Article, “Internal Proofs of Bible Authenticity”

[Audie]

The scripture doesn't say that the six days of creation and the day of rest ended with mornings, just that they contained one.

Neither was yesterday. But it ended.

Agreed provided that we're talking about an intact creationist, by which I mean one who believes that a deity constructed the word in an original form that included structure, like both the young earth creationist and the old earth creationist who believes that the earth was fashioned de novo and intact sometime in the past. Those people are at odds with modern science.

As I was thinking about your comment, I considered another type of creationist, which I call a latent creationist, such as the deist, which god is described as creating the seed that unfolded on its own according to inherent physical laws which it determined following a Big Bang and disappearing from its creation before that expansion began. Is that not also a creator god, and those who believe in such a thing also creationists (supernaturalists), but not in conflict with science?

The deist is still guessing that the Big Bang was designed and intended by an intelligent designer, but otherwise could be as informed and intellectually honest as any naturalist. We could call such a person a latent creationist rather than an intact creationist.

Maybe you'd care to enlarge on the
integrity issue.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The scripture doesn't say that the six days of creation and the day of rest ended with mornings, just that they contained one.

No, the Seventh Day is not mentioned as having an evening & morning. For a reason: it’s not literal.

Neither was yesterday. But it ended.

This borders on circular reasoning. Paul wasn’t speaking about yesterday, a 24-hr day. Come on.
You should already be aware that the Bible uses symbolism all the time!
The Apostle Paul knew it. With the enlightenment that Jehovah God gave Paul, Paul passed on that enlightenment to Jehovah’s worshippers. No one else though, it seems. Luke 10:21

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the Seventh Day is not mentioned as having an evening & morning.

I'd say that this is pretty clearly meant to mean a literal 24-hour day of rest. From Exodus 20:

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Combine that with the fact that the week is seven days, one being the Sabbath, and we can safely say that the Hebrews understood that as a 24-hour period. And why wouldn't they? They were unaware that the six days of creation were myth, so they believed they were all literal days. It's only in modernity that people have cause to change the meaning of those words.

I thought that Jehovah's Witnesses were all young earth creationists, which made me question why you didn't like the literal understanding of the days of creation and rest, but I checked and found this at https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/creationism-belief/

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe in Creationism?​

​

No. Jehovah’s Witnesses do believe that God created everything. But we do not agree with creationism. Why not? Because a number of creationist ideas actually conflict with the Bible. Consider the following two examples:​

1. Length of the six days of creation. Some creationists assert that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days. But the word “day” in the Bible can refer to a considerable length of time.—Genesis 2:4; Psalm 90:4.
2. Age of the earth. Some creationists teach that the earth is just a few thousand years old. However, according to the Bible, the earth and the universe existed before the six days of creation. (Genesis 1:1) For that reason, Jehovah’s Witnesses have no objection to credible scientific research that indicates the earth may be billions of years old.

Although Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in creation, we are not antiscience. We believe that true science and the Bible are compatible.​

Here's a few paragraphs I left on another thread in response to "There’s several theories about how religion first started" containing my proposed explanation and what I think is the likely reason that there is a Sabbath as well as why it was intended to be understood and observed as a literal day:

I think it's pretty obvious how religions came to exist. Once you add reasoning and language to any mammal, you'll get magical thinking and efforts to explain and control circumstances by appealing to unseen agents. This begins with nomadic peoples and is a bottom-up phenomenon with a simple hierarchy headed only by a shaman, who was also a hunter. Once we have civilization and large cities, we get organized religion and priests as specialists who don't do other work or support themselves. Instead, there is a large central meeting place where people come regularly to listen to and support the priesthood.​

​

You can tell about when this happened with the Jews - whenever the Sabbath was invented. Think about it. In nomadic days, every able-bodied person worked every day, and it was no doubt a "sin" to be lazy or fake illness. But then life changed with the advent of civilization and cities, and people needed to travel to a central temple and spend hours there on a regular basis, and suddenly, it became a "sin" not to take a day off from work and bring the family to the temple. This became institutionalized two ways. The Commandment to not work on the sabbath was added to others, and the creation myth was modified to include a timeline and a new unit of time, the week for the six days of creation and one of rest. If God rested one day in seven, you need to as well.​

​

And think about the week. Compare it to the other units of time - the day, the month, and the year. These are all natural and correspond to the motions of the moon around the earth and the earth around its axis and around the sun. If monthly visits to the temple were too infrequent and daily visits too frequent, a new unit was needed, and so, we have the invention of the work week and the weekend.​

​

This is the top-down aspect of religion, when it becomes organized, centralized, and an extensive, authoritarian hierarchy​

For a reason: it’s not literal.

I understand that it is acceptable among believers to simply make proclamation like that one, but it's unjustified. It's a preferred understanding. One can just as well proclaim it literal and be on at least as good a footing.

You've probably noticed that few or no unbelievers make claims like that about scripture, because they have no reason not to take the words at face value.

You should already be aware that the Bible uses symbolism all the time!

Yes, but that doesn't justify calling words symbolic when the symbolism isn't clear. If you do, then anyone can including me. I pronounce the god of the Old Testament a symbol for human potential, and the resurrection a symbol for the Renaissance and the resurrection of Greco-Roman culture in the West. I would call that unjustified, but hey, justification isn't part of this process. One simply declares whatever he doesn't want to be taken literally symbolic for something that he prefers it to mean.

But I don't need to do that, so I assume that the writers of those word meant what they wrote.

 

[Audie]

I'd say that this is pretty clearly meant to mean a literal 24-hour day of rest. From Exodus 20:

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Combine that with the fact that the week is seven days, one being the Sabbath, and we can safely say that the Hebrews understood that as a 24-hour period. And why wouldn't they? They were unaware that the six days of creation were myth, so they believed they were all literal days. It's only in modernity that people have cause to change the meaning of those words.

I thought that Jehovah's Witnesses were all young earth creationists, which made me question why you didn't like the literal understanding of the days of creation and rest, but I checked and found this at https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/creationism-belief/

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe in Creationism?​

​

No. Jehovah’s Witnesses do believe that God created everything. But we do not agree with creationism. Why not? Because a number of creationist ideas actually conflict with the Bible. Consider the following two examples:​

1. Length of the six days of creation. Some creationists assert that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days. But the word “day” in the Bible can refer to a considerable length of time.—Genesis 2:4; Psalm 90:4.
2. Age of the earth. Some creationists teach that the earth is just a few thousand years old. However, according to the Bible, the earth and the universe existed before the six days of creation. (Genesis 1:1) For that reason, Jehovah’s Witnesses have no objection to credible scientific research that indicates the earth may be billions of years old.

Although Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in creation, we are not antiscience. We believe that true science and the Bible are compatible.​

Here's a few paragraphs I left on another thread in response to "There’s several theories about how religion first started" containing my proposed explanation and what I think is the likely reason that there is a Sabbath as well as why it was intended to be understood and observed as a literal day:

I think it's pretty obvious how religions came to exist. Once you add reasoning and language to any mammal, you'll get magical thinking and efforts to explain and control circumstances by appealing to unseen agents. This begins with nomadic peoples and is a bottom-up phenomenon with a simple hierarchy headed only by a shaman, who was also a hunter. Once we have civilization and large cities, we get organized religion and priests as specialists who don't do other work or support themselves. Instead, there is a large central meeting place where people come regularly to listen to and support the priesthood.​

​

You can tell about when this happened with the Jews - whenever the Sabbath was invented. Think about it. In nomadic days, every able-bodied person worked every day, and it was no doubt a "sin" to be lazy or fake illness. But then life changed with the advent of civilization and cities, and people needed to travel to a central temple and spend hours there on a regular basis, and suddenly, it became a "sin" not to take a day off from work and bring the family to the temple. This became institutionalized two ways. The Commandment to not work on the sabbath was added to others, and the creation myth was modified to include a timeline and a new unit of time, the week for the six days of creation and one of rest. If God rested one day in seven, you need to as well.​

​

And think about the week. Compare it to the other units of time - the day, the month, and the year. These are all natural and correspond to the motions of the moon around the earth and the earth around its axis and around the sun. If monthly visits to the temple were too infrequent and daily visits too frequent, a new unit was needed, and so, we have the invention of the work week and the weekend.​

​

This is the top-down aspect of religion, when it becomes organized, centralized, and an extensive, authoritarian hierarchy​

I understand that it is acceptable among believers to simply make proclamation like that one, but it's unjustified. It's a preferred understanding. One can just as well proclaim it literal and be on at least as good a footing.

You've probably noticed that few or no unbelievers make claims like that about scripture, because they have no reason not to take the words at face value.

Yes, but that doesn't justify calling words symbolic when the symbolism isn't clear. If you do, then anyone can including me. I pronounce the god of the Old Testament a symbol for human potential, and the resurrection a symbol for the Renaissance and the resurrection of Greco-Roman culture in the West. I would call that unjustified, but hey, justification isn't part of this process. One simply declares whatever he doesn't want to be taken literally symbolic for something that he prefers it to mean.

But I don't need to do that, so I assume that the writers of those word meant what they wrote.

It's no use talking about things for which no
facts are available.
Any position can be upheld.
That's why our friend avoids topics requiring
references and facts.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Statements like this ─

Further, experts have dated the engraving to around the time of the death of Ahmose I, who lived right in the middle of the period we estimate for the Exodus. Indeed, several things (not just that) lead us to conclude that Ahmose I was indeed the pharaoh of the Exodus. For example, there even seems to be records of the Hebrew population living in Egypt during that very same time period. For a more in-depth discussion, please see our commentary, Who was Pharaoh during the Exodus?.​

​

The point is this: there is no lack of evidence. The problem is that many secular and religious authorities deliberately ignore it. Why?​

​

Secular historians ignore it because they don’t want to be seen supporting the Bible.​

​

Atheists ignore it because they wish to discredit the Bible for their own personal reasons.​

are highly destructive of the authors' credibility.

If they have evidence for (to stay with this example) an actual captivity and an actual Exodus, let them submit that evidence to historical criticism, and see if it withstands informed scrutiny. And let them submit their work for publication in respected journals of ancient history, not just among their friends.

RE: the Israelite slavery and Exodus from Egypt, I think the evidence will be brought to the mainstream public’s attention within the decade (though not necessarily by the article’s authors):

 

[Audie]

No, the Seventh Day is not mentioned as having an evening & morning. For a reason: it’s not literal.

This borders on circular reasoning. Paul wasn’t speaking about yesterday, a 24-hr day. Come on.
You should already be aware that the Bible uses symbolism all the time!
The Apostle Paul knew it. With the enlightenment that Jehovah God gave Paul, Paul passed on that enlightenment to Jehovah’s worshippers. No one else though, it seems. Luke 10:21

Of course. Just say it is, or isn't literal,
is or isn't symbolic ( of whatever you choose)
and the whole book says whatever you want.

Which of course explains so much of the book's
popularity.

Zero integrity in doing that of course but hey.
When was that a considdration.

 

[Audie]

RE: the Israelite slavery and Exodus from Egypt, I think the evidence will be brought to the mainstream public’s attention within the decade (though not necessarily by the article’s authors):

A future promise in a lo- budget vid is internal proof
of the bible? Trollin' your own thread?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You speak words without knowledge.
Archaeology has consistently verified it is reliable.

Where do you get your (mis)information?
All you have to do, is find an unbiased, reliable stele or relic that refutes a Biblical Event.

The archeological evidence refutes the Exodus story. The evidence shows that the ancient Israelites didn't displace the Canaanites; they were Canaanites.

 

[Ebionite]

With the enlightenment that Jehovah God gave Paul

And YHWH said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd.
For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, [which] shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.
Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword [shall be] upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.
Zechariah 11:15-17

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Matthew 5:29-30

 

[Audie]

The archeological evidence refutes the Exodus story. The evidence shows that the ancient Israelites didn't displace the Canaanites; they were Canaanites.

You don't got no unbiased reliable stele.
Not even a refutin' relic.

Thems the only evidences allowed.

 

[blü 2]

RE: the Israelite slavery and Exodus from Egypt, I think the evidence will be brought to the mainstream public’s attention within the decade (though not necessarily by the article’s authors):

Thanks.

If it survives scrutiny, it will certainly be a breakthrough.

One of the many rough edges to the bible account is why the Hebrews would be led by a foundling whose name was the Egyptian word for "son".

Though I confess a fondness for the street-storyteller feel of the tale about Moses and Aaron v. Pharaoh's magicians, the latter capping all the formers' best tricks eg turning the Nile into real blood and back ─ after that, the rod-becomes-snake trick looks rather minor.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

First of all, thanks for posting that info from JW’s.

I see no need to comment on your “how religion began” post. For the most part, religion has been a bane to the world’s cultures, alienating people from their Creator Jehovah, since the rebellion in Eden. Instead of there existing only one religion aiding humans get to know their one Creator, the formation of counterfeit others with their disgusting sex/fertility rites and traditions in worship of many different gods, has led people away from knowing the true God.

That’s why the Bible calls counterfeit religion a “Great Harlot / Prostitute”(Revelation 17 & 18)…. instead of promoting fidelity to the Creator, it’s been unfaithful by instituting worship of false deities, throughout mankind’s history.

And as described, the beast (aka the world’s foremost political body, the U.N.) will destroy it.

I understand that it is acceptable among believers to simply make proclamation like that one, but it's unjustified. It's a preferred understanding. One can just as well proclaim it literal and be on at least as good a footing.

But is justified: I gave you reasons, in explaining all the events happening in Day 6. That’s really not fair to overlook those reasons.

I’m sure many of the Bible’s Jewish writers didn’t understand what they were writing. Daniel specifically said he didn’t. - Daniel 12:8

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The archeological evidence refutes the Exodus story.

What evidence? I can show you otherwise. (But you first.) Actually I did, in the post above yours. I guess you didn’t see it.

The evidence shows that the ancient Israelites didn't displace the Canaanites; they were Canaanites.

Show me, then.

What archaeologists have discovered at Jericho, is in line with the Biblical narrative.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

"I could go on" making up nonsense.

What a closed & prejudicial mind you have!

Only you can change that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What evidence? I can show you otherwise. (But you first.) Actually I did, in the post above yours. I guess you didn’t see it.

The entire archaeological record in Canaan/Judea. If the ancient Isrselites came in from Egypt and quickly displaced the Canaanites, there would be a discontinuity in the archeological record when suddenly, across the region that would become Judea, Canaanite cultural indicators disappear and Israelite cultural indicators replace them: everything from pottery styles to building and village layouts to burial practices, etc.

... but we don't see this. Instead, we see "that the Israelite culture largely overlapped with and derived from Canaanite culture... In short, Israelite culture was largely Canaanite in nature."

The ancient Isrselites emerged from the ancient Canaanites; they didn't sweep in and replace them.

Show me, then.

How do you expect me to "show you" this in the format of an online discussion?

Edit: the first time I encountered this was nearly 20 years ago in Karen Armstrong's book "The Great Transformation: the Beginnings of our Religious Traditions." Not only is this book not available online in a way I can just point you to, I returned the book to the library almost two decades ago, so I don't even have a personal copy to send you if I wanted.

You can find plenty of sources online that talk about this, but they're all generally a quick paragraph followed by a citation of an actual book by an archaeologist.

What archaeologists have discovered at Jericho, is in line with the Biblical narrative.

What about Jericho do you think is both "in line with the Biblical narrative" and relevant to what I'm saying?

 

[Audie]

What a closed & prejudicial mind you have!

Only you can change that.

Well, you got in deflection and denial,
and whatever putting the fault on me is called.
There's certainly a well known name for
attacking someone's integrity rather than dealing
with the topic at hand.

Now, I may be wrong about you making things up
Perhaps you say nothing of your own, but repeat things
others made up.
Maybe it's more charitable to aassume you are parroting and just dont know any better. I guess you'd know which it is.

As for your gaslighting, the word is not " prejudice".
Not in any of its possible meanings, such as prejudice in favour of the bible interpretation that happens to suit you,
and against "mainstream" science.

My reaction to your made up nonsense, though, is actually
postjudice. You might look up that vocab, for clarity.

I've read your posts, with their flights of fantasy
( kwik- froze tropical mammoths in flood muck, say)
as well as your vanishing act when challenged, and
divers tries at verbal sleight of hand.

This thread has that last in abundance, ranging from outrightfalsehood about "consistent" evidence through the callfor stele refuting the Bible, and of course, sticking to
pseudo archomology videos, and avoiding the fact that
real archaeology, or any related science has never found item one to support anything supernatural.

Of course there's archaeology showing this city, or that existed. ( not Sodom or Gomorrah though)
All kinds of science confirms the Bible- when it mentions
the red sea, fish, the sun...but never anything supernatural.

Of course you don't mention that as it makes the thread pointless. And your beliefs along with it.

Your claims against me ( that i lack intellectual ibtegrity )
are of course also made up. You cannot cite any specifics.


That beside the gaslighting / false witness stuff is a full serving of psychological projection, for lo,
the intellectual dishonesty of your posts runs thick through your posts in every thread.

"Only you" could remedy that. A start, after looking up
" posrjudice" would be to, ah, " Do your own research"
and acquaint yourself with the features of intellectual
integrity.

 

[Audie]

The archeological evidence refutes the Exodus story. The evidence shows that the ancient Israelites didn't displace the Canaanites; they were Canaanites.

What is missed ( deliberate or negligent)
by those posting "evidences" of supernatural
events include-
- reliability of claims ( like citing Ron Wyatt
discoveries)

-irrelevance / non support of the supernatural
aspects of their claim ( sure, there's a red sea.
That doesn't address whether Moses parted it)

-ignoring all contrary evidence ( disproof). Sure, seashells in the doesert might support flood.

But polar ice disproves WWF. And nullifies all
supporting evidence.

Those who cannot recognize that they lost a wheel
somewhere will of course blame something from
the drop down menu-
Atheist
Bias
Closed mind
Denial
Etc

 

[Audie]

Statements like this ─

Further, experts have dated the engraving to around the time of the death of Ahmose I, who lived right in the middle of the period we estimate for the Exodus. Indeed, several things (not just that) lead us to conclude that Ahmose I was indeed the pharaoh of the Exodus. For example, there even seems to be records of the Hebrew population living in Egypt during that very same time period. For a more in-depth discussion, please see our commentary, Who was Pharaoh during the Exodus?.​

​

The point is this: there is no lack of evidence. The problem is that many secular and religious authorities deliberately ignore it. Why?​

​

Secular historians ignore it because they don’t want to be seen supporting the Bible.​

​

Atheists ignore it because they wish to discredit the Bible for their own personal reasons.​

are highly destructive of the authors' credibility.

If they have evidence for (to stay with this example) an actual captivity and an actual Exodus, let them submit that evidence to historical criticism, and see if it withstands informed scrutiny. And let them submit their work for publication in respected journals of ancient history, not just among their friends.

Does a number on credibility of those citing such trash

 

[blü 2]

See, I don’t think so, because on Day 6, too much was going on! And as Adam was engaged in his assignment, ie., giving the animals their names (arbitrarily? I doubt it), Jehovah said at Genesis 2:18, ““It is not good for the man to continue to be alone.” (After 1 day? I doubt that, too.)
And then, after Eve was created, Adam says, “This is now (as in finally, or as many translations say, “at last”), bone of my bone….”

But that's folktale, tribal origins lore. There was no historical Garden of Eden and no historical creation.

Not only that, but there are two Garden stories, not one, in the bible, underlining that tales have local varieties.

And compare those with the Sumerian, the Greek, the Roman, the Indian, the Chinese, the many African, native American and Australian origin stories. What they tell us is that humans are hungry for answers to such basic questions as origins. What science tells us is that we can learn a great deal about origins by examining reality using scientific method ─ empiricism and induction.

Of course, science can't and doesn't purport to make absolute statements. It's always a work in progress.


By the way, the bible gives no basis for the suggestion that a "year" can be read as "a thousand years" whenever the reader wishes. I can find only one relevant reference in the Tanakh ─

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.​

and that's plainly poetic, not a rule for daily use, or commerce, or administration, or learning.

The days of creation are self-evidently intended to be 24-hour periods, each with a morning and an evening, making up a week that finishes with a day of rest. And their "science" is not our science, since in the story God creates 'the heavens and the earth' without the electromagnetic spectrum, which is a later add-on; makes the earth flat, fixes it immovably at the center of creation, covers it with a hard dome you can walk on (the 'firmament') and makes the sun moon and stars go round it. (I set out the relevant texts here >Gravitational waves in Newton theory are 4-th order, in Einstein's are 2-nd!!!<.)

The reason we know better these days is because we've looked and measured and looked again and measured again.

 

[Audie]

But that's folktale, tribal origins lore. There was no historical Garden of Eden and no historical creation.

Not only that, but there are two Garden stories, not one, in the bible, underlining that tales have local varieties.

And compare those with the Sumerian, the Greek, the Roman, the Indian, the Chinese, the many African, native American and Australian origin stories. What they tell us is that humans are hungry for answers to such basic questions as origins. What science tells us is that we can learn a great deal about origins by examining reality using scientific method ─ empiricism and induction.

Of course, science can't and doesn't purport to make absolute statements. It's always a work in progress.


By the way, the bible gives no basis for the suggestion that a "year" can be read as "a thousand years" whenever the reader wishes. I can find only one relevant reference in the Tanakh ─

Psalm 90:4​

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.​

and that's plainly poetic, not a rule for daily use, or commerce, or administration, or learning.

The days of creation are self-evidently intended to be 24-hour periods, each with a morning and an evening, making up a week that finishes with a day of rest. And their "science" is not our science, since in the story God creates 'the heavens and the earth' without the electromagnetic spectrum, which is a later add-on; makes the earth flat, fixes it immovably at the center of creation, covers it with a hard dome you can walk on (the 'firmament') and makes the sun moon and stars go round it. (I set out the relevant texts here >Gravitational waves in Newton theory are 4-th order, in Einstein's are 2-nd!!!<.)

The reason we know better these days is because we've looked and measured and looked again and measured again.

Who needs a passage about 1000 yr days or
Kwik frozen flood -mammoths when it's easier to
make things up?