|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Believe the Old Testament? Literally? - 9/23/2008 12:12:01 PM
|
|
|
raivyne
Posts: 862
Joined: 8/28/2008
Status: offline
|
That wasn't actually what he was doing... he was saying scientists couldn't explain the way the walls fell (i believe it was speculated before Jerico was found that a big earthquake caused it and the discovery of the city didn't point to earthquake as the cause). he then said something like many religious folk were taking it as proof of the OT. He followed it up with "i don't know but its pretty interesting".
perhaps this modified version of my first post will clarify my story/thought process....
quote:
My history professor was talking about how they uncovered Jerico and how scientists were baffled at how the walls had fallen inward in a very atypical fashion. How it apparently wasn't caused by some natural disaster (earthquake). or at least not one identified yet as they had tried to speculate. What was found appeared to back up the OT scriptures with the absence of a scientific explanation... (in the minds of many religious people) or at least scientists couldn't (as of yet) twist and turn it enough to refute them.
Now I haven't made time to look for articles on this yet, but I thought it was neat. :)
All that being said, I don't see an issue with what my history professor said.
_____________________________
God grades on the cross – not on a curve
Good – God = 0
In the dark? Follow the Son!
The Power of a Simple Gift! samaritanspurse.org
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Believe the Old Testament? Literally? - 9/23/2008 12:37:40 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2829
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga
quote:
ORIGINAL: ot4christ
quote:
ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga
What you need to learn is the difference between poetic writings of the Bible and the rest of the writings.
If this is rersponse to my comment, thank you for the Christ-like reply. However, last I read, Joshua and Chronicles are not poetry. People can be as literal as they want to be. I do take the bible literaly but accept that the correct interpretation or our understanding may change. Surely, if Luther were still alive, he would accept that the earth does indeed move, or maybe not. It's hard to educate the dogmatic theologion.
Yes, in response to your post, but the "you" being general, not you yourself. But indeed, Hebrews often write as we write, with poetry and poetics incorporated into the writings, while the writings are not themselves "poetry."
By the way, welcome to Crosswalk!
Actually the Hebrews used poetry far more often than we do; many passages written in Hebrew poetry or prose are often not translated that way into English, and many times English readers are completely unaware of the underlying poetic/prose nature of the text. One example of poetry obscured in the NIV is Ex. 1:5 "The descendants of Jacob numbered ...."; although the Hebrew bible uses the term "descendants of ..." quite often, it was not used in this verse. This verse poetically says the same thing as "These were all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob ...". Another passage that is recognized as Hebrew prose by every Hebrew scholar just happens to be Ge. 1, and while Hebrew scholars still debate how that should affect its interpretation, none question the style of the writing. The only debate I have ever seen about the literary style of Ge. 1 comes from "hyper literalists" who don't know Hebrew.
That being said, I do not believe that any of examples cited by ot4christ can be attributed to a misunderstanding of the writing style as these all come from passages that are truly narrative in nature. However, I do believe these are misunderstandings that arise from demanding that biblical Hebrew be understood the same way that one understands modern English. In Biblical Hebrew, the vocabulary is far smaller (i.e. 1/10 or less) of the vocabulary we have in English, and almost every word in Biblical Hebrew has a far greater semantic range than does the English words used to translate it. For example the Hebrew word 'achal' can mean 'to eat' or 'to burn' (because fire eats/consumes what it burns); Also Hebrew verbs really have only two tenses i.e. perfect and imperfect, and often a perfect is used with the sense of the imperfect, and the imperfect with a sense of the perfect, and sometimes struggle with exactly how a verb tense should be translated into English. The verse Ho. 1:10 is a good example of such a struggle. Grammatically, both instances of the verb to say are in the imperfect (future) tense; however, most translators have chosen to translate the first instance in the perfect based on the context of the preceding verses; however, some scholars argue that the first instance should be translated as "In the place where it should be said..." because that carries a lot stronger sense of the imperfect. The point is that the preciseness of modern English is something that is completely foreign to Biblical Hebrew, and that is something we should take into account as we seek to understand what was written.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Believe the Old Testament? Literally? - 9/23/2008 1:10:55 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2829
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: raivyne
That wasn't actually what he was doing... he was saying scientists couldn't explain the way the walls fell (i believe it was speculated before Jerico was found that a big earthquake caused it and the discovery of the city didn't point to earthquake as the cause). he then said something like many religious folk were taking it as proof of the OT. He followed it up with "i don't know but its pretty interesting".
perhaps this modified version of my first post will clarify my story/thought process....
quote:
My history professor was talking about how they uncovered Jerico and how scientists were baffled at how the walls had fallen inward in a very atypical fashion. How it apparently wasn't caused by some natural disaster (earthquake). or at least not one identified yet as they had tried to speculate. What was found appeared to back up the OT scriptures with the absence of a scientific explanation... (in the minds of many religious people) or at least scientists couldn't (as of yet) twist and turn it enough to refute them.
Now I haven't made time to look for articles on this yet, but I thought it was neat. :)
All that being said, I don't see an issue with what my history professor said.
From an archeological perspective there is no issue about how or where the walls fell, but there is a big question about when they fell. Much of the archeological evidence we have about the fallen walls of Jericho shows that they fell nearly 1000 years before Joshua, and there is very little evidence of occupation during the time period of Joshua. This is one case where we really do mostly have an absence of evidence for the biblical account. However, as archeologists have been reminded over and over before, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Time and time again, those who have declared the bible wrong because of an absence of evidence have often had to eat their words when new discoveries have uncovered the missing evidence. K.A. Kitchen's book "Ancient orient and Old Testament" although dated, did a great job and documenting the archeological evidence for the historical biblical account. Here is a quote from his book about the archeological evidence discovered at Jericho. "At Jericho (Tell es-Sultan), the Late Bronze Age levels appear to have been almost completely washed away during the four centuries that the mound lay desolate from Joshua until Ahab's time; in barely half that length of time (during c. 1600-1400 BC), most of the Middle Bronze Age city had been eroded away, so that this is a real factor to be reckoned with and not just a harmonistic excuse." The point he is making is that there are real reasons to accept the biblical account of Jericho, and real reasons to explain why the evidence has not been found in the archeological record. Over the 50 years since Kitchen wrote his book, the situation so far has not changed much, new theories have been proposed, but so far nothing conclusive had been discovered. Those who declare that archeology supports the biblical story of Jericho are simply wrong; tomorrow such a discovery may be made and there are theories today that can account for what has been discovered, but we should wait to declare that the evidence has been found until the time it really has been found. There is so much archeological evidence that really does support the historical account of other events given in the bible, that there is no reason for worry about this one. Let's just patiently wait for someone to really make a find that supports this story, and ignore those who choose to embellish the current state of the archeological evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Believe the Old Testament? Literally? - 9/24/2008 1:17:30 AM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 3576
Joined: 6/8/2005
From: a mother who let me live
Status: offline
|
quote:
That being said, I do not believe that any of examples cited by ot4christ can be attributed to a misunderstanding of the writing style as these all come from passages that are truly narrative in nature.
Agreed, Benelchi! I was just making a general observation. I should have been clearer.
_____________________________
Abiyah
"Ladies and gentlemen, there are things that you will only be able to learn by the weakest among us, and when you snuff them out, you are the one that loses." ~~Gianna Jesson, 1977 LA, CA, saline abortion survivor
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Believe the Old Testament? Literally? - 9/25/2008 2:19:39 PM
|
|
|
mikeman2
Posts: 280
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
AFAIK, few people would have a problem with the idea that there could have been a devastating flood somewhere in the middle east some 4000-6000 years ago. But a global flood is so much larger in scope that clear evidence of it would be slapping us in the face every single day.
But it isn't.
-Dan.
Really, all that was needed was for a flood to kill off the inhabitants that lived within the known world. The rest is up to our imagination.
_____________________________
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.
-Winston Churchill.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Believe the Old Testament? Literally? - 9/25/2008 6:40:59 PM
|
|
|
SavedByGraceMD
Posts: 899
Joined: 2/13/2008
From: the poconos
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikeman2
quote:
ORIGINAL: PopsiLufsJesus
I believe it, but I am not a complete literalist!
Yes.
Now in terms of evidence, I would point your attention to ALL ancient cultures in that region that have a flood myth. Of course, not any of the flood stories are exactly alike, but they all point to a massive flood in the region. In addition, you must realize that the stories in the Bible are based upon fact. For example, the only scientific discipline that is based upon a religious text is Biblical archaeology. Of course, these are not religious zealots, rather, these are scientists that recognize the historical truth behind the stories in the Bible.
AFAIK, few people would have a problem with the idea that there could have been a devastating flood somewhere in the middle east some 4000-6000 years ago. But a global flood is so much larger in scope that clear evidence of it would be slapping us in the face every single day.
But it isn't.
-Dan.
I think that depends on what kind of evidence you are looking for, or more importantly what kind of evidence you are willing to accept. check out this link
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/global-flood-faq.htm
a little excerpt
"Oceanographers took core samples of sediments in the Gulf of Mexico that included fossils shells from one-celled plankton called foraminifera and made an interesting discovery. They discovered that at locations in the core samples that represent thousands of years ago, the salinity in the water was suddenly reduced based upon the shells locked-in permanent record of the conditions. This reduction in salinity could only be caused by a huge fresh water deluge.
There is much archaeological evidence confirming the Flood of Noah. There is a tablet in Babylon on which one of the Babylonian kings mentions his enjoyment in reading the writings of those who lived before the Flood. Another Babylonian tablet gives an interesting confirmation. Noah was the tenth generation from Adam according to the Bible, and this Babylonian tablet names the ten kings of Babylon who lived before the Flood. Another tablet names all the kings of Babylon, and after the first ten there are the words: “The Deluge came up. . .”
Stories of the Nochian Flood have been found in almost every civilization in the world. Dr. Aaron Smith of the University of Greensboro collected a complete history of the literature on Noah’s Ark. He found 80,000 works in 72 languages about the flood. About 70,000 of them mention the wreckage of the Ark. "
there is much more also, but are you willing to believe it?
_____________________________
Isaiah 41:10
"Fear not for I am with you,
Do not be dismayed for I am your God,
I will strengthen you and help you,
I will uphold you with my righteous right hand"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Believe the Old Testament? Literally? - 9/25/2008 9:25:30 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1938
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikeman2
quote:
ORIGINAL: PopsiLufsJesus
I believe it, but I am not a complete literalist!
Yes.
Now in terms of evidence, I would point your attention to ALL ancient cultures in that region that have a flood myth. Of course, not any of the flood stories are exactly alike, but they all point to a massive flood in the region. In addition, you must realize that the stories in the Bible are based upon fact. For example, the only scientific discipline that is based upon a religious text is Biblical archaeology. Of course, these are not religious zealots, rather, these are scientists that recognize the historical truth behind the stories in the Bible.
AFAIK, few people would have a problem with the idea that there could have been a devastating flood somewhere in the middle east some 4000-6000 years ago. But a global flood is so much larger in scope that clear evidence of it would be slapping us in the face every single day.
But it isn't.
-Dan.
I think that depends on what kind of evidence you are looking for, or more importantly what kind of evidence you are willing to accept. check out this link
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/global-flood-faq.htm
a little excerpt
"Oceanographers took core samples of sediments in the Gulf of Mexico that included fossils shells from one-celled plankton called foraminifera and made an interesting discovery. They discovered that at locations in the core samples that represent thousands of years ago, the salinity in the water was suddenly reduced based upon the shells locked-in permanent record of the conditions. This reduction in salinity could only be caused by a huge fresh water deluge.
I've seen all the "evidence" and there are plenty of examples of large, localized floods - which no scientist denies can happen. The channeled scablands are a good example of what happens when a large mass of water rushes over land very quickly. However, what we don't see is continuity between these bodies of evidence. The evidence best fits a number of local (albeit large in some cases) events happening over time, not one global event.
quote:
There is much archaeological evidence confirming the Flood of Noah. There is a tablet in Babylon on which one of the Babylonian kings mentions his enjoyment in reading the writings of those who lived before the Flood. Another Babylonian tablet gives an interesting confirmation. Noah was the tenth generation from Adam according to the Bible, and this Babylonian tablet names the ten kings of Babylon who lived before the Flood. Another tablet names all the kings of Babylon, and after the first ten there are the words: “The Deluge came up. . .”
All that proves is that the locals had a flood legend.
quote:
Stories of the Nochian Flood have been found in almost every civilization in the world. Dr. Aaron Smith of the University of Greensboro collected a complete history of the literature on Noah’s Ark. He found 80,000 works in 72 languages about the flood. About 70,000 of them mention the wreckage of the Ark. "
I'd like to see more information on this. The only mention I can find of this guy is a couple different forms of this very sentence, with one source claiming it came from a book called The Bible as History written in 1980 by Werner Keller.
quote:
there is much more also, but are you willing to believe it?
I believed in a global flood for a long time, then in trying to learn more about it in order to convince other people, I came to the realization that the "science" that allegedly supported this theory was bogus.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Believe the Old Testament? Literally? - 9/26/2008 10:16:52 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4073
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
I believed in a global flood for a long time, then in trying to learn more about it in order to convince other people, I came to the realization that the "science" that allegedly supported this theory was bogus. People come up with bogus scientific supports for a number of reasons, none of them any good.
Usually it has to do with trying to fit a biblical truth into a limited non-biblical worldview.
Its like trying to fit 10 lbs of fresh fertilizer in the 5 lb bag - IYKWIM - a real mess.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Believe the Old Testament? Literally? - 9/26/2008 11:07:11 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 6120
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are wearing sweaters....
Status: online
|
Context, context, context.
Not everything in the Bible is literal.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Believe the Old Testament? Literally? - 9/26/2008 12:10:54 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4073
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: earthless
Context, context, context.
Not everything in the Bible is literal. Of course. I have never seen any woman with a whole herd of sheep in her mouth (SOS 4.2)
But some things like the flood, the plagues, Jerico's walls collapsing, ARE literal. I take the 6 day creation story as literal also.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Believe the Old Testament? Literally? - 9/26/2008 12:18:21 PM
|
|
|
PolarBear
Posts: 661
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Moving to San Antonio!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
There is much archaeological evidence confirming the Flood of Noah. There is a tablet in Babylon on which one of the Babylonian kings mentions his enjoyment in reading the writings of those who lived before the Flood. Another Babylonian tablet gives an interesting confirmation. Noah was the tenth generation from Adam according to the Bible, and this Babylonian tablet names the ten kings of Babylon who lived before the Flood. Another tablet names all the kings of Babylon, and after the first ten there are the words: “The Deluge came up. . .”
Stories of the Nochian Flood have been found in almost every civilization in the world. Dr. Aaron Smith of the University of Greensboro collected a complete history of the literature on Noah’s Ark. He found 80,000 works in 72 languages about the flood. About 70,000 of them mention the wreckage of the Ark. "[/color]
Agreed, this is good evidence for the accuracy of the Bible on a Flood that affected all humanity.
It is not, however, evidence that the geographic reaches of the waters were truly worldwide. If all humanity lived in a relatively small section of the earth when it happened, and all humanity (except those on the ark) were killed, then as the peoples spread out, they took with them the knowledge of the Flood.
More evidence for the reliability of the Flood account comes from genetics. Mitochondrial DNA and Y-Chromosomal DNA can tell us a lot about the genetic makeup of humanity. Amazingly, they have shown that the last common male ancestor of all humanity came significantly later than the last common female ancestor of all humanity.
This is exactly how the Bible would have it. Our "paternal" genes all come from Noah, via his sons on the ark. However, the women on the ark (Noah's wife and sons' wives) were supposedly not directly related, having different mothers.
Again, we have evidence for the Bible that is not evidence of a young earth. The commonly accepted differences between the last male and female ancestors is about 150,000 years IIRC. Now, I'm not personally comfortable with that great a timespan, so I suspect that future discoveries will alter this to make them much closer together -- maybe a few thousand years, or tens of thousands at the most.
_____________________________
My current ministry dream:
http://victorymuseum.org
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
By the by, I happen to believe a circle is NOT flat but round, just because it's not called an orb but a circle doesn't nec. make it 2 dimen. JMO. :-) 
