PDA

View Full Version : Is the Bible truth?



Oepty
24-08-2004, 01:51 PM
This is a different subject than does God exist so I will start a new thread.

I believe that the Bible is true and was written by God, not because it claims to be written to God. A claim never proves anything. 2 Peter 1:19-21 in the KJV says

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This is the claim, but how can we determine if it is true?

First of check if there are errors in it, because the word of God shouldn't have errors in it if He wrote it.
Is it consistent?
Does it agree with history?

Secondly we could see whether there is anything special about this book. Does it contain writings that could not have been written by a human?
I submit that the Bible does have something special in that it has successfully predicted the future, many times.

On to the question Bruce raised in the other thread. Which Bible?
A very good and challenging question.
Well in English there certainly is a wide range of translations of the Bible to choose from. This ranges from the KJV to things like Message (if you can call it a translation).
There are lots of differences between these Bibles, but a couple of the major ones are translation style and manuscripts used.
I personally use the KJV as my main Bible. It certainly has its problems, the translation is the work of men so it can't be perfect. I also use other translations for Bible study including the NASB, RSV, NIV (a little) and others from time to time.
Ideally though it would be good to be able to read the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, but I can't.

This is just a starting post and I can and will into more depth on these things
Scott

Cat
24-08-2004, 02:15 PM
This is a different subject than does God exist so I will start a new thread.

I believe that the Bible is true and was written by God, not because it claims to be written to God. A claim never proves anything. 2 Peter 1:19-21 in the KJV says

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This is the claim, but how can we determine if it is true?

First of check if there are errors in it, because the word of God shouldn't have errors in it if He wrote it.
Is it consistent?
Does it agree with history?

Secondly we could see whether there is anything special about this book. Does it contain writings that could not have been written by a human?
I submit that the Bible does have something special in that it has successfully predicted the future, many times.

On to the question Bruce raised in the other thread. Which Bible?
A very good and challenging question.
Well in English there certainly is a wide range of translations of the Bible to choose from. This ranges from the KJV to things like Message (if you can call it a translation).
There are lots of differences between these Bibles, but a couple of the major ones are translation style and manuscripts used.
I personally use the KJV as my main Bible. It certainly has its problems, the translation is the work of men so it can't be perfect. I also use other translations for Bible study including the NASB, RSV, NIV (a little) and others from time to time.
Ideally though it would be good to be able to read the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, but I can't.

This is just a starting post and I can and will into more depth on these things
Scott

The Old Testament is simply the Hebrew Bible. The New Testament evolved over 200-300 years and has changed over the years. The 4 canon gospels were choosen by Iraneus, Bishop of Lyon, about 200 AD. He decided on 4 because there were 4 winds, 4 elements - 4 was a special number. The rest of the New Testament was assembled after the Council of Nycea in 325AD. The Bishop of Alexandria was responsible for deciding which texts would be included. The oldest bible is the codex in the British Library, taken from Constantanople, written around 390AD. Since then some texts have been removed and others added, but it has changed little.

antichrist
24-08-2004, 06:54 PM
What the Prodos don't know or want to admit is the the Bible is the Roman Catholic Bible. And they are only robbers not even paying loyalties! And then they the hide the knock the RCC, calling our Pope the Antichrist!! Luther did, that m-o-n-g-r-e-l!!

eclectic
24-08-2004, 07:42 PM
What the Prodos don't know or want to admit is the the Bible is the Roman Catholic Bible. And they are only robbers not even paying loyalties! And then they the hide the knock the RCC, calling our Pope the Antichrist!! Luther did, that m-o-n-g-r-e-l!!

so if it's a catholic bible you want to argue about then which bible?

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm

interesting too is how certain sects though arguing against the catholic church take great pains to make sure (or pretend) that they have apostolic legitimacy

btw haven't the lutherans recently made moves to reunite with the catholic church?

eclectic

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2004, 08:00 PM
First of check if there are errors in it, because the word of God shouldn't have errors in it if He wrote it.

Agreed but it doesn't follow that if something has no errors that it is the word of God. It could simply be a human text with no errors in it. Not unknown. (I'm not expert enough to get into debates about inconsistencies in the Bible.)


Is it consistent?

Ditto. If it is not consistent you would assume (the Christian) God didn't write it, but if it is consistent that doesn't prove God wrote it.


Does it agree with history?

This is also irrelevant. Historical novels agree with history in all important details but also contain material that is false. Even if everything historical in the Bible is true, this does not prove that any of the Bible's statements about God, the creation, etc, are true.


Secondly we could see whether there is anything special about this book. Does it contain writings that could not have been written by a human?
I submit that the Bible does have something special in that it has successfully predicted the future, many times.

Many Bible prophecies are very ambiguous and metaphorical, so that they can be matched to past events retrospectively by those prone to read them favourably. However, attempts to match the Bible to future events have a spectacular record of failure, with Armageddon having been assumed to be imminent by some (on the basis of scripture) on and off for most of the past two thousand years. Ambiguity is also a problem in reading the works of other alleged prophets like Nostrodamus. Those supporting the prophecy will twist bits of it to support their view while twisting other bits to avoid any objections.

Also, many of the prophecies have been known to those in a position to influence their success or otherwise politically, which is cheating. :D It would be far more impressive if the prophecies had concerned events completely beyond human control and had clearly and unambiguously specified the exact times when they would occur, not merely to the year but to the day and minute. For an all-powerful God this sort of thing isn't difficult.

Finally even if I agreed that figures quoted in the Bible had successfully and unambiguously prophesised future political events (and events in the life of Jesus) that does not mean I would have to accept that these prophecies were divinely inspired. The human brain is a vastly complex instrument and we still have no real idea of its full powers.

Alan Shore
24-08-2004, 09:41 PM
Well, you can have a crack at explaining Mark 9:1 to me if you like. If you've read the Dead Sea Scrolls you can see this nature of apolcaypticism is more commonn than you may imagine and definitely referred to times not far from when the texts were written, i.e. not more than a few generations.

Kevin Bonham
25-08-2004, 12:20 AM
BD - But that's even weaker evidence.

An NT recording of a prophecy (supposedly) made verbally about Jesus - the prophecy not stored as part of a body of written recorded prophecy before the event referred to happened, but rather claimed decades after the event by a biased witness. Furthermore the event referred to in the prophecy is vague, and unsubstantiated by other sources anyway. In short, completely unreliable. Sure you've got the right bit there?

I'd be more interested in OT prophecies because at least - if all textual and interpretational niggles can be dealt with - they have the advantage of being recorded before the event.

Alan Shore
25-08-2004, 12:46 AM
BD - But that's even weaker evidence.

An NT recording of a prophecy (supposedly) made verbally about Jesus - the prophecy not stored as part of a body of written recorded prophecy before the event referred to happened, but rather claimed decades after the event by a biased witness. Furthermore the event referred to in the prophecy is vague, and unsubstantiated by other sources anyway. In short, completely unreliable. Sure you've got the right bit there?

I'd be more interested in OT prophecies because at least - if all textual and interpretational niggles can be dealt with - they have the advantage of being recorded before the event.

Yeah..

And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

Perhaps you misunderstand Kevin.. I'm not Christian, I'm arguing against it with this. As for OT prophecies, there's a bunch of flimsy ones that can be dealt with - just go read a Jewish Midrash and judge for yourself the context in which the verses were written. I've gone through a few of these years ago but forget the exact locations.. Isaiah 54 or around there somewhere I think was a big 'signpost'.

Oepty
25-08-2004, 11:29 AM
Kevin. You have missed my point with my first point. I was not saying that the Bible meeting these criteria proves it is the word of God, but exactly what you are saying. Failure to meet these requirements would give serious problems to it being the word of God. Probably prove it wasn't.

I have no time at the momment to deal with the rest including Mark 9:1, do it later, perhaps this afternoon

Scott

arosar
25-08-2004, 11:59 AM
Listen youse blokes. Just calm down alright. If you're a religionist and your faith serves you good, then good for you. If you're an atheist or some free-wheeling type, then that's not too bad either. Important thing is fellas, that there's peace in the world. And, of course, for Australia to win more gold medals and be Rugby world champs again!

AR

Kevin Bonham
25-08-2004, 04:15 PM
Perhaps you misunderstand Kevin.. I'm not Christian, I'm arguing against it with this.

Apologies - I was confused by your post appearing directly below mine with no indication of whose it was a reply to.

Oepty
25-08-2004, 04:34 PM
Listen youse blokes. Just calm down alright. If you're a religionist and your faith serves you good, then good for you. If you're an atheist or some free-wheeling type, then that's not too bad either. Important thing is fellas, that there's peace in the world. And, of course, for Australia to win more gold medals and be Rugby world champs again!

AR

Amiel. What you have written is true if there is no god that can give you something other than this life. If there is a god that can give you something else then isn't important that noone misses out?

Anyway this is belongs else where.

Scott

P.S. I will get to Mark 9:1, just not at the moment sorry Bruce

antichrist
25-08-2004, 07:38 PM
KB
Agreed but it doesn't follow that if something has no errors that it is the word of God. It could simply be a human text with no errors in it. Not unknown. (I'm not expert enough to get into debates about inconsistencies in the Bible.)

Reply: Think outside the square, if God wrote the Bible I would expect it to have errors. Look how he stuffed up with the Problem of Evil. Some would say that the Antichrist is an example of this.

antichrist
25-08-2004, 07:41 PM
so if it's a catholic bible you want to argue about then which bible?

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm

interesting too is how certain sects though arguing against the catholic church take great pains to make sure (or pretend) that they have apostolic legitimacy

btw haven't the lutherans recently made moves to reunite with the catholic church?

eclectic

What I am saying is that if the Prodos want to argue about a holy book, go and write their own original and don't just jump on the Catholic piggyback. They are against evolution but are the greatest example of it.

Oepty
26-08-2004, 05:05 PM
Antichrist.
If the Bible is false then it is a great hoax and should be nobody's holy book.

If the Bible is true then it should be available to everyone, not just Catholics. God is the author and it is not up to man to say who should read it.

Scott

antichrist
26-08-2004, 07:24 PM
Antichrist.
If the Bible is false then it is a great hoax and should be nobody's holy book.

If the Bible is true then it should be available to everyone, not just Catholics. God is the author and it is not up to man to say who should read it.

Scott

Listen Scott,
My Jewish mate, Ophir, thinks the whole Jesus concept to be bulld-u-s-t, as well as the NT. Don't you think the Jews should be able to veto Christians using their "Old Testament" in a Christian book. I think it is pretty rude of Christians to copy it without authorisation and paying copyright. The Christians are like the Zionists -- take what does not belong to you and kill anyone who protests (the Holocaust).

Paul S
27-08-2004, 12:45 AM
My Jewish mate, Ophir,................

What did your Jewish mate think about your photo in the Daily Telegraph last year showing you with your deeply offensive (to Jews) racist placard (Star of David = Swastika) equating his Jewish religion with Naziism (which was responsible for the death of 6 million Jews)?

antichrist
27-08-2004, 12:15 PM
What did your Jewish mate think about your photo in the Daily Telegraph last year showing you with your deeply offensive (to Jews) racist placard (Star of David = Swastika) equating his Jewish religion with Naziism (which was responsible for the death of 6 million Jews)?

He did not see it and I don't have it on me to show him anyway. But I have told him exactly the same. Repeating: the current Israeli Justice Minister made a similar claim only a few weeks ago. Go pick on him as well. Tell Charles Z this also if you like, I still have the cutting at home. Tell him also to go pick on their justice minister. All it is, is that some people believe in justice even if it is for your enemies. Everyone has human rights -- even Palestinians! If you deny this well then there was nothing wrong with the Holocaust.

Overall I think Jews need waking up to what is being done in their name in Palestine, worldwide they are getting a bad name that is arousing old hatreds. Many in Israel have done so, so why can't the diaspora as well.

Vanunu sees Israel for what it is -- he is a peacemaker. You do not protest at his long jail sentence. As a "fellow" protestor I feel for all protestors who don't have this human right.

A copy of that Telegraph picture was sent to the NSWCA inciting them to take action against me. If Charles was one the committee and offended by the photo as well, well they he could have initiated action. Maybe you are misrepresenting him.

By the way, Ophir hates Christian people who believe in that Bible prophesy bulld-u-s-t. You all went over when the year 2000 was coming. Thinking and hoping it was the end. The Israeli govt. which you are defending locked them all up. It seen them for what they were -- II-DD-II-OO-TT-SS!!

Oepty
30-08-2004, 02:28 PM
Listen Scott,
My Jewish mate, Ophir, thinks the whole Jesus concept to be bulld-u-s-t, as well as the NT. Don't you think the Jews should be able to veto Christians using their "Old Testament" in a Christian book. I think it is pretty rude of Christians to copy it without authorisation and paying copyright. The Christians are like the Zionists -- take what does not belong to you and kill anyone who protests (the Holocaust).

Antichrist. Can you give me proof the OT was copyrighted? Can you tell who the orginal author was? How can I pay him to use the book? The OT is at least 2200 years old so who are his descendants?

I realize Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah, if they didn't they would be Christians.

Scott

Oepty
30-08-2004, 02:31 PM
Well, you can have a crack at explaining Mark 9:1 to me if you like. If you've read the Dead Sea Scrolls you can see this nature of apolcaypticism is more commonn than you may imagine and definitely referred to times not far from when the texts were written, i.e. not more than a few generations.

Sorry about the long time taken to respond to this, but I wanted to convince myself completely what I thought was true is true.

In my view Mark 9:1 refers to the incident that appears directly after in the record, the transfiguration. This incident gave 4 of Jesus disciples the chance to see Jesus as he will be in the future as King of the earth. This incident was a taste of the kingdom.

Scott

antichrist
30-08-2004, 05:26 PM
Antichrist. Can you give me proof the OT was copyrighted? Can you tell who the orginal author was? How can I pay him to use the book? The OT is at least 2200 years old so who are his descendants?

Reply: Christians have already paid them back many times over with murdereous anti-Semitism for the past 2000 years, because they rejected your missing hero, Jesus, of the New Testament, who the Muslims are also using -- their only payment to the Christians for the NT is also murder. Funny how all the so-called Great Religions have rivers of blood on their hands.
____________________________
I realize Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah, if they didn't they would be Christians.
Scott

Reply: They wouldn't stoop so low even after everything that has been done to them.

Don't expect me to answer every point, I don't argue with idiots.

antichrist
04-03-2011, 03:48 PM
there is an article that the Pope has stated that only some naughty Jewish priests and leaders who called for Jesus's crucifixition - that is contrary to Saint Matthew's teachings who blamed all Jews.

Well it is a bit late now old man after 2,000 years of the longest hatred

http://www.smh.com.au/world/jews-are-blameless-for-christs-death-pope-20110303-1bgdy.html

Hobbes
04-03-2011, 04:32 PM
I have noticed very old threads revived by spam robots when they post, and A/C often does the same thing.

Coincidence? I think not!

:lol:

Ian Murray
03-12-2012, 07:30 AM
The Book of Genesis: A Biography (http://economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21567326-where-did-book-genesis-come-starting-point)
by Ronald Hendel
Princeton University Press


“IN THE beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,” reads the first sentence of the Book of Genesis. Or does it? An equally plausible translation runs: “When God began to create the heavens and the earth,” with no hint of the idea (popular since the late second century AD) that this momentous event was the beginning of time, when the universe was conjured out of nothing.

Biblical scholars cannot decide whether the authors of “Genesis”, whoever they may have been, thought that the earth and heavens were crafted from material that had always existed, as the ancient Greeks maintained. Maybe some of the authors believed in an eternal, Greek-style universe, and others believed in a big beginning. For one thing that scholars can agree on is that “Genesis” is a compilation of writings from three main sources...

Only recently, for example, has it been championed by some as the literal and inerrant word of God, to be believed in every plain detail. Biblical fundamentalism has its strongest roots in the late 19th century. Before then, the faithful, if they read it at all, were on the whole freer in their interpretations—not because they were any less devout, or less convinced of the book’s divine inspiration, but because puzzles in the text seemed to point to deeper, hidden meanings. Long before anyone worried that “Genesis” seemed inconsistent with the facts of history or science, people had noticed that it was inconsistent with itself. It contains, for instance, two conflicting accounts of the order of creation...

MichaelBaron
03-12-2012, 10:12 AM
The Book of Genesis: A Biography (http://economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21567326-where-did-book-genesis-come-starting-point)
by Ronald Hendel
Princeton University Press


“IN THE beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,” reads the first sentence of the Book of Genesis. Or does it? An equally plausible translation runs: “When God began to create the heavens and the earth,” with no hint of the idea (popular since the late second century AD) that this momentous event was the beginning of time, when the universe was conjured out of nothing.

Biblical scholars cannot decide whether the authors of “Genesis”, whoever they may have been, thought that the earth and heavens were crafted from material that had always existed, as the ancient Greeks maintained. Maybe some of the authors believed in an eternal, Greek-style universe, and others believed in a big beginning. For one thing that scholars can agree on is that “Genesis” is a compilation of writings from three main sources...

Only recently, for example, has it been championed by some as the literal and inerrant word of God, to be believed in every plain detail. Biblical fundamentalism has its strongest roots in the late 19th century. Before then, the faithful, if they read it at all, were on the whole freer in their interpretations—not because they were any less devout, or less convinced of the book’s divine inspiration, but because puzzles in the text seemed to point to deeper, hidden meanings. Long before anyone worried that “Genesis” seemed inconsistent with the facts of history or science, people had noticed that it was inconsistent with itself. It contains, for instance, two conflicting accounts of the order of creation...

Interesting book!

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2012, 10:23 AM
The Book of Genesis: A Biography (http://economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21567326-where-did-book-genesis-come-starting-point)
by Ronald Hendel
Princeton University Press

“IN THE beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,” reads the first sentence of the Book of Genesis. Or does it? An equally plausible translation runs: “When God began to create the heavens and the earth,” with no hint of the idea (popular since the late second century AD) that this momentous event was the beginning of time, when the universe was conjured out of nothing.
More revisionist nonsense from that leftist economist rag. Keil and Delitzsch's classical commentary (http://kad.biblecommenter.com/genesis/1.htm) says:


That this verse is not a heading merely, is evident from the fact that the following account of the course of the creation commences with w (and), which connects the different acts of creation with the fact expressed in Genesis 1:1, as the primary foundation upon which they rest. בּרשׁיח (in the beginning) is used absolutely, like εν αρχη in John 1:1, and מראשׁיח in Isaiah 46:10. The following clause cannot be treated as subordinate, either by rendering it, "in the beginning when God created ..., the earth was," etc., or "in the beginning when God created...(but the earth was then a chaos, etc.), God said, Let there be light" (Ewald and Bunsen). The first is opposed to the grammar of the language, which would require Genesis 1:2 to commence with הארץ ותּהי; the second to the simplicity of style which pervades the whole chapter, and to which so involved a sentence would be intolerable, apart altogether from the fact that this construction is invented for the simple purpose of getting rid of the doctrine of a creatio ex nihilo, which is so repulsive to modern Pantheism. ראשׁיח in itself is a relative notion, indicating the commencement of a series of things or events; but here the context gives it the meaning of the very first beginning, the commencement of the world, when time itself began. The statement, that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, not only precludes the idea of the eternity of the world a parte ante, but shows that the creation of the heaven and the earth was the actual beginning of all things. The verb בּרא, indeed, to judge from its use in Joshua 17:15, Joshua 17:18, where it occurs in the Piel (to hew out), means literally "to cut, or new," but in Kal it always means to create, and is only applied to a divine creation, the production of that which had no existence before. It is never joined with an accusative of the material, although it does not exclude a pre-existent material unconditionally, but is used for the creation of man (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 5:1-2), and of everything new that God creates, whether in the kingdom of nature (Numbers 16:30) or of that of grace (Exodus 34:10; Psalm 51:10, etc.). In this verse, however, the existence of any primeval material is precluded by the object created: "the heaven and the earth." This expression is frequently employed to denote the world, or universe, for which there was no single word in the Hebrew language; the universe consisting of a twofold whole, and the distinction between heaven and earth being essentially connected with the notion of the world, the fundamental condition of its historical development (vid., Genesis 14:19, Genesis 14:22; Exodus 31:17). In the earthly creation this division is repeated in the distinction between spirit and nature; and in man, as the microcosm, in that between spirit and body. Through sin this distinction was changed into an actual opposition between heaven and earth, flesh and spirit; but with the complete removal of sin, this opposition will cease again, though the distinction between heaven and earth, spirit and body, will remain, in such a way, however, that the earthly and corporeal will be completely pervaded by the heavenly and spiritual, the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven to earth, and the earthly body being transfigured into a spiritual body (Revelation 21:1-2; 1 Corinthians 15:35.). Hence, if in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, "there is nothing belonging to the composition of the universe, either in material or form, which had an existence out of God prior to this divine act in the beginning" (Delitzsch). This is also shown in the connection between our verse and the one which follows: "and the earth was without form and void," not before, but when, or after God created it. From this it is evident that the void and formless state of the earth was not uncreated, or without beginning. At the same time it is obvious from the creative acts which follow (vv. 3-18), that the heaven and earth, as God created them in the beginning, were not the well-ordered universe, but the world in its elementary form; just as Euripides applies the expression ουρανὸς καὶ γαια to the undivided mass (οπφὴμία), which was afterwards formed into heaven and earth.


It contains, for instance, two conflicting accounts of the order of creation...

Dealt with long ago (http://creation.com/evangelical-compromise-misses-the-essentials-review-of-the-essence-of-darwinism-by-kirsten-birkett#219):

Genesis contradictions?
On p. 138, Birkett claims that Genesis 1 and 2 teach a different order of creation of man and animals. Unlike outright bibliosceptics, however, she doesn’t claim this proves that Genesis is errant, but that it is meant to be non-chronological. Her only attempt to support this is a cryptic footnote to a number of translations of Genesis 2:19. She doesn’t even say what her point is, so I can assume only that she’s trying to counteract the point we have made in Do Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other? i.e. that translating it as in the pluperfect tense as ‘God had formed the animals’ eliminates the contradiction.

Her attempt to counter it by appealing to translations—but significantly excluding her own preferred one again—is very superficial. Hebrew verbs don’t correspond neatly to English grammatical rules. The tense must be decided by context. If there are several possible translations, it makes sense to choose the one that doesn’t lead to a contradiction. This is especially important when Jesus Himself cited Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 together, showing that he regarded the two chapters as parts of a whole (Mt. 19:3–6). Leupold made the point well in his scholarly Exposition of Genesis 1:130 (1942):

‘Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: “He had molded.” The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible.’
The erudite 19th century Old Testament commentary by Keil and Delitzsch justified this translation as follows (Pentateuch 1:87)

‘The circumstance that in ver. 19 the formation of the beasts and birds is connected with the creation of Adam by the imperf. c. waw consec., constitutes no objection to the plan of creation given in chap. i. The arrangement may be explained on the supposition, that the writer, who was about to describe the relation of man to the beasts, went back to the creation, in the simple method of early Semitic historians, and placed this first instead of making it subordinate; so that our modern style of expressing the same thought would be “God brought to Adam the beast which He had formed.” [Footnote to following paragraph]
‘A striking example of this style of narrative we find in 1 Kings vii.13. First of all, the building and completion of the temple are noticed several times in chapter vi, and the last time in connection with the year and month (chap. vi. 9,14,37,38); after that, the fact is stated, that the royal palace was thirteen years in building; and then the writer proceeds thus: “And Solomon sent and fetched Hiram from Tyre … and he came to king Solomon, and did all his work; and made the two pillars,” etc. Now, if we are to understand the historical preterite with consec. here, as giving the order of the sequence, Solomon would be made to send for the Tyrian artist, thirteen years after the temple was finished, to come and prepare the pillars for the porch, and all the vessels needed for the temple. But the writer merely expressed in Semitic style the simple thought, that “Hiram, whom Solomon fetched from Tyre, made the vessels,” etc. Another instance we find in Judg. ii. 6.’
Egyptologist and scholar of the ancient near east, Kenneth Kitchen, writes in Ancient Orient and the Old Testament (pp. 116-7, Chicago: IVP, 1966):

The strictly complementary nature of the ‘two accounts’ is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting.
There is not incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail of man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism.

Ian Murray
03-12-2012, 04:17 PM
More revisionist nonsense from that leftist economist rag....
You seem to have missed the fact that it's a book review, not an op-ed in The Economist. The book's author is a professor of Hebrew Bible Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, making him a lot more qualified on the subject than you are.

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2012, 03:04 AM
You seem to have missed the fact that it's a book review, not an op-ed in The Economist.
I didn't miss it, dufus. But the leftist rag chooses what books to review and the reviewers.


The book's author is a professor of Hebrew Bible Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, making him a lot more qualified on the subject than you are.
Doubt it. Leftard universities are all about groupthink. In the "religious studies" department, the groupthink is atheopathy. This moron disagrees with the vast majority of Hebrew experts including Bible translators over the last 2,000 years.

Rincewind
07-12-2012, 11:22 AM
This moron disagrees with the vast majority of Hebrew experts including Bible translators over the last 2,000 years.

We know that you do Jono but you shouldn't be so hard on yourself.

Kevin Bonham
07-12-2012, 11:45 AM
Doubt it.

Are you really doubting that he is more qualified, or just that it is relevant?

Ian Murray
07-12-2012, 12:13 PM
Are you really doubting that he is more qualified, or just that it is relevant?
Well, here's his CV (https://112d1181-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/rshendel/CV.wd.doc?attachauth=ANoY7cpKKTV1Dxy3n27HPhhMpQtSf Gpob07o40BqK8_Xkj4_Y-1M-mDMZzxsTh79SCfrgaEut-95Fk6H-veYMhuGTASJX0Upb1Ch96owsthFuiHvKQLEZahYz6w2Y1O99Zt dBiZm2ThPbCQ2NeDgxXdtwOCYEKdxLST4Pl9Kb5vWzNfgXPs13 KAyKk6NLBnqewJdyN4AFz2m-TmQWV8DkPPWTbkVQmbRgQ%3D%3D&attredirects=0), Jono. Let's have a look at yours to compare

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2012, 12:58 PM
Well, here's his CV (https://112d1181-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/rshendel/CV.wd.doc?attachauth=ANoY7cpKKTV1Dxy3n27HPhhMpQtSf Gpob07o40BqK8_Xkj4_Y-1M-mDMZzxsTh79SCfrgaEut-95Fk6H-veYMhuGTASJX0Upb1Ch96owsthFuiHvKQLEZahYz6w2Y1O99Zt dBiZm2ThPbCQ2NeDgxXdtwOCYEKdxLST4Pl9Kb5vWzNfgXPs13 KAyKk6NLBnqewJdyN4AFz2m-TmQWV8DkPPWTbkVQmbRgQ%3D%3D&attredirects=0), Jono. Let's have a look at yours to compare
More to the point: look at the CVs of all the exegetes over the past 2000 years to the present who disagree with his outlandish idea about Gen. 1:1, motivated by the atheopathic groupthink prevalent at universities.

Rincewind
07-12-2012, 01:02 PM
More to the point: look at the CVs of all the exegetes over the past 2000 years to the present who disagree with his outlandish idea about Gen. 1:1, motivated by the atheopathic groupthink prevalent at universities.

The claim was that he was more qualified than you. You doubted that claim.

Ian Murray
07-12-2012, 01:35 PM
More to the point: look at the CVs of all the exegetes over the past 2000 years to the present who disagree with his outlandish idea about Gen. 1:1, motivated by the atheopathic groupthink prevalent at universities.
I guessed you'd duck for cover

Goughfather
07-12-2012, 06:31 PM
I guessed you'd duck for cover

You're not calling Jono a snivelling coward are you? That doesn't resonate with me at all ...

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2012, 02:24 AM
You're not calling Jono a snivelling coward are you? That doesn't resonate with me at all ...
Nor should it. One doesn't challenge the evolutionary atheopathic uniformitarian religious faith of the inquisitorial Leftacademia and the Leftmedia for a living by being a coward.

Goughfather
10-12-2012, 05:13 PM
Nor should it. One doesn't challenge the evolutionary atheopathic uniformitarian religious faith of the inquisitorial Leftacademia and the Leftmedia for a living by being a coward.

What a joke. How many fatwas have been placed on you as a result of you publishing your propaganda?

The only side-effects of your so-called stand are that you are currently a running joke in the scientific and academic community and that you have become wealthy through your con-man antics.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2012, 03:46 AM
What a joke. How many fatwas have been placed on you as a result of you publishing your propaganda?
Only a leftard like GF can deny that there is discrimination against the dissenters from his evolutionary faith. See the movie Expelled (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed/)for some examples (and "Expelled Exposed" Exposed: Your One-Stop Rebuttal to Attacks on the Documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (http://www.ncseexposed.org/)).


The only side-effects of your so-called stand are that you are currently a running joke in the scientific and academic community
What a joke, a shyster ambulance-chaser pontificating about science.


and that you have become wealthy through your con-man antics.
My alleged wealth is none of your damn business. In any case, I don't get royalties, and no one is forced to buy any of my books. But taxpayers are forced to fund evolutionary agitprop (http://creation.com/science-creation-and-evolutionism-refutation-of-nas).

Rincewind
11-12-2012, 08:27 AM
What a joke, a shyster ambulance-chaser pontificating about science.

Makes a change from someone who hasn't published a single scientific paper in almost two decades doing so.

Goughfather
12-12-2012, 09:59 PM
Only a leftard like GF can deny that there is discrimination against the dissenters from his evolutionary faith. See the movie Expelled (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed/)for some examples (and "Expelled Exposed" Exposed: Your One-Stop Rebuttal to Attacks on the Documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (http://www.ncseexposed.org/)).

I'm guessing that's zero fatwas, then?


What a joke, a shyster ambulance-chaser pontificating about science.

I'm not talking about specialised scientific knowledge, but rather your complete lack of standing in the scientific community.


My alleged wealth is none of your damn business. In any case, I don't get royalties, and no one is forced to buy any of my books. But taxpayers are forced to fund evolutionary agitprop (http://creation.com/science-creation-and-evolutionism-refutation-of-nas).

That no one is forced to buy any of your books is irrelevant. People are not compelled to buy Scientology literature or join pyramid selling schemes either. This doesn't make those who promote this material and try to recruit others any more legitimate.

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2012, 03:16 AM
I'm not talking about specialised scientific knowledge, but rather your complete lack of standing in the scientific community.
Only with the evolutionary dogmatists who promote a materialistic ideology masquerading as science. As the late Michael Crichton pointed out (http://creation.com/crichton-on-scientific-consensus):


“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
Galileo was out of step with the science community too (http://creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial).


That no one is forced to buy any of your books is irrelevant. People are not compelled to buy Scientology literature or join pyramid selling schemes either. This doesn't make those who promote this material and try to recruit others any more legitimate.
Pyramid selling schemes are fraudulent (yet American residents are forced to contribute to the giant government pyramid scheme (which Americans call "Ponzi scheme") called Social Security (http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2009/02/04/the_national_ponzi_scheme/page/full/))


inAJVKO1Kkg

Also, my work is truthful, and people know what they are buying before they buy it, and I don't even get royalties from it.