Author Topic: Narrating the Story of the Bible  (Read 3410 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Iron Webmaster

  • Master Chief
  • *
  • Posts: 302
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Giwer's World
Narrating the Story of the Bible
« on: August 16, 2011, 10:23:35 AM »
Narrating the Story of the Bible

   Using all the available material no coherent narrative can be constructed from the facts. The bible itself does not contain a coherent narrative. Narratives about the bible and bible times often disagree internally and the writers are fully aware of it. They embody the reason truth is stranger than fiction is because fiction has to make sense.
   But there are other reasons. The common source of incoherence are imposing current false beliefs upon a narrative.
   We can read of Alexander Jannaeus imposing Judean cult practices by military conquest. A writer will then find it necessary to create an explanation as to why this is not really what happened.
   Why? Because the writer “knows” Judaism was not spread by force. How does he know that? He doesn't. He merely believes it was not spread by force. Why? That is what he was taught.
   He was taught of a culture which is not found in archaeology for centuries ruled present day Israel and southern parts of Lebanon and Syria which worshiped only the god Yahweh. The conquest story which is found in real history began in the Jerusalem city-state of Judea in the 2nd c. BC and spread modestly on the frontier between the Egyptian and Syrian Greek empires. He was taught and believes what has no basis in reality.
   Why not spread it by force? The cult practices of the Judeans were, and largely still are, nothing more than the observance of an elaborate set of rituals and the avoidance of taboos. It has nothing to do with beliefs or professions of faith. There can be no false conversions. Either the rituals and taboos are observed or they are not. And since the penalty for failed observance was the liberal use of public execution by stoning there was a strong incentive for public observance.

   The usual approach to dealing with incompatible facts is either not to mention them or find some glib way to explain it away. These are to preserve the generally accepted narrative. Some variations of the narrative are permitted but the common factors are preserved. There is an extreme which takes away all the god parts which imagines what is left is by magic self-evident fact without need of physical evidence. Making a story less incredible does not make it credible.
   If we are to develop a rational narrative of the known facts then anything and everything which is not supported by physical evidence needs be removed from the discussion. It may be acceptable to explain away an inconsistent fact but it cannot be done in a manner which favors things for which there is no physical evidence.

1. There is no evidence of anything of interest in the canonical books of the Old Testament. Specifically there is no evidence of Abraham, Moses, Hebrews in Egypt, Kings David and Solomon including a united kingdom of Israel and a later split creating Judah. There is no evidence of any temple in Jerusalem nor of any exclusive Yahweh worship. There is no evidence of any of bible version of events including the few which are known to have occurred. There is no evidence of any of the prophets nor the Israel/Judah side of any battle or event.
2. There is no evidence of the existence of a literate culture in bibleland prior to Greek times. There is no evidence of any other significant culture in bibleland. No monumental buildings, no cities, nothing which could be attributed to the region that is the central interest of the Old Testament. There is no evidence of an “hebrew” language only of a few rare inscriptions in Phoenician. Thus there could have been no written records preserving the bible stories. What is currently called  Hebrew first appears in the 10th c. AC. The few “identified” examples of “hebrew” from the first few centuries AD are Aramaic. Even modern Hebrew uses the Aramaic script.
3. There is no evidence of the existence of the books, people, events or stories of the Old Testament until they first appear in Greek in the mid-2nd c. BC. Any assertion that the Greek texts, the LXX or Septuagint, are not the original books in a language other than Greek is without evidence.

   Any narrative which attempts to establish the traditional narrative by assuming facts which are not in evidence is worthless. It is contrary to rational thought.
   Re-defining the bible stories by taking away as little as possible to preserve the traditional narrative is deceptive. Given item three anything which claims other than that they were created by people writing in Greek is saying something which has no basis in fact.
   Although solid historical facts are scant they are the only credible material to work with. It is not credible to weave “real” bible events into the empty spaces. There is nothing to weave. By the physical evidence there were no biblical events or people. There is nothing to weave into the empty spaces. If one wants to speculate as to what is in the empty spaces it can only be based upon what is in physical evidence.
   For example the Palestinians are mentioned by that name by Herodotus in the mid-5th c. BC. There is many historical mentions of the Phoenicians and of the Syrians and the Cyprians. There is no mention of any Israelites or Hebrews nor of any Philistines in all of history or archaeology. Thus a credible narrative of the region and times can only address what is known and cannot address people who are existed only in the imagination of the people who created the bible stories.
   While respectable archaeologists have largely sworn off the old habit of excavating with a shovel in one hand and a bible in the other it often persists in pernicious ways. There have been finds of modest settlements in the coastal regions of Israel and Gaza which are clearly not Phoenician. It is common to call them Philistine settlements.
   That is digging using the bible to interpret finds. It implies there really were people who called themselves Philistines or who were called Philistines by contemporaries. It is as unreasonable as discovering settlements in Kansas and calling the people Munchkins because that is a name in Baum's Oz books.
   Even if the archaeologists are scrupulous in their professional papers and stick rigorously to avoiding bible references in interviews, science writers will wade into bible references with both feet. The general public gets next to no information directly from the scientists themselves. What little there is is generally found in short quotes surrounded by the words of science writers.
   This leaves the public with the mistaken impression research is actually confirming the bible. This it not limited to the journalism majors who have learned to write in a style that appears knowledgeable and authoritative.
   A very reasonable criteria is never to take an article about an archaeological find seriously. Never consider anything until you have actually read exactly what has been found. Any story about the find which is not directly supported by the physical objects found is journalistic fantasy. A few potsherds cannot be rationally conflated into the site of a great biblical battle even if done by a journalism major. Do not look at what people say it is, look at what it is.
   If you have heard of all the artifacts of biblical Israel one needs only look for them. They should be in museums in Israel and in the major museums of the world. There is such an interest in the bible that exhibits should be on constant tour raising money for the museums. But there are no tours. There are so few things and none of which are impressive that they would all fit in a large briefcase.
   There are museum exhibits of finds from Roman times and a few from Greek times but nothing of bible interest. What little there is from pre-Greek times either indicates nothing about the bible stories or is profoundly anti-biblical such as Yahweh and Ashara not only as inscriptions but in the same votive object. Which leads to the appearance of the Yahweh cult in the 1st c. BC while temples to Astarte, aSTRaTo's Towers to believers, all over the region including in Jerusalem. Herod built one in Caesarea.
   School textbooks will often include references to “the time of King Solomon of Israel” which is as meaningful as “the time of the Wizard of Oz.” Some even give a narrative of this kingdom as though it had really existed.
   This Greek fiction is also the center of a hyperbolic geopolitical disaster called Israel. Most of its supporters believe the Greek fiction really happened. It agnostic and atheist supporters believe if one just takes away the god parts the Greek fiction really happened. The reality is that Greek fiction is exactly that, fiction.
   Consider how the Zionist fantasy sounds if it recites it is restoring a Yahweh cult invented in the 2nd c. BC and spread by force outside Judea. Consider how it sounds to Christians if barely more than a century before his birth his Galilean ancestors were forced to convert to Yahweh cult.
   Lets take for example the Moabite stone. Believers will attempt to claim the entire biblical narrative is true simply because of one inscription. For all we know that inscription may have been well known to the Greek writers. When it came to our attention in modern times says nothing about its history.
   The same goes for the tunnel inscription. There is a marvelous tale woven around it about a king digging a tunnel for water for Jerusalem in preparation for an expected siege. Problem is there is no mention of any biblical person or event on the inscription. As it was removed to a museum in Turkey shortly after its discovery. It was not dated then and cannot be dated today. Again that it became known to us in modern times says nothing about who knew about it and how long ago.    
   For those who still want to believe in inscription it is written in Phoenician.    
   As a matter of fact all of the inscriptions called proto-hebrew or archaeo-hebrew are in fact Phoenician. There is no disagreement on this among professionals. It is the earliest known language spoken in the lands covered by the bible stories. When the Greeks arrive in the region everyone is speaking Aramaic. By Roman times the educated also spoke Greek. There is no evidence “hebrew” is other than an invented language, sort of a pidgin Greek for Aramaic speakers.
   When we compare the versions of the bible stories found in the Septuagint books, the scrolls found at Qumran and canonical Masoretic from the 11th c. AD we find them being abbreviated. The greatest number of verses is found in the Greek. A lesser number in the Qumran scrolls and the least in the Masoretic. More telling is there is no material found in the Qumran scrolls not found in the Septuagint. Nor are their any verses found in the Masoretic which are not found in the Qumran scrolls.
   Not only is there no physical evidence of anything older than the Septuagint there is no internal indication there was ever any other material than found in the Septuagint.
1.9 GB of pure vanity

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.
That is all you need to know about the conflict. All the rest is distraction.
See the new biopic, Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory!

Offline FrankDialogue

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 5707
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2011, 11:08:44 AM »
Whether you believe in the historic veracity of Biblical accounts or not, this is a simple minded entry copied off of a web site.

Do we expect to find papyrus texts (probable material used for recording the written word) dating back well over 2000 years?...Please use common sense.

These same questions may be asked in the future about current history if we see a complete change to digital format for the printed word.

The writer also betrays a certain confusion/prejudice when he talks about Zionism in the context of the Old Testament...While Talmudists may make this connection, and use the OT as a political blueprint or reference, the traditional Christian interpretation sees the OT as a precursor to the revelation and life of Christ, and does not view 'Yahweh', as the God of the OT as is sometimes mistakenly referred to.

There was no such thing as Judaism in OT times: what we had was a primitive form of monotheism, but still informed by the gods of ancient Egypt, Sumer or Babylon...The religion of this time would more properly be described as a 'temple religion' as the belief was that the most high God would take a presence in the respective temple or tabernacle when certain sacrifices were carried out, or when acts that were pleasing to this God were enacted...In this, it has similarities with Aztec and other cultures, and, looking back, it is difficult to distinguish whether they worshipped the most high God or the devil...IMHO, it was the latter.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2011, 11:33:10 AM by FrankDialogue »

Offline Iron Webmaster

  • Master Chief
  • *
  • Posts: 302
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Giwer's World
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2011, 11:35:39 AM »
Whether you believe in the historic veracity of Biblical accounts or not, this is a simple minded entry copied off of a web site.

I wrote it based upon my research and it is not even on my website yet in this form. For relevant material you can go to http://www.giwersworld.org/ and read some of the articles in the upper right column.

To repeat the central issue. BELIEF has nothing to do with the matter. There is either physical evidence or there is not. In this case there is none. No rational person accepts anything without physical evidence.

Quote
Do we expect to find papyrus texts (probable material used for recording the written word) dating back well over 2000 years?...Please use common sense.

We rationally expect to find exactly the same kind of physical evidence found for any other ancient civilization. There is no evidence of a civilization which could have produced the Septuagint stories prior to the arrival of the Greeks and in fact not until at least a century afterwards.

Attempting to "excuse the absence" of evidence does nothing but highlight the absence of evidence.

There is no external mention of the civilization, people or culture described in the Septuagint stories. Therefore no indirect evidence either. There is no rational reason to accept the RELIGIOUS TRADITION that the Septuagint recounts actual events. No one knows when that religious tradition was invented, who invented it nor why it was invented.

In the first century AD it was not accepted in the civilized world as being a recounting of events. Josephus rails against people not believing that in the first book of Against Apion. See the first article in the right column of my website on how easy it is to hate Jews.

Quote
These same questions may be asked in the future about current history if we see a complete change to digital format for the printed word.

Without physical evidence no rational person accepts anything.

Quote
The writer also betrays a certain confusion/prejudice when he talks about Zionism in the context of the Old Testament...While Talmudists may make this connection, and use the OT as a political blueprint or reference, the traditional Christian interpretation sees the OT as a precursor to the revelation and life of Christ, and does not view 'Yahweh', as the God of the OT as is sometimes mistakenly referred to.

The zionism remark was simply an example of the extreme consequences of believing things for which there is no physical evidence.

Your unstated position is quite correct. Absent the foundation of the Yahweh cult there is no foundation for either Christianity or Islam. Strike the Root! Is is easier.
1.9 GB of pure vanity

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.
That is all you need to know about the conflict. All the rest is distraction.
See the new biopic, Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory!

Offline jacob gold

  • Troll
  • General of the Army
  • *
  • Posts: 9200
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2011, 12:08:00 PM »


I love bible story    .... Masada, moses, the red sea.  the temple of solomon, the jewish holy land

Offline Iron Webmaster

  • Master Chief
  • *
  • Posts: 302
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Giwer's World
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2011, 12:11:57 PM »
...
There was no such thing as Judaism in OT times: what we had was a primitive form of monotheism, but still informed by the gods of ancient Egypt, Sumer or Babylon...The religion of this time would more properly be described as a 'temple religion' as the belief was that the most high God would take a presence in the respective temple or tabernacle when certain sacrifices were carried out, or when acts that were pleasing to this God were enacted...In this, it has similarities with Aztec and other cultures, and, looking back, it is difficult to distinguish whether they worshipped the most high God or the devil...IMHO, it was the latter.

If we stick with the available evidence we find the region had the typical pattern of its neighbors, a male and female god as central. We find mention of a temple to Astarte (Strato's tower to the pious) on the same hill as the Antonine stables in Jerusalem. This is the same hill as the Dome of the Rock mosque and which the pious have invented as the location of Herod's temple. There is ZERO evidence of monotheism at any time.

For the record the earliest unambiguous statement of monotheism is in the Koran.

Back then as still today the Yahweh cult has been a ritual/taboo type of religion like Islam. It has never been creedal. As it was not creedal the idea of "belief" in one or two or many is a meaningless subject as Jews can "believe" in any number they want, even none, as long as the rituals and taboos are observed.
1.9 GB of pure vanity

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.
That is all you need to know about the conflict. All the rest is distraction.
See the new biopic, Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory!

Offline Iron Webmaster

  • Master Chief
  • *
  • Posts: 302
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Giwer's World
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2011, 12:24:10 PM »
I love bible story    .... Masada, moses, the red sea.  the temple of solomon, the jewish holy land

The story of Masada is found only in Josephus. I have to ask why people murdering their wives and children inspiring. They also got supplies and man power by raiding and kidnapping. No wonder the IDF thinks they are a great role model.

The quality of these stories only appears after heavy adaptation by modern storytellers. Moses is described as a stutterer. Replace Charlton Heston with Arnold Stang.

That there is any entertainment value should smack everyone between the eyes that they were intended to be fiction when written. My issue is all the available physical evidence points to their creation in Alexandria in Greek in the mid 2nd c. BC. There is no evidence contrary to this.
1.9 GB of pure vanity

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.
That is all you need to know about the conflict. All the rest is distraction.
See the new biopic, Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory!

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2011, 12:49:25 PM »

Welcome back IW. Stay awhile this time.
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline pope daniel

  • Group Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1466
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Order of Miseratio Solvo Templum
    • View Profile
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2011, 01:05:57 PM »
Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair."

COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.

Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.
Revelation 3:14 "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.

Offline FrankDialogue

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 5707
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2011, 01:35:11 PM »
Your arguments are all centered on your scepticism/dislike of the Bible, and extend into what you term the 'cult of Yahweh'...Christians recognize no cult of Yahweh...Islam the earliest example of monotheism?...What is Christianity then?

The earliest forms of what we consider 'writing' would probably be inscriptions, pictorial, or very simple symbols, or Sumerian remnants...Would I be correct in this?...Perhaps you would consider 'pre-historic' cave paintings to be a form of writing.

But if one goes back to ancient Egyptian civilization, we would also find that the 'writing' was mostly pictorial...An artifact like the Rosetta Stone, which has something that would resemble a non-pictorial or symbolic lettering only dates to about the 2nd century before Christ...It is generally accepted that much of what we consider writing in the Middle east was done on papyrus, as I mentioned...But papyrus just doesn't keep for centuries, accept in a very few unusual and exceptional cases...For example, I believe that the earliest surviving fragment of the NT is a part of a scroll from the Gospel of John, dating to the early 2nd century AD...This material just doesn't keep...Do we have any of the original pieces of paper that Gutenberg's press printed?

The earliest examples of written records from the British Isles didn't exist until the Romans occupied England, correct?...Yet, Britain was populated, the people lived and had a history, and some sort of language, but perhaps their method of inscription was just too primitive or inefficient to survive...But this does not mean that they had no history.

In the case of fragments found in Qumram (Dead Sea Scrolls), some, if they were papyrus, were preserved in a cave, while other 'scrolls' were on a metallic substance.

For the Septuagint, are there any surviving fragments of the original scrolls?...Yet, if there are not, we still accept the existence of the Septuagint, most likely because it is referenced in later Biblical transcriptions, and because we accept it's existence because of oral history...In fact, the Septuagint is supposedly a translation into Greek of Hebrew writing...Then this clearly implies that there was writing to translate, in whatever form it was, primitive or more sophisticated.

The farther we go back in history, the more difficult, yea mainly impossible it is to find original documents...But we accept history because it was passed onto us, in the present, by a chain of historians whose labour it was to compile these records.

Now, interpretation of history in most cases is open to different perspectives and interpretations...Even current history, where we have video records, can cause controversy...Ancient historical records are very hard to come by, and in many cases history is interpreted through deductive reasoning.

As far as Biblical archeological records and artifacts, they exist, and if I get more time, I shall try to cite examples and we can discuss their interpretation.

Offline Iron Webmaster

  • Master Chief
  • *
  • Posts: 302
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Giwer's World
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2011, 03:11:35 PM »
Your arguments are all centered on your scepticism/dislike of the Bible,

My observations are of the total absence of physical evidence in support of a religious tradition regarding the nature of the Septuagint. I also observe no one knows when the religious tradition regarding its nature was invented nor who invented it nor why. If you know of physical evidence which would be the foundation of the tradition it would be good if you were to post it.

Quote
and extend into what you term the 'cult of Yahweh'...Christians recognize no cult of Yahweh

What would you call it but a cult? I am open to suggestions.

Quote
...Islam the earliest example of monotheism?...What is Christianity then?

If you know of a christian source for a simple, declarative sentence that there is only one god prior to Islam please tell me about it.

Quote
The earliest forms of what we consider 'writing' would probably be inscriptions, pictorial, or very simple symbols, or Sumerian remnants...Would I be correct in this?...Perhaps you would consider 'pre-historic' cave paintings to be a form of writing.

What might that have to do with the roughly half million words (in English translation) found in the common Septuagint collections?

Quote
But if one goes back to ancient Egyptian civilization, we would also find that the 'writing' was mostly pictorial...An artifact like the Rosetta Stone, which has something that would resemble a non-pictorial or symbolic lettering only dates to about the 2nd century before Christ...It is generally accepted that much of what we consider writing in the Middle east was done on papyrus, as I mentioned...But papyrus just doesn't keep for centuries, accept in a very few unusual and exceptional cases...For example, I believe that the earliest surviving fragment of the NT is a part of a scroll from the Gospel of John, dating to the early 2nd century AD...This material just doesn't keep...Do we have any of the original pieces of paper that Gutenberg's press printed?

In real studies of ancient history when it comes to written materials almost nothing original has survived that was not engraved in stone. That is why the earliest mention of a document is used for dating a document. For example the earliest mention of more than one gospel is in the mid/late 2nd c. AD while the first mention of any gospel is early 2nd c. Those are the only "dates" to support for their existence.

The same applies to the Septuagint stories. There is no mention of them or the characters or events in them until the 1st c. BC. Therefore there is no rational basis to suggest they are older than that although given the Josephus narrative of events after John Maccabe suggests they might be as old as the mid 2nd c. BC. Similarly they appear in Greek. The Letter of Aristeas claiming the Septuagint is a translation appears at the same time as the Septuagint and is a forgery of imaginary events a century earlier.

Quote
The earliest examples of written records from the British Isles didn't exist until the Romans occupied England, correct?...Yet, Britain was populated, the people lived and had a history, and some sort of language, but perhaps their method of inscription was just too primitive or inefficient to survive...But this does not mean that they had no history.

That does mean they have no recorded history prior to Rome which is a fact. Making up excuses for no records found in bibleland makes it doubly difficult to explain their sudden appearance in Greek after the success of the Maccabes in the proxy war between the Seleucids and the Ptolemys.

Quote
In the case of fragments found in Qumram (Dead Sea Scrolls), some, if they were papyrus, were preserved in a cave, while other 'scrolls' were on a metallic substance.

There was only one on copper -- the treasure scroll. They all post date the Septuagint.

Quote
For the Septuagint, are there any surviving fragments of the original scrolls?...Yet, if there are not, we still accept the existence of the Septuagint, most likely because it is referenced in later Biblical transcriptions, and because we accept it's existence because of oral history...In fact, the Septuagint is supposedly a translation into Greek of Hebrew writing...Then this clearly implies that there was writing to translate, in whatever form it was, primitive or more sophisticated.

No need to rehash the first mention as it is so well known it is difficult to imagine you did not know of it in an odd attempt to construct an argument here. The sole claim the Greek is a translation is well known to be a forgery.

Quote
The farther we go back in history, the more difficult, yea mainly impossible it is to find original documents...But we accept history because it was passed onto us, in the present, by a chain of historians whose labour it was to compile these records.

Now, interpretation of history in most cases is open to different perspectives and interpretations...Even current history, where we have video records, can cause controversy...Ancient historical records are very hard to come by, and in many cases history is interpreted through deductive reasoning.

One must first establish they are historical records. In this case one must establish the civilization before considering it a narrative of events. One can have a kingdom without a narrative but not a narrative without a kingdom. Nor is it ever legitimate to force-fit one to the other. Finding a wall in 9th c. BC Jerusalem and declaring it was built by King David is just plain delusional.

Quote
As far as Biblical archeological records and artifacts, they exist, and if I get more time, I shall try to cite examples and we can discuss their interpretation.

Interpretation must be by the same rules as any other artefact found any other place. What an item is can only be what is indicated intrinsic to the item. I have taken a look at all the significant ones. You might start here http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/index.phtml to avoid starting in the wrong place.
1.9 GB of pure vanity

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.
That is all you need to know about the conflict. All the rest is distraction.
See the new biopic, Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory!

Offline Iron Webmaster

  • Master Chief
  • *
  • Posts: 302
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Giwer's World
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2011, 03:21:10 PM »
Welcome back IW. Stay awhile this time.

I may have the time now being officially retired and all Medicared up and leeching off the job creators and all.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2011, 04:11:41 PM by Iron Webmaster »
1.9 GB of pure vanity

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.
That is all you need to know about the conflict. All the rest is distraction.
See the new biopic, Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory!

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2011, 04:35:20 PM »
I may have the time now being officially retired and all Medicared up and leeching off the job creators and all.

Sorry to hear about your not so good health.
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline Father Brown

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 392
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2011, 05:26:18 PM »
Quote
Using all the available material no coherent narrative can be constructed from the facts. The bible itself does not contain a coherent narrative.

Let me stop you right there. Nobody ever said it was. It is a collection of 73 books. It is more of a library than a book.

That's why so many people get lost and mislead vis a vis Sola Scriptura.

Offline Father Brown

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 392
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2011, 05:37:45 PM »
Whether you believe in the historic veracity of Biblical accounts or not, this is a simple minded entry copied off of a web site.

Do we expect to find papyrus texts (probable material used for recording the written word) dating back well over 2000 years?...Please use common sense.

These same questions may be asked in the future about current history if we see a complete change to digital format for the printed word.

The writer also betrays a certain confusion/prejudice when he talks about Zionism in the context of the Old Testament...While Talmudists may make this connection, and use the OT as a political blueprint or reference, the traditional Christian interpretation sees the OT as a precursor to the revelation and life of Christ, and does not view 'Yahweh', as the God of the OT as is sometimes mistakenly referred to.

There was no such thing as Judaism in OT times: what we had was a primitive form of monotheism, but still informed by the gods of ancient Egypt, Sumer or Babylon...The religion of this time would more properly be described as a 'temple religion' as the belief was that the most high God would take a presence in the respective temple or tabernacle when certain sacrifices were carried out, or when acts that were pleasing to this God were enacted...In this, it has similarities with Aztec and other cultures, and, looking back, it is difficult to distinguish whether they worshipped the most high God or the devil...IMHO, it was the latter.

Frank, You are certainly correct to say there was no Judaism in OT times. But, I kind of disagree with these folks worshipping the Devil. Some did and the prophets and psalmists told us this. But, I view that old religion as pre-Christianity. Sacrifice of first fruits, animal and cereal were a precusor to the ultimate Sacrifice of the Son of God. It took thousands of years for the world to be ready for this Sacrifice at Calvary and the fullness of Truth. But even in the book of Exodus, we see priestly vestments and Altars of incense and of loaves and the Holy of Holies, which is now the Tabernacle sitting atop Catholic Altars. And look at Melchesidech in the book of Genesis, he offered bread and wine and blessed Abraham. Abrhaham who actually talked to God. That shows a power that seemed like nonsense until the only True priest, of the order of Melchesdech, Jesus Christ appeared. The psalms are all about Christ. And the prhophets are types of Christ. I'm sure you agree with much of what I say here, just adding my two cents.   

Offline Iron Webmaster

  • Master Chief
  • *
  • Posts: 302
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Giwer's World
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2011, 02:42:49 AM »
Let me stop you right there. Nobody ever said it was. It is a collection of 73 books. It is more of a library than a book.

That's why so many people get lost and mislead vis a vis Sola Scriptura.

I thought it was clear from context. My reference to narrative is not to a storyline. It is to the existence of the collection, the library as you would call it. An explanation is one thing which is based upon facts in evidence. A narrative is less reliant upon facts but rather draws upon other knowledge to explain.

For example, there is a book entitled "Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible." It starts with a teaser saying he is telling about this culture in bibleland, the one that created and preserved the books down through the centuries. But he goes on describe what it was like by assuming it was analogous to the scribal cultures within other societies. That is a narrative.

When I came across the book I was expecting the learn all about what I had some how missed, evidence of a literate culture in bibleland. I was suckered by the teaser -- in my defense it was recommended by another who was suckered first. What I found confirmed my negative findings. The author produces no evidence whatsoever that there was ever a scribal culture in bibleland. As his use of scribal is equivalent to literate in my discussion his negative findings confirm the bible book could not have been either written or preserved in bibleland.

Of course believers miss his sleight of hand, his bait and switch game. Believers came away from the book believing they had learned something about the people who created and preserved the bible books down through the centuries. It is another example of people believing what they want to believe.

This is also related to my criteria for physical evidence. Believers accuse me of setting impossibly high standards for bibleland. See the "papyrus" ramble above as an example. But in fact I am only requiring the same kind of physical evidence found in other cultures. In this case the author was able to construct a fanciful narrative about scribal culture in bibleland drawing upon the archaeological evidence of the scribal cultures in other civilizations. The absence of the kind of evidence in bibleland that is found in other ancient civilizations is not an impossibly high standard. Rather it is exactly the same standard.
1.9 GB of pure vanity

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.
That is all you need to know about the conflict. All the rest is distraction.
See the new biopic, Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory!

Offline Iron Webmaster

  • Master Chief
  • *
  • Posts: 302
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Giwer's World
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2011, 03:26:30 AM »
...
Abrhaham who actually talked to God.

If one invokes a modest assumption, that people really do not change, that assertion can be looked at in a different light.

For example, we know talking to god is a popular but generally harmless delusion. We know those who claim to hear god talking to them are commonly dangerously delusional. Thus the story of Abram starts with the storyteller showing he is as fruity as a nutcake IF if were intended to be recounting a factual event.

OTOH, the use of a message from a god, directly or indirectly, was a common plot device in ancient Greek fiction. More generally it is the plot device where the man on a quest meets someone who knows all about the quest but only gives hints that do not make sense until the quest plays out. Arthur has his Merlin for example. It is even used in video games.

If it were written intending to recount a factual event the story says he was a loony. If it was not intended to portray him as a loony then it was written as fiction.

Thus the story was written as entertainment and not to be taken seriously.
1.9 GB of pure vanity

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.
That is all you need to know about the conflict. All the rest is distraction.
See the new biopic, Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory!

Offline Iron Webmaster

  • Master Chief
  • *
  • Posts: 302
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Giwer's World
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2011, 03:51:13 AM »
Sorry to hear about your not so good health.

Wrong impression. I am now at an age where no one asks after my early retirement. 20 years of explaining are enough. Health is what one might expect for the age. Worst at the moment is procrastinating over the first cataract removal.
1.9 GB of pure vanity

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.
That is all you need to know about the conflict. All the rest is distraction.
See the new biopic, Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory!

Offline Iron Webmaster

  • Master Chief
  • *
  • Posts: 302
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Giwer's World
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2011, 04:10:17 AM »
Let me stop you right there. Nobody ever said it was. It is a collection of 73 books. It is more of a library than a book.

That's why so many people get lost and mislead vis a vis Sola Scriptura.

FYI

http://www.freedomportal.net/index.php?topic=14048.0;topicseen

This is an older expression of the same ideas. Obviously some ideas have evolved since then.
1.9 GB of pure vanity

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.
That is all you need to know about the conflict. All the rest is distraction.
See the new biopic, Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory!

Offline pope daniel

  • Group Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1466
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Order of Miseratio Solvo Templum
    • View Profile
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2011, 05:54:34 AM »
But, I view that old religion as pre-Christianity.
Actually it was anti-Christianity.

Ecclesiasticus 23:
[30] This man shall be punished in the streets of the city, and he shall be chased as a colt: and where he suspected not, he shall be taken.

[31] And he shall be in disgrace with all men, because he understood not the fear of the LORD.
Revelation 3:14 "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.

Offline FrankDialogue

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 5707
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
- Narrating the Story of the Bible
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2011, 06:08:01 AM »

If you know of a christian source for a simple, declarative sentence that there is only one god prior to Islam please tell me about it.



What is the NT?...It predates Islam by a few hundred years, correct?