiatur et altera pars. Its a fallacy of logic where you debate from an assumtpion that has not been presented.

Take Care, this is not discussion or debate. Your belief system is based on your own beliefs....anything that might contradict those beliefs is labeled incorrect or unprovable before even seeing the points.

My goodness. YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL TEXTS?

The world of Biblical archeology will reel.

Here we go people, another classic example of argumentative behavior to take the focus off my point. Because he can't (or wont) address my points or facts, he will find something within my post to pull out and make a big deal about...sort of like the strawman approach. I didn't say I had the original text written by the apostles, but that I have an original text new testament, which is a greek text. So to smoke screen my points, he must pull out something (out of context) and make a big deal about it....its not honest arguement or debate.

7sm