Ancient Near East and Bible thoughts

[enki]

Biblical authority is tied to the author's intentions. God rested his authority in a human author so we should consider what the human author intended to communicate if we want to understand God's message. The human author is our doorway into the room of God's meaning and message. That means that when we read Genesis, we are reading an ancient document and should begin by using only the assumptions that would be appropriate for the ancient world. We should understand how ancient thought and what ideas underlay their communication. So what we can see is that the active communication is accomplished by various degrees of accommodation on the part of the communicator, but only for the sake of the audience that he or she has in mind. Accommodation must bridge the gap if communicator and audience do not share the same language, the same command of language, the same culture or the same experiences, but we do not expect communicator to accommodate an audience that he or she does not know or anticipate. High context communications are communications that take place between insiders and situations in which the communicator and audience share much in common. In such situations, less accommodation is necessary for effective communication to take place so much might be left unsaid that an outsider might need in order to fully understand the communication. The God of the Bible has accommodated the communicator and immediate audience, employing the communicator in a high context communication appropriate to the audience.

A prophet and his audience share history, a culture, a language and the experiences of other contemporaneous lives. When you read the Bible, we enter the context of that communication as low context outsiders who need to use our inferential tools to discern the nature of the communicator’s illocution and meaning. We have to use research to fill all the information that would have been said by the prophet in his high context communication to his audience. This is how we, as modern readers, should interact with an ancient text. Those who take the Bible seriously believe that God has inspired the locutions and that the communicator has used to accomplish their joint illocution (God and human author's) but that the foundational locution's are tied to the communicator’s world. That is, God has made an accommodation to the high context communication between the implied communicators and their implied audience so as to optimize and facilitate the transmission of meaning via an authoritative illocution. To clarify the intended audience of the biblical text may or may not understand where the author is coming from, because the author makes claim that his words are inspired by God. However the argument could be made that such inspiration is simply a claim and no more than a claim. We see many stories of the biblical text that have inferences to ancient near East literature deriving from cuneiform texts.

For example you can find plenty of references to Abraham being in the land of Egypt in the book of Genesis, however if you were to do a search on the word pyramid in the Bible you may not find the word pyramid. However it is widely accepted that in Egypt there are pyramids. The comparison of the pyramid would be to the ziggurat. However there is a difference, we need to clarify that though they could resemble a pyramid, then nothing like them in function. There is no inside of a ziggurat. The structure was framed in mud brick, and then the core was packed with dirt. It was then completed with kiln-fired brick. Also they were dedicated to particular deities (ziggurat) whereas a pyramid was most likely dedicated to a Pharaoh. So these are just some of the differences that we see between the biblical stories and the ancient near East stories and structures.

In conclusion it would be very difficult to make a statement that biblical hero’ and that the Israelites are the monotheistic heroes that the Bible makes them out to be. These are just my thoughts on ancient near East and biblical comparisons, feel free to comment.

[enki]

[Replying to post 20 by 2timothy316]

No I'm stating that the Ancient Israelite's are less inspired by God and more inspired by cultural influence. I am not stating what I "believe" religiously is different. You should see my profile and my posting on "Ba'al being El and El is God in translation". Then you can definitely debate me there.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 20 by 2timothy316]

No I'm stating that the Ancient Israelite's are less inspired by God and more inspired by cultural influence. I am not stating what I "believe" religiously is different. You should see my profile and my posting on "Ba'al being El and El is God in translation". Then you can definitely debate me there.

Ok I see. I do not debate if the Bible true or isn't the Word of God. So I'm not your guy. There might be others here that might debate you but most that think the Bible to be fully inspired by God will not. Because in this forum no one has to prove the Bible to be true or defend what it says as the highest authority. I'm looking for discussing with folks that do believe the Bible to be completely inspired by God, not partly.

viewtopic.php?t=3168

"The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here."

[enki]

[Replying to post 22 by 2timothy316]

Ok I see. I do not debate if the Bible true or isn't the Word of God. So I'm not your guy. There might be others here that might debate you but most will not. Because in this forum no one has to prove the Bible to be true or defend what it says as the highest authority. I'm looking for discussing with folks that do believe the Bible to be completely inspired by God, not partly.

No I'm stating that the Ancient Israelite's are less inspired by God and more inspired by cultural influence. I am not stating what I "believe" religiously is different. You should see my profile and my posting on "Ba'al being El and El is God in translation". Then you can definitely debate me there.

Basically I am stating that the Bible is related to Ancient Near East, so if you mean the Bible is the truth, then yes if the Bible is related to the Ancient Near East and the ANE (Ancient Near East) had influence on the Bible, then yet I'd be sticking to the provisions that " this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology", also my posting was moved here. So I didn't choose for my posting to end up here.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 22 by 2timothy316]

Ok I see. I do not debate if the Bible true or isn't the Word of God. So I'm not your guy. There might be others here that might debate you but most will not. Because in this forum no one has to prove the Bible to be true or defend what it says as the highest authority. I'm looking for discussing with folks that do believe the Bible to be completely inspired by God, not partly.

No I'm stating that the Ancient Israelite's are less inspired by God and more inspired by cultural influence. I am not stating what I "believe" religiously is different. You should see my profile and my posting on "Ba'al being El and El is God in translation". Then you can definitely debate me there.

Basically I am stating that the Bible is related to Ancient Near East, so if you mean the Bible is the truth, then yes if the Bible is related to the Ancient Near East and the ANE (Ancient Near East) had influence on the Bible, then yet I'd be sticking to the provisions that " this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology", also my posting was moved here. So I didn't choose for my posting to end up here.

I do not agree that the Bible is only related to the ANE. The Bible is related to the entire Earth and everyone on it. I'm not going to debate that because then that is questioning the Bible's complete authority and that would not be sticking to the later half of the purpose of this forum. I'm not your guy, sorry my mistake.

[enki]

[Replying to post 24 by 2timothy316]

Message of the Bible to world versus origins of Biblical writings and cultural influence are a different story

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 14 by enki]



[center]
May the circle go unbroken by and by lord, by and by[/center]

Sure Circular Logic is invalid, I don't disagree.

So, how is circular thinking going to help us figure out anything?

But many Christians will attempt to use it.

Ok, that's true.
They use it on a daily basis in here.

Most arguments for the existence of God are circular.

So how do you defeat that argument? For Christians you need to use the Bible itself to show contradictions and so on.

A good apologist simply denies any contradictions.

Back to Circular logic, Christians will often use 2 Timothy 3:16 to assert their contentions, doesn't mean they are correct.

It seems that you want to play along with their game.
Trouble is, they have been practicing that for over two thousand years.

They have a bit of an UP on you.

Right, even now as I am posting to you, I have an intention.

That, my friend, I do not doubt.

Well I agree with you, as I am attempting to debunk the Bible with the Bible and how ancient culture's worked.

They speculate, you speculate back.
Rock on.

Because what generally happens is that most people will debate with Christian's and the debate ends up with "I'm right and you are wrong".

That's the level of the arguments, usually.
That's not my fault, and I don't have to stoop so low.

I'm above that.
Keep my feet out of the slime at the bottom.

Most people debate on principle alone, then a debate goes downhill from there. I dare you to get caught up in a "are you good" convo with a Christian....lol, see how far you get. Get caught up in a Ba'al is El and El is God convo and watch the anger come out.

I get ignored by at least one Christian almost every day.
It's like coffee to me now.. I cant start the day without.

If it's a false claim that the author is making, then you assume the Biblical author's to be true and not false.

Sure liar's can believe their own lie.

Yeah, I sure have met a lot of honest Christians.
Some were honestly delusional, too.

Not necessarily, you'd have to research where for example the story of Genesis comes from. So the proposed writings of the Bible are about 1700 BCE and the way the Judaic writings begin, it has a well established religion behind it. Therefore it isn't claiming to be fiction, but by establishing a religion it claims to be non-fiction.

lol

I don't have to do the research if you already did it. I'm going to assume you are a Bible authority. I'll take what you say as "gospel" ok?

So, I will defer to your opinion.
You still have not explained how you know that the Bible authors actually intended to establish a religion.

FOR EXAMPLE:

I was shocked a while back that my kids don't even REMEMBER my best bed time stories.. not the magical kitten? Not the squirrel that you saved? OH my.

Those were my BEST.

And now, I forgot them too.. It's all kinda hazy.. all the DETAILS night after night I would invent ... you should have seen those wide EYES.

They would positively RUN to bed.
They would ASK for bedtime, and I had to say "WAIT, stay up a little longer".

Yeah.. Blastcat is a dad.

And now I think to myself : "Self? .. I shoulda wrote the stories down".

And then who knows?
A few years later, my kids are worshiping a cat.

I would have liked that.
But at least one of my kids is a cat lover.

But the magical talking cat story wasnt actually intended for that.
I wanted to have special times with my daughter.. magical.. mysterious.. secret... NICE. Oh so nice.

If only I had me a time machine, my friend.

Point of this poignant little story is ... you are assuming that you know the Bibile writers' intentions again. That's pretend.

My kitty cat stories stories were pretend.

This gives a clue into debunking the Biblical creation epic, and furthermore it isn't an original.

Ok, you have a pet theory about the Bible stories.
Join the club.

Sure you can state that what I claim is false (being a polytheist) I am not here to convince you otherwise.

Well that's a long conversation for sure.. we can put it aside for now.

But hypothesis can give clues as to what we are looking at.

With you CNN and FOX statement, the issue is that you aren't necessarily debating with me.

Er ok.

In fact if I was an atheist I'd agree with you the Bible is fiction and made up, of course a good Christian will ask you a whole host of questions concerning morality, how a "designer" designed everything, and so on.

For realz.

This means you can either believe or not believe, but according to the Christian "hell" or Gehennah awaits. Which Gehennah was a Jewish outpost where bodies were burned.

Not really going to be afraid if I don't believe it.
BIG threat though.

Woo woo woo woo.

My only suggestion for you, is to do research of your own, it would help a lot more than just saying "the Bible is a fairy tale", sure it might be a fairy tale, but why and what evidence do you have to say it is a fairy tale?

Magic isn't real, yo.
Once upon a TIME maybe.

I recommend this is what you ask yourself and then conduct research, or not, it's up to you. I'm not here to convince you that the Bible is true or false. I'm here to state the Bible is mythology, take it how you want to.

Lol myth is synonymous with false.
I don't really think we have ourselves any disagreement there.

[Willum]

Great little topic - I wish I had more to contribute.
The only thing I note is that Abraham is derived from Abrahab, or "son of Rahab." Abraham being a Aramaean Sun god, and Rahab being the Sea, analogous to Hathor.

[enki]

[Replying to post 26 by Blastcat]

In this case “circular logic� is being used to show the relevancy to the verse itself. Right most arguments that are circular for the existence of God, I am using to show that the Bible makes claim it was inspired by God.

Denying any contradictions, doesn’t mean that contradictions can’t be found.

2 Timothy 3:16 and yes I will play “their game�, sure the Christians have been practicing for 2,000 years; the problem with your statement is that it is vague and broad. You mean too tell me a Christian who is new to Christianity has been practicing for 2,000 years? What exactly do you mean? Statement is way too vague.

Concerning speculation, it’s not so much speculation when you take in account Assyriology, Egyptology, Linguistics, Archaeology, and so on.

When you say you “don’t stoop so low� can you provide an example of how you “debate� or discuss with Christians?


You getting ignored at least once every day, has little to do with debating with a Christian on some principle or doctrine. How are you ignored, specifically?


Of course Christians believe what they believe; they honestly believe what they believe. Modern Christians didn’t author the Bible, they just believe it.

Biblical authors start a religion, obviously what is spawned from their writings is Christianity, and otherwise we wouldn’t have Christianity. Even the Biblical mythological hero Jesus talks about Christianity, check Acts 11:26 so if a Biblical author wrote that verse and that verse talks about Jesus describing in Antioch the Christians, it was the intention of the Biblical author’s to establish Christianity in this fashion. Now, whether you accept that or not is up to you. My goal isn’t to accept or deny it, I believe that Acts 11:26 does say that, now historically whether or not that event in Acts 11:26 actually happened is a different subject.

I don’t have a “pet� theory; even gravity is a theory (LOL). I just have researched that the Biblical “garden� and creation story isn’t the oldest or the only one out there.

As I stated Gehennah is a Jewish outpost that is where the idea of Hell comes from, so if you are scared a Jewish outpost or the Valley of GeHinnom, you probably would not wanted to have been there about 700-600 BCE, otherwise you might be screwed.

I wasn’t clear, to you. If the Bible is fiction or non-fiction you should conduct research on the Bible. That is all I am saying. And if you have great, and if you have your own conclusions that is also great.

Theory is synonymous with assumption, yet there is a theory of gravity. Mostly what happens is that people like to get very specific about what “myth� and “theory� is, and they often miss what is actually being purported.

[otseng]

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 16 by 2timothy316]

[center]

It's not MY interpretation, it's GOD'S interpretation, you see.. Me? Oh, I'm just God's messenger, chosen by God to tell y'all.[/center]

It's God's word on their tongue and not man's word on God's tongue.

Yeah, that's pretty much how the story goes.
As soon as they plunked some text into the "Bible" cannon, it became "God's word", alrighty. The bishop decided which was which and so forth.

Well, the bishops sure knew their stuff, didn't they?
Who were these guys and WHY did they decide what went IN and what stayed OUT of the cannon? ... I think lost to history... they bickered they fought, and then they made up. They GOT themselves a fine old compromise, and everyone went home.

The thing is.. the Bible STILL needs to be interpreted anyway.
So there is a lot of that good old "WIGGLE ROOM".....

We can interpret just about any text in the Bible just about anyway we LIKE.


And boy, oh boy, do people EVER like to do THAT, don't they?
And then, they claim to one another that THEIR interpretation is the correct and ONLY correct interpretation.

That's the mistaken part, of course.