Scripture and History, the same or different?

[polonius]

I am again introducing a topic which might have reader interest. Or not.

The question being addressed is if history and scripture are compatible. Is what scripture tells us happened really historical true?

Any thoughts?

[polonius]

RESPONSE: Actually the story began 430 years before the purported Exodus

See, this is what happens when you are so quick to attack/correct someone, you wind up not comprehending what you read because you are so eager to make your little "points".

I CLEARLY SAID "400+ years" in post #13 to DivineInsight...and you respond by saying "Actually the story began 430 years before the purported Exodus"..

What are you trying to correct me on?? Doesn't 400+ years cover 430 years?? Cmon now, bruh.

with Joseph being kidnapped and bought to Egypt by camel riding merchants.

Um, he wasn't kidnapped. READ THE BIBLE!! He was SOLD to the merchants by his brothers.

Unfortunately, the camel wasn't introduced to Egypt until about 750 BC.

Conclusion, the first books of the Bible were actually written after about 750 BC.

So what you are saying is, under absolutely NO circumstances before 750 BC did any foreign merchants (or otherwise) travel to Egypt on camels??

There is just absolutely no way you or anyone else can possibly know this with any certainty...and is by far the biggest example of pure speculation I've ever seen on here.

And that is saying a lot.

Even though the Bible describes the use of camels by Abraham, Joseph, and Jacob, some modern liberal scholars insist the camel did not achieve importance as a pack animal until the early Iron Age, and not before the 12th century BC.1 According to a press release from the American Friends of Tel Aviv University (AFTAU), “Archaeologists have shown that camels were not domesticated in the Land of Israel until centuries after the Age of the Patriarchs (2000–1500 BCE). In addition to challenging the Bible’s historicity, this anachronism is direct proof that the text was compiled well after the events it describes.�
1. Lidar Sapir-Hen and Erez Ben-Yosef, “The Introduction of Domestic Camels to the Southern Levant: Evidence from the Aravah Valley,� Tel Aviv 40 (2013): 277–285, https://www.academia.edu/4800043/The_In ... 3_Tel_Aviv.
2. “Finding Israel’s First Camels,� Tel Aviv University American Friends, February 3, 2014, http://www.aftau.org/news-page-archaeol ... &ncs4677=3.

Even though I wasn’t in New York on 9/11 I believe the evidence of what occurred.
isn’t mere speculation.

Perhaps you might want to read more widely. You might want to start by reading up on the carbon-dating of animal bones.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 31 by polonius.advice]

What is with all of these straw mans I've been seeing lately? Your post has nothing to do with anything that I said.

[bluethread]

I expect readers to recognize the difference between historical fact and pious legends which are contrary to factual history.

So, in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum, people are supposed to consider modern scientific fact and reason as more significant to history than the legends that have been handed down, refined, scrutinized and commented on over millennia?

[polonius]

I expect readers to recognize the difference between historical fact and pious legends which are contrary to factual history.

So, in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum, people are supposed to consider modern scientific fact and reason as more significant to history than the legends that have been handed down, refined, scrutinized and commented on over millennia?

RESPONSE: If they want to function on the rational plane. On the other hand, they may want to continue to stick with legends and folklore rather than factual history.

I merely cite the evidence and let them decide.

[polonius]

[quote="bluethread"]
[quote="polonius.advice"]

I expect readers to recognize the difference between historical fact and pious legends which are contrary to factual history.

[quote] So, in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum, people are supposed to consider modern scientific fact and reason as more significant to history than the legends that have been handed down, refined, scrutinized and commented on over millennia?[/quote]

I'd really hope so!


“God breathed� as late as 1633
Psalm 104.5 *You fixed the earth on its foundation, so it can never be shaken.

“We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;�

Do Fundamentalists still argue that we must believe the long-standing scripture that the sun revolves around the earth? Do you?

[bluethread]

I expect readers to recognize the difference between historical fact and pious legends which are contrary to factual history.

So, in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum, people are supposed to consider modern scientific fact and reason as more significant to history than the legends that have been handed down, refined, scrutinized and commented on over millennia?

RESPONSE: If they want to function on the rational plane. On the other hand, they may want to continue to stick with legends and folklore rather than factual history.

I merely cite the evidence and let them decide.

Can't someone function on the rational plain without considering modern scientific fact as more important than legends and forklore? What about the application of reason to legends and folklore, as does Jordon Peterson. He does refer to modern scientific knowledge where it speaks to the nature of human physiology. However, when it comes to the nature of human consciousness, he points to the primacy of legend and folklore in pschological development. In fact, he suggests that without the psycological nature of legend and folklore, we would never have developed that scientific method.

[JehovahsWitness]

“Archaeologists have shown that camels were not domesticated in the Land of Israel until centuries after the Age of the Patriarchs (2000–1500 BCE).

“Recent research has suggested that the domestication of the camel took place in southeastern Arabia some time in the third millennium [B.C.E.]*. Originally, it was probably bred for its milk, hair, leather, and meat, but it cannot have been long before its usefulness as a beast of burden became apparent.� - Civilizations of the Ancient Near East states, Jack M Sasson
*Before Abraham’s time

Written evidence : “In Mesopotamia, cuneiform lists mention the creature [the camel] and several seals depict it, indicating that the animal may have reached Mesopotamia by the beginning of the second millennium,�

Archaeological evidence “It is no longer necessary to regard the mention of camels in the patriarchal narratives as anachronisms, since there is ample archeological evidence for the domestication of the camel before the time of the patriarchs.� - The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia


JW

RELATED POSTS

What archaeological evidence is there to support bible narratives and accounts?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 576#823576

[marco]

What about the application of reason to legends and folklore, as does Jordon Peterson. He does refer to modern scientific knowledge where it speaks to the nature of human physiology. However, when it comes to the nature of human consciousness, he points to the primacy of legend and folklore in pschological development. In fact, he suggests that without the psycological nature of legend and folklore, we would never have developed that scientific method.

There is of course a link between mythology, theology and psychology, not necessarily the one recognised by the professor. Just as the joiner might ask where we would be without carpentry so the psychologist is entitled to ponder where the world would be without psychology. There is a tendency in us all to exaggerate the contribution of our chosen field to mankind and we can be convincing if we support of our claims with articulate erudition.


Scripture seems closer to mythology than history, and the NT deals largely with Christ's psychology rather than the size of his shoes.

[polonius]

So, in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum, people are supposed to consider modern scientific fact and reason as more significant to history than the legends that have been handed down, refined, scrutinized and commented on over millennia?

RESPONSE: If they want to function on the rational plane. On the other hand, they may want to continue to stick with legends and folklore rather than factual history.

I merely cite the evidence and let them decide.

Can't someone function on the rational plain without considering modern scientific fact as more important than legends and forklore?

RESPONSE: Not really. If I find a present under my Christmas tree, must I then believe in Santa Claus? Or should I apply reason?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 13 by For_The_Kingdom]

Then the Bible makes no sense.

Returning home would hardly be "The Promised Land".

So these fables don't make any sense. The story isn't coherent. Which comes as no surprise to me.

You have still failed to explain where the rest of the Jews were during all this time.

So you haven't resolved anything. The problem still remains.

I know enough to speak on what I needed to speak on as it relates to what I educated you on.

You also haven't resolved the problem of a God who commands men "Thou shalt not kill" and then turns right back around and commands them to commit complete genocide including the killing of women and children.

So no soup for you. You haven't resolved anything.

The children are guaranteed a place in heaven. The women were probably just as evil as the men. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" was obviously talking about first/second degree MURDER.

Surely you realize that killing a man for trying to kill you (self defense) is a different animal than the calculated rape and murder of the old lady next door who did absolutely nothing to you.

If you don't see the difference there, then I don't know what to tell you.

RESPONSE: Do you consider the slaughter of newborn justifiable if their parents don't believe in a particular God? Evidently God did.