Moderator: Moderators
)Surely there are things listed in the bible that are true. My question was pertaining to things considered 'miraculous': raising of the dead, water into wine, demon possessed men, etc.onewithhim wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:39 amThe best proof we can obtain is (1) looking at the awesome creation and (2) comparing sacred books from the various religions. If we have come to think that if a God created us, then he would undoubtedly want his creations to know about him and somehow communicate with him....then we would be comparing the several means of communication---the sacred books---to see which makes the most sense. I have done that and have come to see the Holy Bible as the sacred book that makes the most sense. Of course a person would want to study it closely, and will see how much more noble and true it is than other sacred books. It takes time and energy, and most people don't want to bother....they just want to criticize.nobspeople wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:11 amCan't most, if not all, thing written in the bible be consider rumors (talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source; a statement or report current without known authority for its truth)?Elijah John wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:07 pm Do you believe the Bible rumors about God? The negative ones, like Him condoning slavery, or Him drowning babies in the Flood?
Do you believe rumors against the people in your life that you love?
Do you believe the worst that's said about them? Or the best about them.
For debate,
How can anyone who claims to love God believe the worst things said about him, i.e. the negative Bible rumors?
(apologies to DI for the term "rumors" I borrowed for this post
Are there facts written in the biblical stories about god that can be shown to be factual and true?
One could consider legends passed down by word of mouth (aka the telephone game) rumor.
Rather or not one believes and or accept these rumors depends on ones' bias and needs at the time, I'd suspect.
There are many facts within the Biblical stories that have been shown to be true. Take a look at the many editions of the magazine Biblical Archaeology Review and see how accurate Bible stories are. So much has been found to corroborate Biblical stories.
.
"Many of the things you say are true" is a rather backhanded compliment, don't you think?onewithhim wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:39 amThere are many facts within the Biblical stories that have been shown to be true.
Yes, let's.onewithhim wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:39 amTake a look at the many editions of the magazine Biblical Archaeology Review and see how accurate Bible stories are. So much has been found to corroborate Biblical stories.
The article concludes:The later parts of the larger narratives are similar as well, although here is where an inversion takes place. In the Bible, the numerous descendants of Joseph and his brothers are enslaved by a later pharaoh, until they escape and return to their original homeland of Canaan—chased by the pharaoh and his army (Exodus 14:6–9). Egyptian sources similarly indicate that when the local Egyptian kings finally became strong enough to take power (first Kamose, at the end of the 17th Dynasty, and then his successor Ahmose, first king of the New Kingdom), they forced the once-powerful Hyksos to flee Egypt and return to Canaan—and Ahmose’s army chases them all the way into Canaan. While the reasons for the action are somewhat diff erent in the two accounts— slave rebellion versus overthrowing a disliked dynasty—in both cases a large group of people of Canaanite origin leaves Egypt for Canaan with the Egyptian army at its heels.
But how do we reconcile that glaring major difference: the biblical slave rebellion with people leaving Egypt because they want to, as opposed to Egyptians chasing out an infiltrating dynasty by force? If we continue to think in a broad sense and allow for a cultural memory that morphed over several generations of retelling, the differences fade. In the biblical version, a people who originated in Canaan (descendants of Joseph and his brothers) were affiliated with the ruling class in Egypt until they were literally enslaved. But there is a type of “enslavement” in Egyptian New Kingdom history as well: During the 18th Dynasty, the former Hyksos, that is, the residents of Canaan, were “enslaved” by Egypt in their own land—Canaanite cities were subjugated and became vassals serving the Egyptian king.
What if the descendants of some of these Hyksos, those who survived the wars and returned to live in their ancestral land of Canaan, passed down to their children and grandchildren the stories of their rise to power in Egypt? They might have also passed down the stories of Kamose’s and Ahmose’s wars against their cities, but rather than remembering their military losses, they may have conflated it with what happened next: They inverted the defeats and conquests of Canaanite cities into a narrative of personal servitude with Egyptians as slavemasters. There are scholars such as Donald Redford and Ronald Hendel who say that this is exactly what happened. Biblical stories about Joseph living in Egypt could actually be folk memories of the period of Hyksos rule, while the narratives about slavery and the Exodus are folk memories of the expulsion of the Hyksos and the Egyptian conquest of Canaan. Canaanites were “enslaved” in their own land, forced to serve Egypt.
So, lest I put words in your mouth, are "cultural memory that morphed over several generations of retelling" and "long-lived folk memories" what you mean by things that corroborate Bible stories?This is why the “folk memory” theory works so well—as the relationship between Canaanites and Egyptians evolved over the course of four centuries, the narratives about the relationship evolved as well, until it solidified into the folk memory that comes down to us via the Book of Exodus.
These long-lived folk memories are traumatic national events turned on their sides.
While there is a lot more to say about the origins of the Exodus narrative, the stories of Joseph and his brothers are clearly rooted in the rise of the Hyksos in Egypt.
The term 'miracle' used here is rather ambiguous and, as such, is your own definition which no one is under obligation to follow.onewithhim wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:06 pm [Replying to nobspeople in post #82]
The beginning of life itself is a miracle. Something coming from nothing is absolutely miraculous, and science agrees that there was a "big bang" during which life was created. If we can accept that, which we have to, because we are here....then we can accept that miracles have happened since then.
I don't think it is fair to criticize God for a confusing sacred book. If we go back to the original languages it is not confusing. Men have made it confusing by translating from more recent languages (like the KJV being rendered from the Latin Vulgate), and not going back to the original languages. When a translation team does go back to the original languages they are made fun of because they are a bit different from the KJV, for example. It takes time and energy to do research on the many translations, and an Interlinear Bible is quite helpful.
.
It is interesting that the majority of students of the Exodus continue to rely on an old, recently discredited version of just where the Exodus took place, after leaving Egypt. Just about everyone says that the popular spot of Mt. Sinai (which was claimed by Constantine's mother) is the Biblical Mt. Sinai. There is no archaeological support there because that isn't the actual Mt. Sinai. The route supposedly followed by Israel is all wrong. If we go to the other arm of the Red Sea---the Gulf of Aqqaba---we will find remnants of the Egyptian army at the newly-examined crossing point in the Red Sea. From there there are match-ups between the landmarks and the Bible's account. So....people are looking in the wrong places.Difflugia wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 5:20 am"Many of the things you say are true" is a rather backhanded compliment, don't you think?onewithhim wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:39 amThere are many facts within the Biblical stories that have been shown to be true.
That aside, I'm pretty sure that anything confirmed by BAR is unlikely to be one of the "facts written in the biblical stories about god" to which nobspeople refers.
Yes, let's.onewithhim wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:39 amTake a look at the many editions of the magazine Biblical Archaeology Review and see how accurate Bible stories are. So much has been found to corroborate Biblical stories.
The Exodus is one of those narratives that is central to the historicity of the Old Testament, yet entirely lacks archaeological support. Still, those with an interest in validating the Bible in some way keep trying to find ways to somehow massage the text, the archaelogical data, or both in order to find parallels that seem valid in the right light and with just enough of a squint.
What exactly are you claiming has been discredited and by whom? How does that change the utter lack of archaeological evidence for the Exodus? Archaeologists of the ancient Near East are no longer "students of the Exodus" or some such, but are "students" of the entire history of human settlement in the region. No archaeological evidence of over a million Israelites has been found anywhere in the Sinai Peninsula. According to the Bible, they camped in the same place for roughly forty years. If you're going to claim that the evidence of the wandering Israelites has been overlooked, then you're going to have to identify somewhere that could support such a settlement, yet has somehow escaped archaeological excavation.onewithhim wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 4:16 pmIt is interesting that the majority of students of the Exodus continue to rely on an old, recently discredited version of just where the Exodus took place, after leaving Egypt.
That's an interesting conjecture, but even if that were true, there's still no archaeological evidence of the Exodus anywhere else.onewithhim wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 4:16 pmJust about everyone says that the popular spot of Mt. Sinai (which was claimed by Constantine's mother) is the Biblical Mt. Sinai. There is no archaeological support there because that isn't the actual Mt. Sinai.
If they've searched the whole neighborhood, claiming they got the house number wrong isn't much of an argument.Trying to explain this lack of evidence as what one should expect of a group wandering around a desert is more question begging than a valid objection. Furthermore, such a solution ignores the fact that according to the Bible millions of people were involved! Surely, if this event as described in the Bible actually happened, something of the presence of so many people would have turned up by now, if nothing more than camp sites with datable pottery. (Archaeology and the Bible, John C. H. Laughlin)
The necessary corollary is that people have not been looking in the right places. There are so many "Exodus was somewhere else" speculations that I've no idea which one you have in mind, but maybe you'll tell us. Which path did the Israelites take that somehow avoided all subsequent archaeological investigation?onewithhim wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 4:16 pmThe route supposedly followed by Israel is all wrong. If we go to the other arm of the Red Sea---the Gulf of Aqqaba---we will find remnants of the Egyptian army at the newly-examined crossing point in the Red Sea. From there there are match-ups between the landmarks and the Bible's account. So....people are looking in the wrong places.
So, you were telling us to read Biblical Archaeology Review, but you only meant the articles that you agree with. That clarifies things quite a bit.onewithhim wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 4:16 pmYour article from BAR is interesting as well. I have a hard time giving it credence, however, when I am under the impression that Moses wrote the book of Exodus when the Exodus was seemingly occurring. So the idea of a story being passed down over centuries doesn't really hold up.
