Discussion:
Historicity of the Bible (snicker)
Add Reply
Cloud Hobbit
2017-10-27 20:18:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible

The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.

Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.

Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]

Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copied – some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the earliest texts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less chance that the content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others.

A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]

The publication of James Hutton's Theory of the Earth in 1788 was an important development in the scientific revolution that would dethrone Genesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and prehistory. The first casualty was the Creation story itself, and by the early 19th century "no responsible scientist contended for the literal credibility of the Mosaic account of creation."[31] The battle between uniformitarianism and catastrophism kept the Flood alive in the emerging discipline, until Adam Sedgwick, the president of the Geological Society, publicly recanted his previous support in his 1831 presidential address:

We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[32]

All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[23]

In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that

if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[33]


has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]

In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that

[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]

Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.

Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]



Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]

The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]

He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]

So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]

But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]

[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
duke
2017-10-30 10:47:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.

In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
hypatiab7
2017-10-31 16:43:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
duke
2017-11-01 21:12:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
man out of Judaism and into Christianity.

Welcome to the Papacy.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-01 21:38:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.

Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.

Jury-rigged paganism to Judaism, then threw up His hands over that
mess and started all over with His Mark II attempt.

Any truly almighty God would have just <POOF!> created the finished
product. Perfect and impeccable from the beginning. No second
versions; no do overs.

Given that God initially set up shop with His Chosen People ... only to throw
that deal out and start all over again, I always wonder why Christians
don't think he'll do that yet again.

Only to them this time.

A2
Post by duke
Welcome to the Papacy.
Kevrob
2017-11-01 22:16:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Given that God initially set up shop with His Chosen People ... only to throw
that deal out and start all over again, I always wonder why Christians
don't think he'll do that yet again.
Only to them this time.
Oh, but they do. Jerusalem yields to Rome. Constantinople tales over
from Rome (but the RCC doesn't think it did,) then Byzantium fails to
endure, and Moscow becomes "the Third Rome." The Protestants declare
Rome to be corrupt, and the unified Church (western version, anyway)
shatters into thousands of fragments, each person able to read a bible
in the vernacular becoming, effectively, his own pope.

You could spend a lifetime figuring out which people, or sect, is
now Yahooey's chosen, except that the big Y is a myth, and almost
certainly there wasn't anybody there doing any choosing.

The rise of Islam scared the Christian church shitless. Some
theologians thought it was a parody version of their faith, concocted
by Old Scratch, meant to convince folks that Josh was just a human being,
if a prophet, and designed to outcompete JC's message. In some versions
the angel giving Mohammad a vision is actually in Satan's camp, providing
a distorted revelation.

Once the Xtians were down to a remnant, outnumbered and cornered,
the devil, masquerading as "Allah," takes over the world: antichrist.

Some fundamentalist Christians still don't agree that this "Allah" guy -
or "Ollie," as I like to call him - is the same ghod as Yahooey.
At best he's a distorted vision of ghod da fadda, at worst he's a
demon pretending to ghodhood. If some don't believe he exists at all,
I'd say they are right, and need to apply the same logic to the Trinity.

Kevin R
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-01 22:31:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Given that God initially set up shop with His Chosen People ... only to throw
that deal out and start all over again, I always wonder why Christians
don't think he'll do that yet again.
Only to them this time.
Oh, but they do. Jerusalem yields to Rome. Constantinople tales over
from Rome (but the RCC doesn't think it did,) then Byzantium fails to
endure, and Moscow becomes "the Third Rome." The Protestants declare
Rome to be corrupt, and the unified Church (western version, anyway)
shatters into thousands of fragments, each person able to read a bible
in the vernacular becoming, effectively, his own pope.
You could spend a lifetime figuring out which people, or sect, is
now Yahooey's chosen, except that the big Y is a myth, and almost
certainly there wasn't anybody there doing any choosing.
The rise of Islam scared the Christian church shitless. Some
theologians thought it was a parody version of their faith, concocted
by Old Scratch, meant to convince folks that Josh was just a human being,
if a prophet, and designed to outcompete JC's message. In some versions
the angel giving Mohammad a vision is actually in Satan's camp, providing
a distorted revelation.
Once the Xtians were down to a remnant, outnumbered and cornered,
the devil, masquerading as "Allah," takes over the world: antichrist.
Some fundamentalist Christians still don't agree that this "Allah" guy -
or "Ollie," as I like to call him - is the same ghod as Yahooey.
At best he's a distorted vision of ghod da fadda, at worst he's a
demon pretending to ghodhood. If some don't believe he exists at all,
I'd say they are right, and need to apply the same logic to the Trinity.
Kevin R
Heh! Very good.

a2
duke
2017-11-02 21:48:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Given that God initially set up shop with His Chosen People ... only to throw
that deal out and start all over again, I always wonder why Christians
don't think he'll do that yet again.
Only to them this time.
Oh, but they do. Jerusalem yields to Rome. Constantinople tales over
from Rome (but the RCC doesn't think it did,) then Byzantium fails to
endure, and Moscow becomes "the Third Rome." The Protestants declare
Rome to be corrupt, and the unified Church (western version, anyway)
shatters into thousands of fragments, each person able to read a bible
in the vernacular becoming, effectively, his own pope.
You could spend a lifetime figuring out which people, or sect, is
now Yahooey's chosen, except that the big Y is a myth, and almost
certainly there wasn't anybody there doing any choosing.
The rise of Islam scared the Christian church shitless. Some
theologians thought it was a parody version of their faith, concocted
by Old Scratch, meant to convince folks that Josh was just a human being,
if a prophet, and designed to outcompete JC's message. In some versions
the angel giving Mohammad a vision is actually in Satan's camp, providing
a distorted revelation.
Once the Xtians were down to a remnant, outnumbered and cornered,
the devil, masquerading as "Allah," takes over the world: antichrist.
To be squished.
Post by Kevrob
Some fundamentalist Christians still don't agree that this "Allah" guy -
or "Ollie," as I like to call him - is the same ghod as Yahooey.
At best he's a distorted vision of ghod da fadda,
The muslims are one of 3 faiths that call Abraham as Father of their faith.
Jesus Christ is seen by them as a wise man but not the Son of God.

You been baptized, atl?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
duke
2017-11-02 21:45:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Jury-rigged paganism to Judaism, then threw up His hands over that
mess and started all over with His Mark II attempt.
Any truly almighty God would have just <POOF!> created the finished
product. Perfect and impeccable from the beginning. No second
versions; no do overs.
God let man develop spiritually. The cell phone didn't work at all in the
beginning.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Given that God initially set up shop with His Chosen People ... only to throw
that deal out and start all over again, I always wonder why Christians
don't think he'll do that yet again.
He didn't start all over. The Hebrew OT is still in play for them. And the ones
that wanted to move to the next level in Christianity submitted to baptism.

Uh............... you were baptized, weren't you?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-03 02:05:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.

An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
to design the International Space Station.

If your God could not, then he's less than "almighty".

A2
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Jury-rigged paganism to Judaism, then threw up His hands over that
mess and started all over with His Mark II attempt.
Any truly almighty God would have just <POOF!> created the finished
product. Perfect and impeccable from the beginning. No second
versions; no do overs.
God let man develop spiritually. The cell phone didn't work at all in the
beginning.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Given that God initially set up shop with His Chosen People ... only to throw
that deal out and start all over again, I always wonder why Christians
don't think he'll do that yet again.
He didn't start all over. The Hebrew OT is still in play for them. And the ones
that wanted to move to the next level in Christianity submitted to baptism.
Uh............... you were baptized, weren't you?
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****
duke
2017-11-03 17:50:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
to design the International Space Station.
God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.


the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-03 18:52:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> >.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
.> >An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
.> >to design the International Space Station.
.> God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.

Oh yeah? Then why didn't He skip all that business with
kashrut and 613 mitzvot and killing mouthy teenagers and
get straight to the salvation bit?



A2
Jeanne Douglas
2017-11-04 03:21:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> >.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
.> >An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
.> >to design the International Space Station.
.> God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
How can a fictional god-thing save a fictional concept--"soul"?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Oh yeah? Then why didn't He skip all that business with
kashrut and 613 mitzvot and killing mouthy teenagers and
get straight to the salvation bit?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Ted
2017-11-04 11:01:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's
"acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old
Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the
historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> >.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
.> >An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
.> >to design the International Space Station.
.> God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
How can a fictional god-thing save a fictional concept--"soul"?
With the fictional SoulSaver® he purchased from Acme, inc.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-11-05 01:34:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's
"acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old
Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the
historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> >.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
.> >An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
.> >to design the International Space Station.
.> God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
How can a fictional god-thing save a fictional concept--"soul"?
With the fictional SoulSaver® he purchased from Acme, inc.
LOL.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Smiler
2017-11-06 02:09:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's
"acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates
to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question
of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the
historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from
multiple sources regarding God's move to Christianity. It is
then heavily supported by other documents sent out to the
expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings
regarding the start of the Hebrew faith with growth in the
physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings, etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith.
You have no .> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and
into Judaism, and then bringing .> man out of Judaism and into
Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> >.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
.> >An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man .>
Post by duke
to design the International Space Station.
.> God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
How can a fictional god-thing save a fictional concept--"soul"?
With the fictional SoulSaver® he purchased from Acme, inc.
But Acme Inc. products _never_ work as intended and are Health and Safety
risks. Just ask Wile E Coyote.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-04 17:30:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> >.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
.> >An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
.> >to design the International Space Station.
.> > .> God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.


.> How can a fictional god-thing save a fictional concept--"soul"?

And even if it weren't fictional, the whole "salvation of our souls"
business is a complete mess. Any halfway decent human father
just says "Kid, you fucked up, but you're just human -- believe me,
I understand, and I forgive you." This is nothing less than true love in action.

But this alleged God thing, oh no -- He is incapable of simply
saying "Hey, I get it, and I forgive you". Instead He has to come up with some
elaborate contraption whereby He arranges to have some part of Himself tortured
and killed horribly as a sacrifice of Himself to Himself in order
to overcome His wrath for our having turned out the way He
designed us to be in the first place.

And even given all that rigamarole, humans still have to buy
into the whole deal, otherwise God -- who they tell us, is love --
will fling His own human children into eternal torture.

God a l m o s t got it right back after that whole Flood debacle
(you know, where He drowned all the world's children and babies
and babies in the womb, not to mention all the animals) -- after
the Flood He had second thoughts, saying that humans are
basically what they are, and they can't help themselves, and so
He is never going to commit *that* disaster again. But no,
apparently His memory is short and He just forgot that
momentary flash of insight.

Yeah, give me the good human father any time. The
human father practices simple and perfect love,
no killing, no blood, no torture needed.


AtlAxo
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Oh yeah? Then why didn't He skip all that business with
kashrut and 613 mitzvot and killing mouthy teenagers and
get straight to the salvation bit?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-11-04 16:53:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> >.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
.> >An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
.> >to design the International Space Station.
.> God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
Oh yeah? Then why didn't He skip all that business with
kashrut and 613 mitzvot and killing mouthy teenagers and
get straight to the salvation bit?
That's like asking why didn't God start with teaching the cave man about Jesus.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-04 17:09:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> >.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
.> >An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
.> >to design the International Space Station.
.> >.> God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.

.> >Oh yeah? Then why didn't He skip all that business with
.> >kashrut and 613 mitzvot and killing mouthy teenagers and
.> >get straight to the salvation bit?
.> That's like asking why didn't God start with teaching the cave man about Jesus.

Exactly.

So why not?


aa
Ted
2017-11-04 17:37:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's
"acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old
Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the
historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> >.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
.> >An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
.> >to design the International Space Station.
.> >.> God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
.> >Oh yeah? Then why didn't He skip all that business with
.> >kashrut and 613 mitzvot and killing mouthy teenagers and
.> >get straight to the salvation bit?
.> That's like asking why didn't God start with teaching the cave man about Jesus.
Exactly.
So why not?
aa
Because God chose not to lie to them. They made up their bullshit stories
all by themselves.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-04 17:46:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's
"acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old
Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the
historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> >.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
.> >An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
.> >to design the International Space Station.
.> >.> God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
.> >Oh yeah? Then why didn't He skip all that business with
.> >kashrut and 613 mitzvot and killing mouthy teenagers and
.> >get straight to the salvation bit?
.> > .> That's like asking why didn't God start with teaching the cave man about Jesus.
.> > Exactly.
.> > So why not?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
aa
.> Because God chose not to lie to them. They made up their bullshit stories
.> all by themselves.


Yep, that's the excuse Earl uses: the more horrible and bloody parts are
because the mere humans who set down the Old Testament often
got it garbled.

Which if true would lead any honest person to concede that:

-- God's pretty sloppy, because in spite of his alleged almightyness,
he couldn't figure out a way to get them to get it right.

-- Any and all parts of the Old Testament are questionable, up to
and including the Ten Commandments.

-- If God couldn't get humans to get the Old Testament right, there's no
reason to believe the New Testament is any less riddled with errors.

Of course that's mere logic, and mere logic has no power over Earl's pontifications.


AA
Ted
2017-11-04 18:29:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's
"acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old
Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the
historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> >.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
.> >An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
.> >to design the International Space Station.
.> >.> God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
.> >Oh yeah? Then why didn't He skip all that business with
.> >kashrut and 613 mitzvot and killing mouthy teenagers and
.> >get straight to the salvation bit?
.> > .> That's like asking why didn't God start with teaching the cave man about Jesus.
.> > Exactly.
.> > So why not?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
aa
.> Because God chose not to lie to them. They made up their bullshit stories
.> all by themselves.
Yep, that's the excuse Earl uses: the more horrible and bloody parts are
because the mere humans who set down the Old Testament often
got it garbled.
-- God's pretty sloppy, because in spite of his alleged almightyness,
he couldn't figure out a way to get them to get it right.
-- Any and all parts of the Old Testament are questionable, up to
and including the Ten Commandments.
-- If God couldn't get humans to get the Old Testament right, there's no
reason to believe the New Testament is any less riddled with errors.
Of course that's mere logic, and mere logic has no power over Earl's pontifications.
AA
That's because logic aptitude and IQ are closely related.
Siri Cruise
2017-11-04 19:01:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
least one 'I told you so.'
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-04 19:34:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
.> Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
.> least one 'I told you so.'

Lousy proofreading.

Also, the writers of the gospels had never heard of Cheknov's gun. Sloppy sloppy.


Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Siri Cruise
--
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed
Ted
2017-11-04 20:00:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
.> Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
.> least one 'I told you so.'
Lousy proofreading.
Also, the writers of the gospels had never heard of Cheknov's gun. Sloppy sloppy.
Atlatl Axolotl
Neither had I (so I googled it). Thanks.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-11-04 20:13:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I knew about it being sound literary practice, I just never knew it had a name.

Learn something new every day.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-04 20:22:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
.> Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
.> least one 'I told you so.'
Lousy proofreading.
.> >Also, the writers of the gospels had never heard of Cheknov's gun. Sloppy sloppy.
.> >Atlatl Axolotl
.> Neither had I (so I googled it). Thanks.

That's because, unlike someone who will remain nameless (Duke),
you're curious about things.

Here's one of my favorite sites. WARNING -- if you give in to the temptation
to start clicking on links, you may never be heard from again.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun


Atl
hleopold
2017-11-04 21:18:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction
of the
.> Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would
expect at
.> least one 'I told you so.'
Lousy proofreading.
.> >Also, the writers of the gospels had never heard of Cheknov's gun.
Sloppy sloppy.
.> >Atlatl Axolotl
.> Neither had I (so I googled it). Thanks.
That's because, unlike someone who will remain nameless (Duke),
you're curious about things.
Here's one of my favorite sites. WARNING -- if you give in to the temptation
to start clicking on links, you may never be heard from again.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun
Atl
You are truly an evil man (I am assuming you are male?), to send a friend
into those dark forests of twisty trails. Many have ventured there, only a
few have escaped.

Being one of those fortunate few, I tread carefully there and use a proper
link to the outside world, a thread, and limit my time on those terrible
trails.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

“The universe is bigger than me. It doesn't care about me. That's fine -
because I care about me. I'd like to continue to do the things I do, and to
do other things as well. So these things will eventually end. It still
matters to me that they happen. The realization that life belongs to me, and
not to some god or some minister, and that I could decide what to make of it
- that was a truly liberating moment for me.“-Eyelessgame
Ted
2017-11-04 22:22:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hleopold
Post by Ted
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction
of the
.> Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would
expect at
.> least one 'I told you so.'
Lousy proofreading.
.> >Also, the writers of the gospels had never heard of Cheknov's gun.
Sloppy sloppy.
.> >Atlatl Axolotl
.> Neither had I (so I googled it). Thanks.
That's because, unlike someone who will remain nameless (Duke),
you're curious about things.
Here's one of my favorite sites. WARNING -- if you give in to the temptation
to start clicking on links, you may never be heard from again.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun
Atl
You are truly an evil man (I am assuming you are male?), to send a friend
into those dark forests of twisty trails. Many have ventured there, only a
few have escaped.
Being one of those fortunate few, I tread carefully there and use a proper
link to the outside world, a thread, and limit my time on those terrible
trails.
I can already see what Harry means. That's a fun website. :)
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-05 00:41:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hleopold
Post by Ted
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction
of the
.> Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would
expect at
.> least one 'I told you so.'
Lousy proofreading.
.> >Also, the writers of the gospels had never heard of Cheknov's gun.
Sloppy sloppy.
.> >Atlatl Axolotl
.> Neither had I (so I googled it). Thanks.
That's because, unlike someone who will remain nameless (Duke),
you're curious about things.
Here's one of my favorite sites. WARNING -- if you give in to the temptation
to start clicking on links, you may never be heard from again.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun
Atl
.> You are truly an evil man (I am assuming you are male?),

I is, I is...

.>to send a friend
.> into those dark forests of twisty trails. Many have ventured there, only a
.> few have escaped.
.> Being one of those fortunate few, I tread carefully there and use a proper
.> link to the outside world, a thread, and limit my time on those terrible
.> trails.

It is indeed a ginormous time suck, and I say that as someone who's
pretty ignorant of most pop culture. If someone were a real film, comic,
TV, and game nut, frankly I can't them ever finding their way back
out again.


Atl
Post by hleopold
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)
“The universe is bigger than me. It doesn't care about me. That's fine -
because I care about me. I'd like to continue to do the things I do, and to
do other things as well. So these things will eventually end. It still
matters to me that they happen. The realization that life belongs to me, and
not to some god or some minister, and that I could decide what to make of it
- that was a truly liberating moment for me.“-Eyelessgame
hleopold
2017-11-05 07:14:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction
of the
.> Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would
expect at
.> least one 'I told you so.'
Lousy proofreading.
.> >Also, the writers of the gospels had never heard of Cheknov's gun.
Sloppy sloppy.
.> >Atlatl Axolotl
.> Neither had I (so I googled it). Thanks.
That's because, unlike someone who will remain nameless (Duke),
you're curious about things.
Here's one of my favorite sites. WARNING -- if you give in to the temptation
to start clicking on links, you may never be heard from again.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun
Atl
.> You are truly an evil man (I am assuming you are male?),
I is, I is...
.>to send a friend
.> into those dark forests of twisty trails. Many have ventured there, only a
.> few have escaped.
.> Being one of those fortunate few, I tread carefully there and use a proper
.> link to the outside world, a thread, and limit my time on those terrible
.> trails.
It is indeed a ginormous time suck, and I say that as someone who's
pretty ignorant of most pop culture. If someone were a real film, comic,
TV, and game nut, frankly I can't them ever finding their way back
out again.
Atl
I like webcomics, and many times I find myself at ol’ TVTropes. Going down
the twisty trails is inevitable. Getting lost is easy. So I always try to set
a time-limit on how long I wander (and hardly ever follow it, damn it).
Fortunately the cat will drag me out sooner or later. Nothing like a large
cat landing in your lap to get your undivided attention.

“Feed me, Pet me, Pay attention to me mere human.”
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

“Damn! I never expected to see this place be armpit-deep in wombats. Kinda
cute as long as you don't move, or breath. ;-)
duke
2017-11-05 16:35:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 17:41:18 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction
of the
.> Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would
expect at
.> least one 'I told you so.'
Lousy proofreading.
.> >Also, the writers of the gospels had never heard of Cheknov's gun.
Sloppy sloppy.
.> >Atlatl Axolotl
.> Neither had I (so I googled it). Thanks.
That's because, unlike someone who will remain nameless (Duke),
you're curious about things.
Here's one of my favorite sites. WARNING -- if you give in to the temptation
to start clicking on links, you may never be heard from again.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun
Atl
.> You are truly an evil man (I am assuming you are male?),
I is, I is...
.>to send a friend
.> into those dark forests of twisty trails. Many have ventured there, only a
.> few have escaped.
.> Being one of those fortunate few, I tread carefully there and use a proper
.> link to the outside world, a thread, and limit my time on those terrible
.> trails.
It is indeed a ginormous time suck, and I say that as someone who's
pretty ignorant of most pop culture. If someone were a real film, comic,
TV, and game nut, frankly I can't them ever finding their way back
out again.
Look at that. This dumbass can't even hold a brief discussion on scripture
without turning to the comic books.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
duke
2017-11-05 16:33:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hleopold
Post by Ted
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction
of the
.> Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would
expect at
.> least one 'I told you so.'
Lousy proofreading.
.> >Also, the writers of the gospels had never heard of Cheknov's gun.
Sloppy sloppy.
.> >Atlatl Axolotl
.> Neither had I (so I googled it). Thanks.
That's because, unlike someone who will remain nameless (Duke),
you're curious about things.
Here's one of my favorite sites. WARNING -- if you give in to the temptation
to start clicking on links, you may never be heard from again.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun
Atl
You are truly an evil man (I am assuming you are male?), to send a friend
into those dark forests of twisty trails. Many have ventured there, only a
few have escaped.
A male, but a man - ?????

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Ted
2017-11-04 21:41:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
.> Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
.> least one 'I told you so.'
Lousy proofreading.
.> >Also, the writers of the gospels had never heard of Cheknov's gun. Sloppy sloppy.
.> >Atlatl Axolotl
.> Neither had I (so I googled it). Thanks.
That's because, unlike someone who will remain nameless (Duke),
you're curious about things.
LOL.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Here's one of my favorite sites. WARNING -- if you give in to the temptation
to start clicking on links, you may never be heard from again.
I can see why it's one of your favorites! Thanks for cluing me in to it. :)
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun
Atl
duke
2017-11-05 16:32:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 13:22:19 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
.> Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
.> least one 'I told you so.'
Lousy proofreading.
.> >Also, the writers of the gospels had never heard of Cheknov's gun. Sloppy sloppy.
.> >Atlatl Axolotl
.> Neither had I (so I googled it). Thanks.
That's because, unlike someone who will remain nameless (Duke),
you're curious about things.
Hell, I'm WAAAAY ahead of you.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Here's one of my favorite sites. WARNING -- if you give in to the temptation
to start clicking on links, you may never be heard from again.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Don Martin
2017-11-04 21:22:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
.> Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
.> least one 'I told you so.'
Lousy proofreading.
Also, the writers of the gospels had never heard of Cheknov's gun. Sloppy sloppy.
Considering that the omniscient being supposedly inspiring them
_would_ have known of Chekov's gun, it is probably all its fault.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
duke
2017-11-05 16:31:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
.> Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
.> least one 'I told you so.'
Lousy proofreading.
Also, the writers of the gospels had never heard of Cheknov's gun. Sloppy sloppy.
Dumbass.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Atlatl Axolotl
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
duke
2017-11-05 16:30:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
least one 'I told you so.'
The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
reflect what was known to the authors.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Tim
2017-11-05 16:42:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
least one 'I told you so.'
The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
reflect what was known to the authors.
Nope, they were written circa 70, 80, and 90 AD. And at best they reflect the authors's beliefs.
v***@gmail.com
2017-11-05 20:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
least one 'I told you so.'
The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
reflect what was known to the authors.
Nope, they were written circa 70, 80, and 90 AD. And at best they reflect the authors's beliefs.
Of course, you have no evidence at all to support this claim.......
Tim
2017-11-06 03:41:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
least one 'I told you so.'
The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
reflect what was known to the authors.
Nope, they were written circa 70, 80, and 90 AD. And at best they reflect the authors's beliefs.
Of course, you have no evidence at all to support this claim.......
Show us the evidence that contradicts my claim. Of course you can't; just like you can't prove you were in the navy, you lying sack of shit.
%
2017-11-06 03:49:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
least one 'I told you so.'
The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
reflect what was known to the authors.
Nope, they were written circa 70, 80, and 90 AD. And at best they reflect the authors's beliefs.
Of course, you have no evidence at all to support this claim.......
Show us the evidence that contradicts my claim. Of course you can't; just like you can't prove you were in the navy, you lying sack of shit.
have you ever had a hapa that didn't tiab your 7
Siri Cruise
2017-11-06 05:39:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Nope, they were written circa 70, 80, and 90 AD. And at best they reflect
the authors's beliefs.
Of course, you have no evidence at all to support this claim.......
Show us the evidence that contradicts my claim. Of course you can't; just
like you can't prove you were in the navy, you lying sack of shit.
Your explanation why the synoptic gospels and Acts predict the Temple's
destruction without mentionning its own fulfillment is they were using a
literary tradition two thousand years before it was invented.

Okay.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed
Tim
2017-11-06 06:29:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Nope, they were written circa 70, 80, and 90 AD. And at best they reflect
the authors's beliefs.
Of course, you have no evidence at all to support this claim.......
Show us the evidence that contradicts my claim. Of course you can't; just
like you can't prove you were in the navy, you lying sack of shit.
Your explanation why the synoptic gospels and Acts predict the Temple's
destruction without mentionning its own fulfillment is they were using a
literary tradition two thousand years before it was invented.
Okay.
No. I said no such thing. You should learn how to read.
Kevrob
2017-11-06 04:26:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by duke
The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
reflect what was known to the authors.
Nope, they were written circa 70, 80, and 90 AD. And at best they reflect the authors's beliefs.
Of course, you have no evidence at all to support this claim.......
[quote]

The four gospels of the New Testament — Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John — are almost our only source of information on Jesus, and thus
occupy a uniquely important place in Christianity. They were all written
in the period between c. 70 AD and the end of the 1st century, by
anonymous authors, and stand at the end of a process of oral and
written tradition that began on, or even before, the death of Jesus.

[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

There's the distinction between when they were composed,
in oral form, and when they were committed to ...papyrus?
Scholarly consensus puts that in the late 1st century C.E.,
but the earliest documentary fragment to survive is from
the 2nd century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manuscripts

As in the children's game of "telephone,"* who knows what
accretions from the originals are contained in what has come
down to us? The believers depend on their ghod inspiring
the authors to get it right, but as far as proving anything
to non-believers, that's a circular argument.

Kevin R

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-06 05:01:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by duke
The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
reflect what was known to the authors.
Nope, they were written circa 70, 80, and 90 AD. And at best they reflect the authors's beliefs.
Of course, you have no evidence at all to support this claim.......
[quote]
The four gospels of the New Testament — Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John — are almost our only source of information on Jesus, and thus
occupy a uniquely important place in Christianity. They were all written
in the period between c. 70 AD and the end of the 1st century, by
anonymous authors, and stand at the end of a process of oral and
written tradition that began on, or even before, the death of Jesus.
[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
There's the distinction between when they were composed,
in oral form, and when they were committed to ...papyrus?
Scholarly consensus puts that in the late 1st century C.E.,
but the earliest documentary fragment to survive is from
the 2nd century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manuscripts
.> As in the children's game of "telephone,"* who knows what
.> accretions from the originals are contained in what has come
.> down to us? The believers depend on their ghod inspiring
.> the authors to get it right, but as far as proving anything
.> to non-believers, that's a circular argument.

There's another approach: the parts Earl likes are genuine,
the ones he doesn't care for are due to man's bumbling.


A2
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers
duke
2017-11-06 13:32:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 21:01:53 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by duke
The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
reflect what was known to the authors.
Nope, they were written circa 70, 80, and 90 AD. And at best they reflect the authors's beliefs.
Of course, you have no evidence at all to support this claim.......
[quote]
The four gospels of the New Testament — Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John — are almost our only source of information on Jesus, and thus
occupy a uniquely important place in Christianity. They were all written
in the period between c. 70 AD and the end of the 1st century, by
anonymous authors, and stand at the end of a process of oral and
written tradition that began on, or even before, the death of Jesus.
[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
There's the distinction between when they were composed,
in oral form, and when they were committed to ...papyrus?
Scholarly consensus puts that in the late 1st century C.E.,
but the earliest documentary fragment to survive is from
the 2nd century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manuscripts
.> As in the children's game of "telephone,"* who knows what
.> accretions from the originals are contained in what has come
.> down to us? The believers depend on their ghod inspiring
.> the authors to get it right, but as far as proving anything
.> to non-believers, that's a circular argument.
There's another approach: the parts Earl likes are genuine,
the ones he doesn't care for are due to man's bumbling.
The parts that the dukester really likes are the regular presentations at Holy
Mass over the centuries. It's the spiritual message and not the physical basis
of the stories that are the ones of value.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-06 14:50:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 21:01:53 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by duke
The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
reflect what was known to the authors.
Nope, they were written circa 70, 80, and 90 AD. And at best they reflect the authors's beliefs.
Of course, you have no evidence at all to support this claim.......
[quote]
The four gospels of the New Testament — Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John — are almost our only source of information on Jesus, and thus
occupy a uniquely important place in Christianity. They were all written
in the period between c. 70 AD and the end of the 1st century, by
anonymous authors, and stand at the end of a process of oral and
written tradition that began on, or even before, the death of Jesus.
[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
There's the distinction between when they were composed,
in oral form, and when they were committed to ...papyrus?
Scholarly consensus puts that in the late 1st century C.E.,
but the earliest documentary fragment to survive is from
the 2nd century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manuscripts
.> >.> As in the children's game of "telephone,"* who knows what
.> >.> accretions from the originals are contained in what has come
.> >.> down to us? The believers depend on their ghod inspiring
.> >.> the authors to get it right, but as far as proving anything
.> >.> to non-believers, that's a circular argument.
.> >There's another approach: the parts Earl likes are genuine,
.> >the ones he doesn't care for are due to man's bumbling.
.> The parts that the dukester really likes are the regular presentations at Holy
.> Mass over the centuries. It's the spiritual message and not the physical basis
.> of the stories that are the ones of value.

So it doesn't matter if they're actually true or not, only if they're
uplifting and make you feel good?

Actually I don't entirely disagree with that sentiment, as long
as everyone understands it.

The same thing could be said of uplifting cartoons that make you
feel good too, like "Zootopia" and "Frozen" and "Moana" -- you
don't have to believe they actually happened to take away
their important messages.


A2
duke
2017-11-06 13:30:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by duke
The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
reflect what was known to the authors.
Nope, they were written circa 70, 80, and 90 AD. And at best they reflect the authors's beliefs.
Of course, you have no evidence at all to support this claim.......
[quote]
The four gospels of the New Testament — Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John — are almost our only source of information on Jesus, and thus
occupy a uniquely important place in Christianity. They were all written
in the period between c. 70 AD
Yet the information came form years long preceding the formal documentation.

and the end of the 1st century, by
Post by Kevrob
anonymous authors, and stand at the end of a process of oral and
written tradition that began on, or even before, the death of Jesus.
[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
There's the distinction between when they were composed,
in oral form, and when they were committed to ...papyrus?
Yep.
Post by Kevrob
Scholarly consensus puts that in the late 1st century C.E.,
but the earliest documentary fragment to survive is from
the 2nd century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manuscripts
As in the children's game of "telephone,"* who knows what
accretions from the originals are contained in what has come
down to us? The believers depend on their ghod inspiring
the authors to get it right, but as far as proving anything
to non-believers, that's a circular argument.
The canonization of the 4 books were certification the accuracy of the spiritual
message of Jesus Christ.
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Kevrob
2017-11-06 21:32:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by duke
The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
reflect what was known to the authors.
Nope, they were written circa 70, 80, and 90 AD. And at best they reflect the authors's beliefs.
Of course, you have no evidence at all to support this claim.......
[quote]
The four gospels of the New Testament — Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John — are almost our only source of information on Jesus, and thus
occupy a uniquely important place in Christianity. They were all written
in the period between c. 70 AD
Yet the information came form years long preceding the formal documentation.
and the end of the 1st century, by
Post by Kevrob
anonymous authors, and stand at the end of a process of oral and
written tradition that began on, or even before, the death of Jesus.
[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
There's the distinction between when they were composed,
in oral form, and when they were committed to ...papyrus?
Yep.
Post by Kevrob
Scholarly consensus puts that in the late 1st century C.E.,
but the earliest documentary fragment to survive is from
the 2nd century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manuscripts
As in the children's game of "telephone,"* who knows what
accretions from the originals are contained in what has come
down to us? The believers depend on their ghod inspiring
the authors to get it right, but as far as proving anything
to non-believers, that's a circular argument.
The canonization of the 4 books were certification the accuracy of the spiritual
message of Jesus Christ.
So, you have no other rebuttal other than "the church hierarchy picked
these versions because ______________" - "blank out." No reason for
putting your trust in them other than the early church nabobs picked them.

The old "I believe it because I have faith" wheeze.

Sorry, epic fail.

Kevin R
v***@gmail.com
2017-11-06 21:40:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by duke
The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
reflect what was known to the authors.
Nope, they were written circa 70, 80, and 90 AD. And at best they reflect the authors's beliefs.
Of course, you have no evidence at all to support this claim.......
[quote]
The four gospels of the New Testament — Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John — are almost our only source of information on Jesus, and thus
occupy a uniquely important place in Christianity. They were all written
in the period between c. 70 AD
Yet the information came form years long preceding the formal documentation.
and the end of the 1st century, by
Post by Kevrob
anonymous authors, and stand at the end of a process of oral and
written tradition that began on, or even before, the death of Jesus.
[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
There's the distinction between when they were composed,
in oral form, and when they were committed to ...papyrus?
Yep.
Post by Kevrob
Scholarly consensus puts that in the late 1st century C.E.,
but the earliest documentary fragment to survive is from
the 2nd century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manuscripts
As in the children's game of "telephone,"* who knows what
accretions from the originals are contained in what has come
down to us? The believers depend on their ghod inspiring
the authors to get it right, but as far as proving anything
to non-believers, that's a circular argument.
The canonization of the 4 books were certification the accuracy of the spiritual
message of Jesus Christ.
So, you have no other rebuttal other than "the church hierarchy picked
these versions because ______________" - "blank out." No reason for
putting your trust in them other than the early church nabobs picked them.
The old "I believe it because I have faith" wheeze.
Sorry, epic fail.
Kevin R
I'd believe the RCC before I'd believe you, bullshitter.
Tim
2017-11-06 23:00:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by duke
The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
reflect what was known to the authors.
Nope, they were written circa 70, 80, and 90 AD. And at best they reflect the authors's beliefs.
Of course, you have no evidence at all to support this claim.......
[quote]
The four gospels of the New Testament — Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John — are almost our only source of information on Jesus, and thus
occupy a uniquely important place in Christianity. They were all written
in the period between c. 70 AD
Yet the information came form years long preceding the formal documentation.
and the end of the 1st century, by
Post by Kevrob
anonymous authors, and stand at the end of a process of oral and
written tradition that began on, or even before, the death of Jesus.
[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
There's the distinction between when they were composed,
in oral form, and when they were committed to ...papyrus?
Yep.
Post by Kevrob
Scholarly consensus puts that in the late 1st century C.E.,
but the earliest documentary fragment to survive is from
the 2nd century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manuscripts
As in the children's game of "telephone,"* who knows what
accretions from the originals are contained in what has come
down to us? The believers depend on their ghod inspiring
the authors to get it right, but as far as proving anything
to non-believers, that's a circular argument.
The canonization of the 4 books were certification the accuracy of the spiritual
message of Jesus Christ.
So, you have no other rebuttal other than "the church hierarchy picked
these versions because ______________" - "blank out." No reason for
putting your trust in them other than the early church nabobs picked them.
The old "I believe it because I have faith" wheeze.
Sorry, epic fail.
Kevin R
I'd believe the RCC before I'd believe you, bullshitter.
When are you going to post that list of navy officers with your name on it, bullshitter?
duke
2017-11-06 13:27:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
least one 'I told you so.'
The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
reflect what was known to the authors.
Nope, they were written circa 70, 80, and 90 AD. And at best they reflect the authors's beliefs.
Nope, published and based on teachings and actions of Jesus Christ..

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Tim
2017-11-06 22:49:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
least one 'I told you so.'
The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
reflect what was known to the authors.
Nope, they were written circa 70, 80, and 90 AD. And at best they reflect the authors's beliefs.
Nope, published and based on teachings and actions of Jesus Christ..
Nope:

https://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/crossroads/resources/birthofjesus/intro/the_dating_of_thegospels.html

"Most researchers place the date of Jesus’ death at Passover time around the year 30.

The earliest New Testament books, the letters written by Paul, were composed in the decade of the 50s.

In the mid-60s, James, Peter, and Paul are all killed. Peter and Paul likely perished during the persecution of the church in Rome by Nero. The deaths of these important church leaders likely encouraged the writing down of narratives about Jesus.

In the year 70, Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple, effectively ending a Jewish revolt against the Empire that had begun four years earlier.

Although some scholars disagree, the vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70.

This scholarly consensus holds that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were composed, independently of one another, sometime in the 80s or 90s."
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-05 16:52:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> >Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
.> >Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
.> >least one 'I told you so.'
.> The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
.> reflect what was known to the authors.

That's nice. Now why don't you try to actually understand what Siri
observed and try again.

(oh, and by the way, Wikipedia says that only the book of Mark
was (possibly) written before 70 CE. The others came later.
Pretty obvious, since both Matthew and Luke cribbed from Mark)


2A
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****
duke
2017-11-06 20:07:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 08:52:42 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> >Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
.> >Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
.> >least one 'I told you so.'
.> The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
.> reflect what was known to the authors.
That's nice. Now why don't you try to actually understand what Siri
observed and try again.
My answer is the answer. Most likely time frame for the gospels are:

Matthew: Early 40 AD to late 140 AD, most likely 80-90 AD. Author likely
responding to several crises in his Church. Likely Antioch place of writing.

Mark: Probable range 65-75 AD. Wrote from Rome. Demonstrates no clear
knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem in AD70.

Luke: Most likely 80-85 AD. Dependent on gospel of Mark.

John: Historical traditions dated 40-60 AD. Probably written 95-100 AD. Gospel
portrays Jesus in his divine nature as Son of God.

Catholic Study bible is much more learned than wiki.


the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-06 21:23:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 08:52:42 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> >Out of curiosity, why do the synoptic gospels predict the destruction of the
.> >Temple, but they and Acts don't report its actual destruction? I would expect at
.> >least one 'I told you so.'
.> The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD. They
.> reflect what was known to the authors.
That's nice. Now why don't you try to actually understand what Siri
observed and try again.
Matthew: Early 40 AD to late 140 AD, most likely 80-90 AD. Author likely
responding to several crises in his Church. Likely Antioch place of writing.
Mark: Probable range 65-75 AD. Wrote from Rome. Demonstrates no clear
knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem in AD70.
Luke: Most likely 80-85 AD. Dependent on gospel of Mark.
John: Historical traditions dated 40-60 AD. Probably written 95-100 AD. Gospel
portrays Jesus in his divine nature as Son of God.
. > Catholic Study bible is much more learned than wiki.

Oh, I'd not say "much more" ... because you just gave the same
dates that Wikipedia did.

Which, of course, would be easier to see if you hadn't hastily
snipped out what I wrote.

According to what you yourself just posted.

Matthew: 80-90
Luke: 80-85
John: 95-100

Only Mark -- whom Matthew and Luke cribbed from ---
was written before 70 A.D.

Contradicting your own claim that "The 3 synoptic gospels were written "before" the destruction in 70AD"


Sheesh...


2a
duke
2017-11-05 16:22:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 10:46:54 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> > .> That's like asking why didn't God start with teaching the cave man about Jesus.
.> Because God chose not to lie to them. They made up their bullshit stories
.> all by themselves.
You can never truth anything that teddie the fairy says.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Yep, that's the excuse Earl uses: the more horrible and bloody parts are
because the mere humans who set down the Old Testament often
got it garbled.
No, no garbling. We're taking about the next step from paganism, the first
concept of a spiritual God over all mankind.


the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
duke
2017-11-05 16:19:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 10:09:24 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> >.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
.> >An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
.> >to design the International Space Station.
.> >.> God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
.> >Oh yeah? Then why didn't He skip all that business with
.> >kashrut and 613 mitzvot and killing mouthy teenagers and
.> >get straight to the salvation bit?
.> That's like asking why didn't God start with teaching the cave man about Jesus.
Exactly.
So why not?
Well, my guess is that the caveman was limited to fire as his god. After
caveman, pagans turned to things like statues of jackals, or other objects like
cows and rivers as the Hindu practice. Then God brought man out of paganism and
into Judaism of the OT.

This was the first introduction to God as spiritual being above man. God gave
man the 10 commandments and man came up with 613 rules to go by to adhere to the
10 commandment.

Then God became flesh (NT) to show other flesh the new way in Christianity -
love and obey God and love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Sooooooooo, you really don't know what was going on and now you're an
............. atheist????

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Tim
2017-11-05 16:22:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 10:09:24 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> >.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
.> >An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
.> >to design the International Space Station.
.> >.> God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
.> >Oh yeah? Then why didn't He skip all that business with
.> >kashrut and 613 mitzvot and killing mouthy teenagers and
.> >get straight to the salvation bit?
.> That's like asking why didn't God start with teaching the cave man about Jesus.
Exactly.
So why not?
Well, my guess is that the caveman was limited to fire as his god. After
caveman, pagans turned to things like statues of jackals, or other objects like
cows and rivers as the Hindu practice. Then God brought man out of paganism and
into Judaism of the OT.
This was the first introduction to God as spiritual being above man. God gave
man the 10 commandments and man came up with 613 rules to go by to adhere to the
10 commandment.
Then God became flesh (NT) to show other flesh the new way in Christianity -
love and obey God and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Sooooooooo, you really don't know what was going on and now you're an
............. atheist????
You offer a guess, and now you claim it's reality! So you're an idiot. But that's been obvious for some time now.
duke
2017-11-06 20:09:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by duke
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 10:09:24 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> >.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
.> >An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
.> >to design the International Space Station.
.> >.> God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
.> >Oh yeah? Then why didn't He skip all that business with
.> >kashrut and 613 mitzvot and killing mouthy teenagers and
.> >get straight to the salvation bit?
.> That's like asking why didn't God start with teaching the cave man about Jesus.
Exactly.
So why not?
Well, my guess is that the caveman was limited to fire as his god. After
caveman, pagans turned to things like statues of jackals, or other objects like
cows and rivers as the Hindu practice. Then God brought man out of paganism and
into Judaism of the OT.
This was the first introduction to God as spiritual being above man. God gave
man the 10 commandments and man came up with 613 rules to go by to adhere to the
10 commandment.
Then God became flesh (NT) to show other flesh the new way in Christianity -
love and obey God and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Sooooooooo, you really don't know what was going on and now you're an
............. atheist????
You offer a guess, and now you claim it's reality! So you're an idiot. But that's been obvious for some time now.
It's pretty clear that Jesus is God come in the flesh. It's pretty clear that
Jesus taught other flesh.

Even a vacant lot like you should be able to put 2 + 2 = 4.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Cloud Hobbit
2017-11-06 22:52:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 10:09:24 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> >.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
.> >An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
.> >to design the International Space Station.
.> >.> God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
.> >Oh yeah? Then why didn't He skip all that business with
.> >kashrut and 613 mitzvot and killing mouthy teenagers and
.> >get straight to the salvation bit?
.> That's like asking why didn't God start with teaching the cave man about Jesus.
Exactly.
So why not?
Well, my guess is that the caveman was limited to fire as his god. After
caveman, pagans turned to things like statues of jackals, or other objects like
cows and rivers as the Hindu practice. Then God brought man out of paganism and
into Judaism of the OT.
Something he could have easily done at the time he supposedly created man. He didn't need for evolution to catch up to him, he could have done it in an instant assuming the claims of hjis omnipotenxce were true.
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
This was the first introduction to God as spiritual being above man. God gave
man the 10 commandments and man came up with 613 rules to go by to adhere to the
10 commandment.
Sure he did during the Exodus which never happened.
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Then God became flesh (NT) to show other flesh the new way in Christianity -
love and obey God and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Sooooooooo, you really don't know what was going on and now you're an
............. atheist????
You offer a guess, and now you claim it's reality! So you're an idiot. But that's been obvious for some time now.
It's pretty clear that Jesus is God come in the flesh.
It's not clear at all since we still don't have any proof he existed or performed any miracles.

It's pretty clear that
Post by duke
Jesus taught other flesh.
See above.
Post by duke
Even a vacant lot like you should be able to put 2 + 2 = 4.
Using biblical math 2+2=0
None of what you said is known to be true. It's exactly like what every other religion says about their invisible deities.

Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]

The Bible exists in multiple manuscripts, none of them autographs, and multiple canons, none of which completely agree on which books have sufficient authority to be included or their order (see Books of the Bible). The early discussions about the exclusion or integration of various apocrypha involve an early idea about the historicity of the core.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible

You still have nothing.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-Moron
Tim
2017-11-06 22:56:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 10:09:24 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> >.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
.> >An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
.> >to design the International Space Station.
.> >.> God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
.> >Oh yeah? Then why didn't He skip all that business with
.> >kashrut and 613 mitzvot and killing mouthy teenagers and
.> >get straight to the salvation bit?
.> That's like asking why didn't God start with teaching the cave man about Jesus.
Exactly.
So why not?
Well, my guess is that the caveman was limited to fire as his god. After
caveman, pagans turned to things like statues of jackals, or other objects like
cows and rivers as the Hindu practice. Then God brought man out of paganism and
into Judaism of the OT.
This was the first introduction to God as spiritual being above man. God gave
man the 10 commandments and man came up with 613 rules to go by to adhere to the
10 commandment.
Then God became flesh (NT) to show other flesh the new way in Christianity -
love and obey God and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Sooooooooo, you really don't know what was going on and now you're an
............. atheist????
You offer a guess, and now you claim it's reality! So you're an idiot. But that's been obvious for some time now.
It's pretty clear that Jesus is God come in the flesh.
No, what's clear is that that story is a myth. There isn't a shred of historical evidence to support it.
Post by duke
It's pretty clear that
Jesus taught other flesh.
Even a vacant lot like you should be able to put 2 + 2 = 4.
Only a brain dead fool would try to equate a mathematical proposition with a historical proposition. You're an idiot. You can "put" your head back up your arse now.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-11-03 19:13:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
to design the International Space Station.
God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
Imaginary beings have no prime or any other kind of interest.
Post by duke
the dukester, American Liar
duke
2017-11-04 16:53:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
to design the International Space Station.
God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
Imaginary beings have no prime or any other kind of interest.
Well, I know you don't.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Cloud Hobbit
2017-11-04 17:54:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Duke, you don't know anything about me other than I don't believe in your mythology.
v***@gmail.com
2017-11-04 18:13:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Duke, you don't know anything about me other than I don't believe in your mythology.
I know you are abysmally STUPID.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-11-04 18:23:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Duke, you don't know anything about me other than I don't believe in your mythology.
I know you are abysmally STUPID.



Says the guy who doesn't know what a lie is but expects us to believe his.
duke
2017-11-05 16:35:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Duke, you don't know anything about me other than I don't believe in your mythology.
Well, we do now. I call you "fool".

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-05 16:57:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
.> >Duke, you don't know anything about me other than I don't believe in your mythology.
.> Well, we do now. I call you "fool".

Say hello to Satan for us, hear?

"whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

-- Matthew 5:22


Atlatl Axolotl
duke
2017-11-06 20:11:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 08:57:06 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >Duke, you don't know anything about me other than I don't believe in your mythology.
.> Well, we do now. I call you "fool".
Say hello to Satan for us, hear?
"whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
-- Matthew 5:22
Atlatl Axolotl
See my other comments on that issue. It's amounts to more than using the word
"fool".

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-06 21:27:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 08:57:06 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >Duke, you don't know anything about me other than I don't believe in your mythology.
.> >.> Well, we do now. I call you "fool".
.> >Say hello to Satan for us, hear?
.> > "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
.> > -- Matthew 5:22
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Atlatl Axolotl
.> See my other comments on that issue. It's amounts to more than using the word
.> "fool".

Sure, you tell that to God. "Yeah, look here God: I did call him a fool,
but hey, I said a buncha other stuff too. Right? Don't be so picky!"

Do send us an asbestos post card, slanderer and fool-labeler.

AA
v***@gmail.com
2017-11-04 18:13:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
to design the International Space Station.
God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
Imaginary beings have no prime or any other kind of interest.
Well, I know you don't.
Hobbit has the IQ of a carrot.
duke
2017-11-05 16:36:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
.> >Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
.> You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
.> concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
.> man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
.> >Yep, quite the fumble fingered God you got there.
.> Step by step. You can't teach a cave man to use a cell phone.
An almighty God could. An almighty God could teach a cave man
to design the International Space Station.
God prime interest is the salvation of our souls.
Imaginary beings have no prime or any other kind of interest.
Well, I know you don't.
Hobbit has the IQ of a carrot.
It's very possible.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
Tim
2017-11-04 19:06:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
You're not one to comment. You shrugged off your family faith. You have no
concept of God bringing man out of paganism and into Judaism, and then bringing
man out of Judaism and into Christianity.
Because she wasn't duped by myths; whereas you were, fat boy.
Post by duke
Welcome to the Papacy.
Fuck you and your papacy, fat boy.
Tim
2017-11-04 19:04:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
Your gullibility never ceases to amaze.
It's on par with its stupidity.
Tim
2017-11-04 19:03:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity.
Show us the evidence, fat liar.
Post by duke
It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
Show us the evidence, fat liar.
Post by duke
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-11-06 22:22:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
In this case, Jesus was directly quoted with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity.
Sorry, but you can't use a proven unreliable book to p[rove that the book is correct.

It is then heavily supported by other
Post by duke
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
None of who could get their story straight and none of whom actually wrote what is in their name.
Post by duke
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
Abraham did not exist. He's part of your mythology.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-Idiot
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-06 22:58:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson,
a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of
the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
.> In this case, Jesus was directly quoted

"Directly quoted"? The gospels were written decades later, by people
who weren't even there at the time. Hearsay, in other words. Why
in the world do you think they were Jesus' words set down verbatim,
when they were in fact set down up to fifty years later by men who had never
heard Jesus in person?


AtlAxl
Post by duke
with confirmation from multiple sources
regarding God's move to Christianity. It is then heavily supported by other
documents sent out to the expanding Church prepared by Paul, Peter, James, etc.
In the case of the OT, it's heavy in individual writings regarding the start of
the Hebrew faith with growth in the physical nation - Abraham, Judges, Kings,
etc.
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.
G.K. Chesterton
*****
v***@gmail.com
2017-10-31 10:56:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copied – some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the earliest texts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less chance that the content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others.
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[32]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[23]
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[33]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]
He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR

https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-10-31 15:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copied – some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the earliest texts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less chance that the content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others.
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[32]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[23]
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[33]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]
He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
.> HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
What, you think Could Hobbit wrote that Wikipedia article?

If not, then what is your point?


AtlAxo
hypatiab7
2017-10-31 16:44:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copied – some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the earliest texts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less chance that the content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others.
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[32]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[23]
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[33]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]
He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
.> HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
What, you think Could Hobbit wrote that Wikipedia article?
If not, then what is your point?
Every disagreement is a lie, according to ArtieJoe.
%
2017-10-31 18:02:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copied – some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the earliest texts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less chance that the content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others.
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[32]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[23]
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[33]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]
He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
.> HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
What, you think Could Hobbit wrote that Wikipedia article?
If not, then what is your point?
Every disagreement is a lie, according to ArtieJoe.
isn't he the guy you constan
Tim
2017-11-04 19:05:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copied – some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the earliest texts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less chance that the content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others.
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[32]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[23]
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[33]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]
He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
.> HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
What, you think Could Hobbit wrote that Wikipedia article?
If not, then what is your point?
Every disagreement is a lie, according to ArtieJoe.
isn't he the guy you constantly call a liar
Your the guy people constantly call fluffer, muncho mug.
v***@gmail.com
2017-10-31 20:56:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copied – some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the earliest texts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less chance that the content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others.
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[32]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[23]
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[33]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]
He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
.> HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
What, you think Could Hobbit wrote that Wikipedia article?
If not, then what is your point?
Every disagreement is a lie, according to ArtieJoe.
https://tinyurl.com/y9cy4579
Jeanne Douglas
2017-11-01 03:22:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
=20
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "accept=
ability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who ha=
s written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This =
can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accura=
te record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range =
from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Sc=
holars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importanc=
e ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descripti=
ons of these events and other historical evidence.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to inter=
pretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testame=
nt's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4]=
[b][c][d][8]
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copi=
ed =E2=80=93 some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manusc=
ript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through h=
istory to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the earliest te=
xts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less chance that the co=
ntent has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped =
into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged clos=
er to the hypothetical original than others.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradit=
ion that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to th=
e events described =E2=80=93 the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua w=
as by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the act=
ual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate=
of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age =
of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional cla=
ims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work =
Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified=
Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long a=
fter the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on inter=
nal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates=
, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scr=
ipture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other Hist=
ory, which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
The publication of James Hutton's Theory of the Earth in 1788 was a=
n important development in the scientific revolution that would dethrone Ge=
nesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and prehistory. The first=
casualty was the Creation story itself, and by the early 19th century "no =
responsible scientist contended for the literal credibility of the Mosaic a=
ccount of creation."[31] The battle between uniformitarianism and catastrop=
hism kept the Flood alive in the emerging discipline, until Adam Sedgwick, =
the president of the Geological Society, publicly recanted his previous sup=
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the dilu=
vian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of t=
he Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet fo=
und a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those=
deposits.[32]
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in t=
he awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Char=
les Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Or=
igin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution wa=
s, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream s=
cholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Gen=
esis 1=E2=80=9311 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology=
/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[23]
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythi=
c aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the traditio=
n history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely anc=
ient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not inte=
nded as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the hi=
storiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of or=
al traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblica=
l historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob=
to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at=
all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be =
assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the histor=
y of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of s=
o many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. Th=
e 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrator=
s which they attribute to Abraham[33]
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
=20
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism=
.[f]
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the i=
nfluence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline withi=
n the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not re=
alistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life o=
f Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could b=
e placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more di=
scoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became=
apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albri=
ght and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work =
within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[35] Will=
iam Dever stated in 1993 that
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by=
further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archa=
eological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gav=
e encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it wil=
l have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Bi=
blical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were w=
ritten between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the cr=
ucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Log=
ia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See=
List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by=
witnesses[65][66] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[67] Th=
ere are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite l=
ate.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs =
of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in =
Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the=
author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance t=
o the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion varies and scholars =
such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[72] The use of exp=
ressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Ma=
rk to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed =
to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the=
writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel=
of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and impr=
ovement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
=20
=20
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the w=
orld of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in th=
e Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital =
issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure=
of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Ca=
naan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best spars=
e indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there=
is considerable evidence against it.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=E2=80=94=E2=80=89Peter Enns.[2]
=20
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts th=
at Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable hist=
ory and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible lit=
erature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=E2=80=94=E2=80=89Philip Davies.[5]
=20
He cites the fact=E2=80=94now accepted by most archaeologists=
=E2=80=94that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the l=
ate 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed=
in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even =
Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by ci=
rcling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.=
c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists o=
f crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless diggin=
g.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=E2=80=94=E2=80=89Jennifer Wallace.[6]
=20
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates th=
at the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the pe=
ople, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=E2=80=94=E2=80=89Jonathan Michael.[7]
=20
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hol=
d that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a s=
kin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they =
are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we =
must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to=
the truth of their conclusions
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=E2=80=94=E2=80=89Davis Young.[30]
=20
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of t=
he patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the trad=
itions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as i=
s commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarc=
hs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=E2=80=94=E2=80=89Thomas Thompson.[34]
=20
.> HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
Post by v***@gmail.com
=20
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
=20
What, you think Could Hobbit wrote that Wikipedia article?
=20
If not, then what is your point?
=20
Every disagreement is a lie, according to ArtieJoe.
https://tinyurl.com/y9cy4579
Thanks for a post proving Mickey's statement.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
v***@gmail.com
2017-10-31 21:03:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copied – some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the earliest texts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less chance that the content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others.
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[32]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[23]
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[33]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]
He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
.> HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
What, you think Could Hobbit wrote that Wikipedia article?
If not, then what is your point?
Every disagreement is a lie, according to ArtieJoe.
Any reasonable person who reads my accusations against you and the supporting evidence knows you are a filthy habitual liar.
Ted
2017-10-31 21:23:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's
"acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a
scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old
Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian
New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range
from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative
literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible
passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the
contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to
interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the
Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge
others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copied
– some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript,
textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through
history to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the
earliest texts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less
chance that the content has been changed over the years. Multiple
copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text
types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others.
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the
tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or
eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of
Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant
Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience,
which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in
the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw
a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In
Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work
Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and
identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having
been written long after the events they purported to describe. His
conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument
that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original
writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made
evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, which is the
only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
The publication of James Hutton's Theory of the Earth in 1788 was an
important development in the scientific revolution that would
dethrone Genesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and
prehistory. The first casualty was the Creation story itself, and by
the early 19th century "no responsible scientist contended for the
literal credibility of the Mosaic account of creation."[31] The
battle between uniformitarianism and catastrophism kept the Flood
alive in the emerging discipline, until Adam Sedgwick, the president
of the Geological Society, publicly recanted his previous support in
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the
diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the
action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands,
we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former
world entombed in those deposits.[32]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the
awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until
Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of
On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this
scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown
significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a
consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic
literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than
actual history or science.[23]
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic
aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the
tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had
genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing
devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though
doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school
(particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient
source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide
acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob
to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does
not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as
may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone
who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no
position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture
of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in
reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[33]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the
influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad
outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while
scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove
individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other
patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a
context proven from the archaeological record. But as more
discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise,
it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the
claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of
scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons
of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by
further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing
archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he
himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the
long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that
contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were
written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after
the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such
as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other
earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that
these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this view
is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular references
to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of
a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters
in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is
that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically
at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion
varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more
traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described as
awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat
unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the influence
that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of
Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of
Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and
improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the
world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we
find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been
friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery
in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the
violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong
consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these
biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that
Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable
history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew
Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]
He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many
of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th
century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in
the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c.
Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling
down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was
destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority,
the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify
to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that
the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the
people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold
that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like
a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But
if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot
be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the
skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the
patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the
traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such
historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular
works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
.> HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
What, you think Could Hobbit wrote that Wikipedia article?
If not, then what is your point?
Every disagreement is a lie, according to ArtieJoe.
Any reasonable person who reads my accusations against you and the
supporting evidence knows you are a filthy habitual liar.
And yet you can't prove it.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-11-01 03:25:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
=20
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "accept=
ability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who ha=
s written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This =
can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accura=
te record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range =
from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Sc=
holars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importanc=
e ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descripti=
ons of these events and other historical evidence.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to inter=
pretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testame=
nt's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4]=
[b][c][d][8]
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copi=
ed =E2=80=93 some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manusc=
ript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through h=
istory to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the earliest te=
xts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less chance that the co=
ntent has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped =
into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged clos=
er to the hypothetical original than others.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradit=
ion that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to th=
e events described =E2=80=93 the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua w=
as by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the act=
ual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate=
of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age =
of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional cla=
ims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work =
Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified=
Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long a=
fter the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on inter=
nal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates=
, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scr=
ipture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other Hist=
ory, which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
The publication of James Hutton's Theory of the Earth in 1788 was a=
n important development in the scientific revolution that would dethrone Ge=
nesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and prehistory. The first=
casualty was the Creation story itself, and by the early 19th century "no =
responsible scientist contended for the literal credibility of the Mosaic a=
ccount of creation."[31] The battle between uniformitarianism and catastrop=
hism kept the Flood alive in the emerging discipline, until Adam Sedgwick, =
the president of the Geological Society, publicly recanted his previous sup=
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the dilu=
vian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of t=
he Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet fo=
und a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those=
deposits.[32]
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in t=
he awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Char=
les Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Or=
igin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution wa=
s, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream s=
cholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Gen=
esis 1=E2=80=9311 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology=
/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[23]
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythi=
c aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the traditio=
n history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely anc=
ient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not inte=
nded as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the hi=
storiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of or=
al traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblica=
l historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob=
to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at=
all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be =
assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the histor=
y of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of s=
o many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. Th=
e 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrator=
s which they attribute to Abraham[33]
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
=20
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism=
.[f]
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the i=
nfluence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline withi=
n the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not re=
alistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life o=
f Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could b=
e placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more di=
scoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became=
apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albri=
ght and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work =
within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[35] Will=
iam Dever stated in 1993 that
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by=
further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archa=
eological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gav=
e encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it wil=
l have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Bi=
blical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were w=
ritten between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the cr=
ucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Log=
ia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See=
List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by=
witnesses[65][66] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[67] Th=
ere are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite l=
ate.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs =
of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in =
Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the=
author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance t=
o the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion varies and scholars =
such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[72] The use of exp=
ressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Ma=
rk to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed =
to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the=
writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel=
of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and impr=
ovement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
=20
=20
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the w=
orld of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in th=
e Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital =
issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure=
of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Ca=
naan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best spars=
e indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there=
is considerable evidence against it.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=E2=80=94=E2=80=89Peter Enns.[2]
=20
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts th=
at Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable hist=
ory and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible lit=
erature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=E2=80=94=E2=80=89Philip Davies.[5]
=20
He cites the fact=E2=80=94now accepted by most archaeologists=
=E2=80=94that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the l=
ate 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed=
in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even =
Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by ci=
rcling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.=
c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists o=
f crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless diggin=
g.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=E2=80=94=E2=80=89Jennifer Wallace.[6]
=20
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates th=
at the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the pe=
ople, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=E2=80=94=E2=80=89Jonathan Michael.[7]
=20
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hol=
d that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a s=
kin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they =
are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we =
must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to=
the truth of their conclusions
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=E2=80=94=E2=80=89Davis Young.[30]
=20
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of t=
he patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the trad=
itions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as i=
s commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarc=
hs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=E2=80=94=E2=80=89Thomas Thompson.[34]
=20
.> HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
Post by v***@gmail.com
=20
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
=20
What, you think Could Hobbit wrote that Wikipedia article?
=20
If not, then what is your point?
=20
Every disagreement is a lie, according to ArtieJoe.
Any reasonable person who reads my accusations against you and the supporti=
ng evidence knows you are a filthy habitual liar.
There's not one person here who doesn't know that you are lying.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Yap Honghor
2017-11-01 07:01:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copied – some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the earliest texts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less chance that the content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others.
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[32]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[23]
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[33]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]
He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
.> HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
What, you think Could Hobbit wrote that Wikipedia article?
If not, then what is your point?
Every disagreement is a lie, according to ArtieJoe.
Any reasonable person who reads my accusations against you and the supporting evidence knows you are a filthy habitual liar.
Your accusation is baseless and worthless, without supporting evidence!!!!
Cloud Hobbit
2017-11-02 22:54:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copied – some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the earliest texts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less chance that the content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others.
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[32]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[23]
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[33]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]
He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
.> HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
What, you think Could Hobbit wrote that Wikipedia article?
If not, then what is your point?
Every disagreement is a lie, according to ArtieJoe.
Any reasonable person who reads my accusations against you and the supporting evidence knows you are a filthy habitual liar.
Any reasonable person reading your accusations against anyone would conclude that you are insane, stupid or just a dickhead.
v***@gmail.com
2017-11-03 01:16:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copied – some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the earliest texts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less chance that the content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others.
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[32]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[23]
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[33]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]
He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
.> HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
What, you think Could Hobbit wrote that Wikipedia article?
If not, then what is your point?
Every disagreement is a lie, according to ArtieJoe.
Any reasonable person who reads my accusations against you and the supporting evidence knows you are a filthy habitual liar.
Any reasonable person reading your accusations against anyone would conclude that you are insane, stupid or just a dickhead.
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
Ted
2017-11-03 20:06:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's
"acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a
scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the
Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the
Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical
Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range
from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative
literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible
passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the
contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to
interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of
the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge
others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been
copied – some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied
manuscript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have
passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the
consistency of the earliest texts, the greater their textual
reliability, and the less chance that the content has been changed
over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types
(see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to
the hypothetical original than others.
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the
tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or
eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work
of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant
Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience,
which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in
the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment
threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In
Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work
Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and
identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having
been written long after the events they purported to describe. His
conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument
that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the
original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not
been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History,
which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
The publication of James Hutton's Theory of the Earth in 1788 was
an important development in the scientific revolution that would
dethrone Genesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and
prehistory. The first casualty was the Creation story itself, and
by the early 19th century "no responsible scientist contended for
the literal credibility of the Mosaic account of creation."[31] The
battle between uniformitarianism and catastrophism kept the Flood
alive in the emerging discipline, until Adam Sedgwick, the president of the
Geological Society, publicly recanted his previous support in his
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the
diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the
action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands,
we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the
former world entombed in those deposits.[32]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in
the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context,
until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the
publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance
of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown
significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a
consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly
schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology
rather than actual history or science.[23]
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the
mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and
the tradition history school argued that although its core
traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were
fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the
modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic
reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral
traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of
biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob
to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does
not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if,
as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,'
everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend
is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve
a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of
Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which
they attribute to Abraham[33]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the
influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad
outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while
scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove
individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other
patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a
context proven from the archaeological record. But as more
discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise,
it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the
claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority
of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for
reasons of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by
further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the
continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and
Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The
irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer
'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical
studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were
written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the
crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such
as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other
earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that
these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this
view is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular
references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs
of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious
matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common
opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and
historically at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71]
although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more
traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described
as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat
unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the
influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on
the writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of
the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source,
with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the
world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we
find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been
friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of
slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from
Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the
Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse
indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest
there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts
that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of
reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the
bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]
He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many
of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th
century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed
in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000
b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls
tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring
trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the
Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits
and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates
that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many
of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who
hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out
heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is
false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with
proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of
Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of
the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of
the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such
historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular
works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
.> HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
What, you think Could Hobbit wrote that Wikipedia article?
If not, then what is your point?
Every disagreement is a lie, according to ArtieJoe.
Any reasonable person who reads my accusations against you and the
supporting evidence knows you are a filthy habitual liar.
Any reasonable person reading your accusations against anyone would
conclude that you are insane, stupid or just a dickhead.
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
You coward.
v***@gmail.com
2017-11-04 03:24:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copied – some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the earliest texts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less chance that the content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others.
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[32]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[23]
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[33]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]
He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
.> HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
What, you think Could Hobbit wrote that Wikipedia article?
If not, then what is your point?
Every disagreement is a lie, according to ArtieJoe.
Any reasonable person who reads my accusations against you and the supporting evidence knows you are a filthy habitual liar.
Any reasonable person reading your accusations against anyone would conclude that you are insane, stupid or just a dickhead.
Two weeks ago, you said you were gonna ignore my posts. That was ANOTHER LIE, WASN'T IT? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Cloud Hobbit
2017-11-04 05:54:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Two weeks ago, you said you were gonna ignore my posts. That was ANOTHER LIE, WASN'T IT? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



Keep trying and eventually you will understand what a lie is.

Since you seem so desperate for my attention, what did you want to talk about?

Remember, recognizing you have a problem is the first step.

How is your current treatment going? It doesn't seem to be helping with your anger issues.

Perhaps it's time for new or stronger meds.
Ted
2017-11-04 11:01:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's
"acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a
scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the
Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the
Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical
Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range
from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative
literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible
passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the
contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to
interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of
the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge
others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been
copied – some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied
manuscript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have
passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the
consistency of the earliest texts, the greater their textual
reliability, and the less chance that the content has been changed
over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types
(see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to
the hypothetical original than others.
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the
tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or
eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work
of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant
Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience,
which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in
the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment
threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In
Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work
Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and
identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having
been written long after the events they purported to describe. His
conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument
that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the
original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not
been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History,
which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
The publication of James Hutton's Theory of the Earth in 1788 was
an important development in the scientific revolution that would
dethrone Genesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and
prehistory. The first casualty was the Creation story itself, and
by the early 19th century "no responsible scientist contended for
the literal credibility of the Mosaic account of creation."[31] The
battle between uniformitarianism and catastrophism kept the Flood
alive in the emerging discipline, until Adam Sedgwick, the president of the
Geological Society, publicly recanted his previous support in his
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the
diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the
action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands,
we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the
former world entombed in those deposits.[32]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in
the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context,
until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the
publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance
of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown
significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a
consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly
schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology
rather than actual history or science.[23]
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the
mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and
the tradition history school argued that although its core
traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were
fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the
modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic
reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral
traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of
biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob
to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does
not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if,
as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,'
everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend
is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve
a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of
Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which
they attribute to Abraham[33]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the
influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad
outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while
scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove
individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other
patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a
context proven from the archaeological record. But as more
discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise,
it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the
claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority
of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for
reasons of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by
further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the
continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and
Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The
irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer
'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical
studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were
written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the
crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such
as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other
earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that
these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this
view is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular
references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs
of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious
matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common
opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and
historically at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71]
although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more
traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described
as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat
unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the
influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on
the writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of
the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source,
with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the
world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we
find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been
friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of
slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from
Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the
Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse
indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest
there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts
that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of
reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the
bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]
He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many
of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th
century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed
in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000
b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls
tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring
trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the
Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits
and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates
that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many
of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who
hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out
heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is
false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with
proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of
Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of
the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of
the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such
historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular
works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
.> HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
What, you think Could Hobbit wrote that Wikipedia article?
If not, then what is your point?
Every disagreement is a lie, according to ArtieJoe.
Any reasonable person who reads my accusations against you and the
supporting evidence knows you are a filthy habitual liar.
Any reasonable person reading your accusations against anyone would
conclude that you are insane, stupid or just a dickhead.
Two weeks ago, you said you were gonna ignore my posts. That was ANOTHER
LIE, WASN'T IT? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
ArtyJoe is a pussy.
Yap Honghor
2017-11-01 06:59:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copied – some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the earliest texts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less chance that the content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others.
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[32]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[23]
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[33]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]
He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
Where or what are his lies in the above, Mad Joe?
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
Tim
2017-11-04 19:04:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history," in the words of Thomas L. Thompson, a scholar who has written widely on this topic as it relates to the Old Testament.[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.
Many fields of study span the Bible and history, such fields range from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature. Scholars also examine the historical context of Bible passages, the importance ascribed to events by the authors, and the contrast between the descriptions of these events and other historical evidence.
Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's historical narratives and offer evidence to challenge others.[a][3][4][b][c][d][8]
Very few texts survive directly from antiquity: most have been copied – some, many times. To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics examine the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the consistency of the earliest texts, the greater their textual reliability, and the less chance that the content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others.
A central pillar of the Bible's historical authority was the tradition that it had been composed by the principal actors or eyewitnesses to the events described – the Pentateuch was the work of Moses, Joshua was by Joshua, and so on. But the Protestant Reformation had brought the actual texts to a much wider audience, which combined with the growing climate of intellectual ferment in the 17th century that was the start of the Age of Enlightenment threw a harsh sceptical spotlight on these traditional claims. In Protestant England the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his major work Leviathan (1651) denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and identified Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as having been written long after the events they purported to describe. His conclusions rested on internal textual evidence, but in an argument that resonates with modern debates, he noted: "Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History, which is the only proof of matter of fact;"[19][20]
We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[32]
All of which left the "first man" and his putative descendants in the awkward position of being stripped of all historical context, until Charles Darwin naturalized the Garden of Eden with the publication of On The Origin of Species in 1859. Public acceptance of this scientific revolution was, at the time, uneven, but has since grown significantly. The mainstream scholarly community soon arrived at a consensus, which holds today, that Genesis 1–11 is a highly schematic literary work representing theology/symbolic mythology rather than actual history or science.[23]
In the following decades Hermann Gunkel drew attention to the mythic aspects of the Pentateuch, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense. Though doubts have been cast on the historiographic reconstructions of this school (particularly the notion of oral traditions as a primary ancient source), much of its critique of biblical historicity found wide acceptance. Gunkel's observation that
if, however, we consider figures like Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be actual persons with no original mythic foundations, that does not at all mean that they are historical figures ... For even if, as may well be assumed, there was once a man call 'Abraham,' everyone who knows the history of legends is sure that the legend is in no position at the distance of so many centuries to preserve a picture of the personal piety of Abraham. The 'religion of Abraham' is, in reality, the religion of the legend narrators which they attribute to Abraham[33]
has in various forms become a commonplace of contemporary criticism.[f]
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counterattacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[35] William Dever stated in 1993 that
[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology'.[36]
Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[64] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[65][66] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[67] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late.
Many scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Judea in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[68][69][70][71] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[72] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[73] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[74] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[73]
Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.
— Peter Enns.[2]
The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape
— Philip Davies.[5]
He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.
— Jennifer Wallace.[6]
So although much of the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible cannot in most cases be taken literally, many of the people, places and things probably did exist at some time or another.
— Jonathan Michael.[7]
But someone may ask: 'Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?' Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false.... But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions
— Davis Young.[30]
[F]or not only has "archaeology" not proven a single event of the patriarchal tradition to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely ... it must be concluded that any such historicity as is commonly spoken of in both scholarly and popular works about the patriarchs of Genesis is hardly possible and totally improbable.
— Thomas Thompson.[34]
HOBBIT IS A CHRONIC LIAR
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz
You're a stupid cunt who can't count to thirty, and who can't back up his claims.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-11-06 22:36:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
let's examine your claim, again.

NUMBER 1

me (Joe Bruno change)


Aug 17
Not really a big deal since Moses did not exist, so they started from a fal;se premise.
That'S A LIe

Not according to archaeologists.

1) First of all, we have no basis to assume that all the events described in the Bible ever occurred in actual history.

Assumption is not necessary, since we have evidence:

Moses


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.atheism/Non$20biblical$20evidence$20of$20Moses$20existence/alt.atheism/dmeQDsvXsG4/aYPwh6r4kp8J

Moses, exodus




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/7530678/Biblical-plagues-really-happened-say-scientists.html

Moses and Pharoah

http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/moses_pharaoh.htm

Exodus

http://beginningandend.com/did-the-exodus-really-happen-historical-evidence-of-the-exodus/


Jesus

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/

None of which is proof of anything.

Saying that were a Christian was not a lie but a mistake which I have admitted to. It's not like you don't Christianity as well as your own nonsense religion so it was an easy mistake to make. It was not a lie.

You say I lied in calling you a creationist, but you also said this: The traditional dichotomy has Creationists on one side and supporters of Evolution on the other. They might need a 3rd category for me.
I'm not a Creationist, but I have some doubts about evolution. "
This is the 3rd time I have proven you a LIAR on this same issue.
You have not proven anyone to be a liar ever.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
"...the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and
contradicted by the archaeological evidence." Dever, William G.
(March-April 2006). "The Western Cultural Tradition Is at Risk".
Biblical Archaeology Review 32 (2): 26 & 76.
said William Dever, a professor of archaeology from Lycoming
College. "I doubt that the miracles attributed to him ever took
place. I don't think he led three million Israelites out of Egypt
in an exodus across the Sinai. I don't think he was the founder
of Israelite religion, but
I think there was a Moses. I argue, and I think some other
archaeologists will, too, there was a small exodus group --
not millions of people, but perhaps a few thousand -- who
did escape from slavery in Egypt."
In spite of the total lack of evidence.
Just making sure yoou are aware that the bit about there being a Moses is NOT Dever speaking. It was idiot Bruno trying to make it look as if Dever said it.
Really? Here is a piece by ABC News. I got it verbatim there:


http://abcnews.go.com/International/exodus-moses-people-happen/story?id=18068905


Read it, Cloudy. Your credibility just hit rock bottom.
This will be the last thing I ever say to you.
You are now on my "ignore" list.
That does not preclude the possibility that I will show up at your funeral to
tell all the mourners what you are really like. As is my custom, I will have
ample documentary evidence to support my comments.

It's your credibility that is rock bottom by accepting an outdated possibly invented by ABC quote that is certainly not what Dever says now.

Again, no lies are present in anyh of your posts calling people liars which makes you the liar.
v***@gmail.com
2017-11-06 23:03:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
let's examine your claim, again.
https://tinyurl.com/yaycgmwz

Loading...