The fact that you are grasping at such minuscule details just proves the point of how sound it is.
[quote]
"Now thats a bunch of rubbish. Earlist copies of new testament writiing are as few as 30 years after Jesus walked the earth. Further, when they were found they verified the text of more recent copies.
The stuff they teach you in school as fact about Alexander the great was written 600 years after his death."[/quote]
Your lack of education and appetite for ignorance is astounding.
Even the vatican admits that Josephus Flavius’ writings from about 100 AD were forged by the chuch. There is no evidence from the first century.
Alexander the great has left a titanic footprint in our history.
I won’t bother with examples because it’s probably one of the largest in the history of humankind.
We can be puzzled by his decisions, debate his character, but only a dimwit would challenge his existence.
The fact that you compare him with the mythological Jesus is telling.
It’s highly improbable that Mr.J walked this earth. I wouldn’t totally exclude it, but there is zero evidence and a lot of questions.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
"Now thats a bunch of rubbish. Earlist copies of new testament writiing are as few as 30 years after Jesus walked the earth. Further, when they were found they verified the text of more recent copies.
The stuff they teach you in school as fact about Alexander the great was written 600 years after his death."
Your lack of education and appetite for ignorance is astounding.
Even the vatican admits that Josephus Flavius’ writings from about 100 AD were forged by the chuch. There is no evidence from the first century.
Alexander the great has left a titanic footprint in our history.
I won’t bother with examples because it’s probably one of the largest in the history of humankind.
We can be puzzled by his decisions, debate his character, but only a dimwit would challenge his existence.
The fact that you compare him with the mythological Jesus is telling.
It’s highly improbable that Mr.J walked this earth. I wouldn’t totally exclude it, but there is zero evidence and a lot of questions.[/quote]
And isn’t it funny that his story is so similar to hundreds of others?
At one point in time there may have been someone who fooled enough people to believe him, and his stories spread and were converted in many different, yet similar, versions.
Afterall, while that may be another theory, it’s a lot more realistic than what I’ve been hearing.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
RSGZ wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Now thats a bunch of rubbish. Earlist copies of new testament writiing are as few as 30 years after Jesus walked the earth. Further, when they were found they verified the text of more recent copies.
And the hundreds of years BC where moses supposedly wrote capters don’t count? The bible is compiled over text written over hundreds of years.
In terms of ancient historical documents, the Bible is as verified and sound as they come. I can recommend some reading if you’d like to educate yourself on the topic.
Ok, verified as in factually or it’s originations? While where it originally came from may be verified, doesn’t mean they didn’t take that from somewhere else or that it’s true.
I also am not sure which contradictions you are speaking of.
[i]"GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn’t created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created."[/i]
LMAO! Had you actually read the bible, you may have picked up a few of these.
Yes, the official cannon left out many books that were written, mostly because they couldn’t be substantiated, and they came from unreliable sources.
I’d question what you consider a reliable source.
I don’t think you have read the bible either. I am pretty sure you are just going off what someone has told you, or from a google search.
Because any idiot would be able to understand that the fourth day it is talking about concentrating the light in the stars, and the moon. If you are basing your opinion on that verse, you most definitely are too lazy to do the work yourself, and are relying on google.
As for your second bit of proof - I have no idea what version of the bible you are reading, but mine says nothing even close to what your little google search turned up.
If you hate religion, fine - try to actually know what the hell you are talking about. there is nothing more pathetic than a lazy hater.
[/quote]
I guess that those 20 odd years I was considered Catholic, reading the bible and going to church don’t count. Nice to see you agree with me that it seems he hasn’t read the bible though.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
"Now thats a bunch of rubbish. Earlist copies of new testament writiing are as few as 30 years after Jesus walked the earth. Further, when they were found they verified the text of more recent copies.
The stuff they teach you in school as fact about Alexander the great was written 600 years after his death."
Your lack of education and appetite for ignorance is astounding.
Even the vatican admits that Josephus Flavius’ writings from about 100 AD were forged by the chuch. There is no evidence from the first century.
Alexander the great has left a titanic footprint in our history.
I won’t bother with examples because it’s probably one of the largest in the history of humankind.
We can be puzzled by his decisions, debate his character, but only a dimwit would challenge his existence.
The fact that you compare him with the mythological Jesus is telling.
It’s highly improbable that Mr.J walked this earth. I wouldn’t totally exclude it, but there is zero evidence and a lot of questions.[/quote]
My point is that our view of Alexander is limited to a couple of documents written many centuries after the fact. I wasn’t debating his existence, just pointing out that no one has any trouble accepting those stories as fact. Not to mention Jesus left a pretty sizable footprint as well, considering most of the world still believes he was at least a prophet.
Highly improbable? The fact of the matter is, that is one argument even modern secular historians don’t make. There was almost undoubtedly an actual man, whether or not you believe what he did or not.
The last I had heard on Josephus was that he most probably did write the passages about Jesus that were latter added to (mainly the parts where he calls him the messiah).
Everything historically and scientifically verifiable about the Bible, to this point, has checked out.
People always try to dismiss and discredit the Bible in any way.
I don’t see how people can still argue against it as at least a historical document, when it happens to be the most verified and substantiated ancient historical document on the planet.
If you throw out the Bible with your logic, you have to remove everything we know about ancient history from text books.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Now thats a bunch of rubbish. Earlist copies of new testament writiing are as few as 30 years after Jesus walked the earth. Further, when they were found they verified the text of more recent copies.
And the hundreds of years BC where moses supposedly wrote capters don’t count? The bible is compiled over text written over hundreds of years.
In terms of ancient historical documents, the Bible is as verified and sound as they come. I can recommend some reading if you’d like to educate yourself on the topic.
Ok, verified as in factually or it’s originations? While where it originally came from may be verified, doesn’t mean they didn’t take that from somewhere else or that it’s true.
I also am not sure which contradictions you are speaking of.
[i]"GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn’t created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created."[/i]
LMAO! Had you actually read the bible, you may have picked up a few of these.
Yes, the official cannon left out many books that were written, mostly because they couldn’t be substantiated, and they came from unreliable sources.
I’d question what you consider a reliable source.[/quote]
RSGZ,
Your points about Genesis 1 and 2 were answered in a link I provided several pages back.
If you want to see a Christian response to the canonicity and authorship issues you raised, FF Bruce is a good read. MG Kline defended Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and most of his books can be found online.
If you look at the issue carefully, most critical scholars assign criteria to the Bible that they don’t assign to other ancient Near Eastern documents, or else they treat it more critically. This is nothing more than the presuppositional bias found in every scholar.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
RSGZ,
Your points about Genesis 1 and 2 were answered in a link I provided several pages back.
If you want to see a Christian response to the canonicity and authorship issues you raised, FF Bruce is a good read. MG Kline defended Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and most of his books can be found online.
If you look at the issue carefully, most critical scholars assign criteria to the Bible that they don’t assign to other ancient Near Eastern documents, or else they treat it more critically. This is nothing more than the presuppositional bias found in every scholar. [/quote]
I’ll have a look - thanks for replying in a civilized manner.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My point is that our view of Alexander is limited to a couple of documents written many centuries after the fact. I wasn’t debating his existence, just pointing out that no one has any trouble accepting those stories as fact. Not to mention Jesus left a pretty sizable footprint as well, considering most of the world still believes he was at least a prophet.
[/quote]
You’re so wrong it hurts.
Alexander has changed the history of the earth so forcefully we have not only a “few documents” but (literally) tons of proof.
You can’t undo him from a historical perspective. The Diadochi dynasties, the cultural whirlwind he initiated, the masses of people he interacted with, the trash his vast armies left behind. Did Ptolemaios invent Alexander when he wrote about his former contemporary friend? Did Kallisthenes of Olynth?
I don’t know from which christian site you got your info about 600 years but I don’t feel I have to school you here. Information is a click away these days, do I have to assume that you’re lazy or weak-of-mind? Why don’t you reasearch these utter baseless assertions?
Jesus could have not existed and it wouldn’t matter. Not one bit since we have no proof of any interaction in the first century- strange, the son of god doing big, shiny, wonders and nobody cared to write it down?
He left no heirs, he left no trace, even the biblical “facts” are confusing for historians.
You are the believer. I simply do not care about stories; if he was such a big man, where is the proof? I have better things to do then believe in spaghetti monsters. You could as well believe in Amaterasu o mi kami. Or do you?
[quote]
The last I had heard on Josephus was that he most probably did write the passages about Jesus that were latter added to (mainly the parts where he calls him the messiah).
Everything historically and scientifically verifiable about the Bible, to this point, has checked out.[/quote]
I don’t know what it is you want to tell me, the bible is for the most part a big hoax. Noah’s Arc, King Salomon, the parts they stole from much older religions, etc. doesn’t that tell you anything?
Leave your christian websites for a few months and visit a library.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created."
[/quote]
Looking at a Bible right now (New English Translation to be exact) I see:
GE 1:11-12: "God said, “Let the land produce vegetation, plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and fruit trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.” It was so. The land produced vegetation, plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it accorrding to their kinds. God saw that it was good.
GE 1:26-27: Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, after our likeness, so that they may have rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
Point 1 - Trees were created before man. I agree with you on this one.
Ge 2:4-9: This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created when the Lord God made the earth and heavens. Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)
Point 2 - I completely disagree. They just hadn’t grown yet. No rain (or water from springs). Notice the bolded text in the quote. Additionally, it says nothing about trees being created after man, just the orchard in the Garden of Eden.
Copy and pasted from Wikipedia on Alexander the Great:
There are numerous Greek and Latin texts about Alexander, as well as some non-Greek texts. The primary sources, texts written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and some letter-fragments of dubious authenticity. Contemporaries who wrote full accounts of his life include the historian Callisthenes, Alexander’s general Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Nearchus, and Onesicritus. Another influential account is by Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander’s expedition, used sources which had just been published. His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many historians whose work still survives. None of these works survives, but we do have later works based on these primary sources.
The five main surviving accounts are by Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, Diodorus, and Justin.
* Anabasis Alexandri (The Campaigns of Alexander in Greek) by the Greek historian Arrian of Nicomedia, writing in the 2nd century AD, and based largely on Ptolemy and, to a lesser extent, Aristobulus and Nearchus. It is considered generally the most trustworthy source.
* Historiae Alexandri Magni, a biography of Alexander in ten books, of which the last eight survive, by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus, written in the 1st century AD, and based largely on Cleitarchus through the mediation of Timagenes, with some material probably from Ptolemy;
* Life of Alexander (see Parallel Lives) and two orations On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander the Great (see Moralia), by the Greek historian and biographer Plutarch of Chaeronea in the second century, based largely on Aristobulus and especially Cleitarchus.
* Bibliotheca historia (Library of world history), written in Greek by the Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus, from which Book 17 relates the conquests of Alexander, based almost entirely on Timagenes's work. The books immediately before and after, on Philip and Alexander's "Successors," throw light on Alexander's reign.
* The Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus by Justin, which contains factual errors and is highly compressed. It is difficult in this case to understand the source, since we only have an epitome, but it is thought that also Pompeius Trogus may have limited himself to use Timagenes for his Latin history.
To these five main sources some scholars add the Metz Epitome, an anonymous late Latin work that narrates Alexander’s campaigns from Hyrcania to India. Much is also recounted incidentally in other authors, including Strabo, Athenaeus, Polyaenus, Aelian, and others.
The “problem of the sources” is the main concern (and chief delight) of Alexander-historians. In effect, each presents a different “Alexander”, with details to suit. Arrian is mostly interested in the military aspects, while Curtius veers to a more private and darker Alexander. Plutarch can’t resist a good story, light or dark. All, with the possible exception of Arrian, include a considerable level of fantasy, prompting Strabo to remark, “All who wrote about Alexander preferred the marvelous to the true.” Nevertheless, the sources tell us much, and leave much to our interpretation and imagination. Perhaps Arrian’s words are most appropriate:
One account says that Hephaestion laid a wreath on the tomb of Patroclus; another that Alexander laid one on the tomb of Achilles, calling him a lucky man, in that he had Homer to proclaim his deeds and preserve his memory. And well might Alexander envy Achilles this piece of good fortune; for in his own case there was no equivalent: his one failure, the single break, as it were, in the long chain of his successes, was that he had no worthy chronicler to tell the world of his exploits.
I was wrong on the 600 years quote. 400 would have been more accurate.
[quote]jbumgarner wrote:
RSGZ wrote:
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created."
Looking at a Bible right now (New English Translation to be exact) I see:
GE 1:11-12: [i]"God said, “Let the land produce vegetation, plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and fruit trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.” It was so.
The land produced vegetation, plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it accorrding to their kinds. God saw that it was good.
GE 1:26-27: Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, after our likeness, so that they may have rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”[/i]
Point 1 - Trees were created before man. I agree with you on this one.
Ge 2:4-9: [i]This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created when the Lord God made the earth and heavens. Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)[/i]
Point 2 - I completely disagree. They just hadn’t grown yet. No rain (or water from springs). Notice the bolded text in the quote. Additionally, it says nothing about trees being created after man, just the orchard in the Garden of Eden.[/quote]
Look, fair enough and I agree that point may not be correct, but did you click the link following that quote? I just pulled 2 examples of what seemed like 100 of them.
I’m also very willing to bet that while your bible may not have that particular quote mixed up, there are many versions out there that do. I have before compared and found inconsistencies while using one of my old bibles as a reference.
People living for hundreds of years(!), parting whole oceans and such is just too much to believe and any book trying to tell me that is fact along with a nice bout of sexism loses all credibility to me.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
jbumgarner wrote:
RSGZ wrote:
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created."
Looking at a Bible right now (New English Translation to be exact) I see:
GE 1:11-12: [i]"God said, “Let the land produce vegetation, plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and fruit trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.” It was so. The land produced vegetation, plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it accorrding to their kinds. God saw that it was good.
GE 1:26-27: Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, after our likeness, so that they may have rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”[/i]
Point 1 - Trees were created before man. I agree with you on this one.
Ge 2:4-9: [i]This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created when the Lord God made the earth and heavens. Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)[/i]
Point 2 - I completely disagree. They just hadn’t grown yet. No rain (or water from springs). Notice the bolded text in the quote. Additionally, it says nothing about trees being created after man, just the orchard in the Garden of Eden.
Look, fair enough and I agree that point may not be correct, but did you click the link following that quote? I just pulled 2 examples of what seemed like 100 of them.
I’m also very willing to bet that while your bible may not have that particular quote mixed up, there are many versions out there that do. I have before compared and found inconsistencies while using one of my old bibles as a reference.
People living for hundreds of years(!), parting whole oceans and such is just too much to believe and any book trying to tell me that is fact along with a nice bout of sexism loses all credibility to me.[/quote]
I agree that there are inconsistencies in English versions and there are definitely times when the translator has to make choices.
There are many parts of the history in the Bible that can and are verified. From the wars and battles that took place, to the geography and climate, to specific events like the exodus from Egypt.
Once again you can believe what you want on the specifics of Jesus’s character and what he did, but most throw out the whole Bible based on personal beliefs. It is literally a wealth of historical knowledge and good advice at the bare minimum.
I also think certain churches had more to do with many dogmatic sexist traditions. I agree that many parts seem tonally from a man’s perspective, but I find to book to be pretty sympathetic to women.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
I guess that those 20 odd years I was considered Catholic, reading the bible and going to church don’t count. Nice to see you agree with me that it seems he hasn’t read the bible though.
[/quote]
I guess not, since you are about as ignorant and lazy as a God hater can be.
Judging from your level of biblical incompetence, I don’t think you have the mental faculties to pass any judgment on anyone, so no - I don’t agree with you - especially since DD schooled you right after I did.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
RSGZ,
Your points about Genesis 1 and 2 were answered in a link I provided several pages back.
If you want to see a Christian response to the canonicity and authorship issues you raised, FF Bruce is a good read. MG Kline defended Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and most of his books can be found online.
If you look at the issue carefully, most critical scholars assign criteria to the Bible that they don’t assign to other ancient Near Eastern documents, or else they treat it more critically. This is nothing more than the presuppositional bias found in every scholar.
I’ll have a look - thanks for replying in a civilized manner.[/quote]
No problem.
This thread has sure met my expectations - not that they were good.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
RSGZ wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
RSGZ,
Your points about Genesis 1 and 2 were answered in a link I provided several pages back.
If you want to see a Christian response to the canonicity and authorship issues you raised, FF Bruce is a good read. MG Kline defended Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and most of his books can be found online.
If you look at the issue carefully, most critical scholars assign criteria to the Bible that they don’t assign to other ancient Near Eastern documents, or else they treat it more critically. This is nothing more than the presuppositional bias found in every scholar.
I’ll have a look - thanks for replying in a civilized manner.
No problem.
This thread has sure met my expectations - not that they were good.
[/quote]
I enjoyed it.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
RSGZ wrote:
I guess that those 20 odd years I was considered Catholic, reading the bible and going to church don’t count. Nice to see you agree with me that it seems he hasn’t read the bible though.
I guess not, since you are about as ignorant and lazy as a God hater can be.
Judging from your level of biblical incompetence, I don’t think you have the mental faculties to pass any judgment on anyone, so no - I don’t agree with you - especially since DD schooled you right after I did.
[/quote]
Oh great - lets bring in the personal attacks, again.
We are all entitled to our opinions and beliefs, and I think it interesting to talk about them, even if it does get a little heated.
You can think what you like of my intelligence, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this, because I actually side with a lot of other things you have to say in unrelated topics.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
rainjack wrote:
RSGZ wrote:
I guess that those 20 odd years I was considered Catholic, reading the bible and going to church don’t count. Nice to see you agree with me that it seems he hasn’t read the bible though.
I guess not, since you are about as ignorant and lazy as a God hater can be.
Judging from your level of biblical incompetence, I don’t think you have the mental faculties to pass any judgment on anyone, so no - I don’t agree with you - especially since DD schooled you right after I did.
Oh great - lets bring in the personal attacks, again.
We are all entitled to our opinions and beliefs, and I think it interesting to talk about them, even if it does get a little heated.
You can think what you like of my intelligence, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this, because I actually side with a lot of other things you have to say in unrelated topics. [/quote]
That’s just RJ, no one likes Tabasco by itself, but when added appropriately to threads it kicks the flavor up a notch. I just hope he doesn’t get as upset as he sounds most of the time, it would reek havoc on his health.
If things didn’t get heated, I’d question if these things were true beliefs.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Copy and pasted from Wikipedia on Alexander the Great:
[…]
[/quote]
Apparently you cannot even comprehend what your citation implies.
Since I find no joy nor use in schooling people over the internet, I don’t see why I should argue with you here.
You desperately want to believe- so go ahead, I can live with that. If at one point you are ready to ask questions, you’re welcome.