Christians- How do you know Jesus and the Bible are true?

[CG Didymus]

So are you saying that people made up stuff about gods and passed it off as the truth? or do you think that the members of the religions knew it was made up?

That's an interesting thing to say, because isn't that what born-again Christians think the other religions did? Did Muhammad make up Islam and the Quran? Did Joseph Smith make up the Book of Mormon? Did Baha'u'llah make up the Baha'i Faith? They all are written in such a way that makes it seem like they are the truth. But what are they? For those of us that don't believe them, they are just made up religious writings that are being past off as being the truth from God. Then, some of us, take the Bible and the NT the same way.

 

[Zwing]

Tell that to Brian2.
What are you sourcing?

There are three theories pertaining to how Israel came to inhabit the land: the conquest theory, which is basically taken from scripture and was later embellished; the peaceful infiltration theory, which is an early scholarly attempt to reconcile the conquest theory with a shifting academic understanding; and the revolt theory, which is that most accepted today and indicates that the nascent Israelites arose from amongst and usurped their Canaanite kinsmen. Here is one paper on the subject:

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA375170.pdf

 

[CG Didymus]

There are three theories pertaining to how Israel came to inhabit the land: the conquest theory, which is basically taken from scripture and was later embellished; the peaceful infiltration theory, which is an early scholarly attempt to reconcile the conquest theory with a shifting academic understanding; and the revolt theory, which is that most accepted today and indicates that the nascent Israelites arose from amongst and usurped their Canaanite kinsmen. Here is one paper on the subject:

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA375170.pdf

If anything, other than the Biblical story is true, then that affects every other one of the Abrahamic religions. Because all of them rely heavily on the Bible and need it to be somewhat true.

 

[Zwing]

If anything, other than the Biblical story is true, then that affects every other one of the Abrahamic religions. Because all of them rely heavily on the Bible and need it to be somewhat true.

Well, it is true that the three others are basically adaptations of the Jewish cosmology, but that only matters if one takes a literalist view of scripture. In Roman Catholicism, for instance, very little reliance is placed upon the literal truth of scripture; in Catholicism it is accepted that God reveals himself to man mysteriously… it is basically a mystery religion. For my part, I view most of scripture as false for not standing up to rational scrutiny.

 

[Brian2]

That's an interesting thing to say, because isn't that what born-again Christians think the other religions did? Did Muhammad make up Islam and the Quran? Did Joseph Smith make up the Book of Mormon? Did Baha'u'llah make up the Baha'i Faith? They all are written in such a way that makes it seem like they are the truth. But what are they? For those of us that don't believe them, they are just made up religious writings that are being past off as being the truth from God. Then, some of us, take the Bible and the NT the same way.

I thought of that when I posted those questions. I asked because Joel said that he was not a conspiracy theorist but then said things that showed he is in relation to all religions. It's all made up and and foisted on people as if it is the truth.
I say a similar thing about some religions, there are scammers out there and have been in the past. Evidence points to Joseph Smith and Ron Hubbard as scammers for example. Others are probably sincere in their mistakes and are believers themselves. Others such as Muhammad and Baha'u'llah seem to have been led astray by demons and are probably sincere also.

 

[joelr]

Before I deal with your compendium that tends to deviate from the point that I am making, the reality is that there are many interpretations of the same.

I actually think this would be a correct informative site:

"The oldest surviving manuscript of the psalm comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, first discovered in 1947. Significantly, the 5/6 H. ev–Sev4Ps Fragment 11 of Psalm 22 contains the crucial word in the form of what some have suggested may be a third person plural verb, written כארו (“pierced/dug”). This may suggest that the Septuagint translation preserved the meaning of the original Hebrew. This rendering is present in a minority of manuscripts of the Masoretic text.[1]"

So focusing on 5/6 H fragment and that interpretation, we can get deeper into who says this. The argument I most often see is made by Dr. Flint.

"
In his book, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (2002), Dr. Peter Flint claimed that scraps of scroll found at the Nahal Hever Cave support the Christological reading rather than the Masoretic Text which clearly reads, “like a lion.” The Nahal Hever Cave is located about 30 km south of Qumran. The document Flint is making reference to is designated as 5/6HevPs.

Bear in mind that the Nahal Hever manuscripts are considerably younger than the Dead Sea Scrolls. While the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts predate the first Jewish War (66 CE), the manuscripts from Nahal Hever came from a later period; between the two Jewish Wars (between 70 CE and 135 CE). Despite the claims made by Professor Flint in the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, the passage in 5/6HevPs does not “unambiguously read pierced.”

Hebrew​	Translit.	Meaning	Comment​
כארי	Kaari	“Like a lion”	This common word appears in all the Masoretic texts in the world.
כארו	Kaaru	Does not exists in the Hebrew language	Christians claim that this non- existent word means “pierced,” and appears in the Nahal Hever Cave.
כרו	Karu	“Dig” or “excavate”	The root of this word appears many times in Tanach. It does not mean to “pierce” through flesh.

The below
image was digitally enhanced, and it is difficult to discern by studying the faint, ancient text whether the word in question ends in a elongated י (yud) or a shortened ו (vav). Unlike other ancient texts, the writing on this script found at Nahal Hever is not sharp or uniform. If, for argument’s sake, we conclude that the debated word written in the Nahal Hever script is כארו (ka’aru), as Rosen and Flint argue, it is obvious that this anomaly is the result of the scribe’s poor handwriting or spelling mistake. There is clear evidence, in fact, from an obvious spelling mistake in the script itself that the second century scribe was not meticulous. The very next word after the debated word is “my hands.” The Hebrew word in Psalm 22:17 is ידי (yadai). The Nahal Hever scribe, however, misspelled this word [as well][/as] by placing an extra letter ה (hey) at the end of the word. Thus, the Nahal Hever 5/6HevPs reads ידיה instead of the correct ידי. The Hebrew word ידיה (yadehah) means “her hands,” not “my hands.”
Moreover, as explained above, there is no verb in the Hebrew language as כארו (ka’aru). In order to create the word “dig” or “excavate” in the Hebrew language, the א (aleph) would have to be removed from the word כארו as well. Again, כארו (ka’aru) is Hebrew gibberish.
A Closer Look at the “Crucifixion Psalm” - Outreach Judaism. Rabbi Tovia Singer



next, -

"The answer to your question is No. The assumption that the word "pierced" is in the Dead Sea Scrolls is not true. As we see in the following:

Virtual Yeshiva Discussion Forums-Dead sea scrolls and Psalm 22

Is it true that the dead sea scrolls have כארו written instead of כארי? What does this mean as far as our understanding of transmission of Teh

www.tapatalk.com

Written by Uri Yosef, Psalms 22 - "Nailing" An Alleged Crucifixion Scenario Lesson notes

fragments containing Psalms 22:17[16] were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). In the first fragment, which was found at Qumran (4QPs-f; known as the Qumran MS, the word in question is not preserved.

In the second fragment, found at Nahal Hever (HHev/Se 4 (Ps); known as the Bar Kochba MS, the word is preserved.

The fragment HHev/Se 4 (Ps) shows the Hebrew letters (kaf), (aleph), (resh), and what appears to be a somewhat elongated letter (yod), which some perceive to be the letter (vav).[3] Thus, the reading of this word would be either (ka'ari) or (ka'aru), respectively.

Although the latter of these two renditions of the term has been the focus of much controversy and discussion, it is a fact that no root verb exists which contains the letter (aleph) in it, conjugated in this fashion (3rd-person, plural masculine gender, past tense), with the meaning of they pierced, as rendered in most Christian translations.

Without the letter (aleph), and using, for the moment, the argument that the last letter [the elongated (yod)] is a (vav), the word would be (karu), for which the Hebrew root verb is (karah), [to] dig [in dirt], such as digging a ditch (e.g., Ps 57:7). In other words, (karu) has the meaning [they] dug [in dirt]. This verb is never used in the context of piercing, either literally or metaphorically, in any of its 15 applications in the Hebrew Bible.

What could cause such a variation between the two terms (ka'ari) and (ka'aru), i.e., with an elongated letter (yod) that resembles the letter (vav)? Since the word (ka'aru) does not exist in the Hebrew language, the most plausible explanation is that such discrepancy is simply a case of scribal variation (or error).

The word in Psalm 22 is ka'ari (lion) not karu (which means "to dig" BTW, as in digging a ditch, not pierce).

The Dead Sea Scroll version of the Psalm has kaari, but some Xians think it is kaaru because the yod is longer than normal and can be mistaken for a vav.

But here lies the problem: kaaru is NOT a word. There is no such word in Hebrew ancient or modern. Karu is a word -- but that isn't what is in the Dead Sea Scrolls or in any other Hebrew copy of the Psalm.

Ka'aru is not a word but karu IS a word. Some Xians try and say that the word in Psalm 22 should be karu. The only problem is that karu doesn't mean "pierced" either. It means to dig". If you use its cognate 3rd person plural masculine gender "KARU" it translates to they dug. But note that kara or karu do not us the letter "aleph".

Kaf-resh-vav is a word. Kaf-ALEPH-resh-vav is not a word. It is as if someone came upon dutg in English and wants to say it is dug.

BTW the KJV translates ka'ari correctly in other places that arent proof texts misquoted by the GT.

Numbers 23:24 (veka'ari), and I as a young lion

Numbers 24:9 (ka'ari), like a lion

Isaiah 38:13 (ka'ari), like a lion

Ezekiel 22:25 (ka'ari), like a lion

So the KJV translators correctly translated it until they got to Psalms 22:17[16] and suddenly the KJV doesn't know what it means and translates it as "they pierced."

One more little bit of Hebrew grammar. If the word really was "pierced," (which we've proven it is not) the sentence would have an "et" to identify the direct object which would be affected by that verb. There is no et.

written by - Sabba Hillel

 

[joelr]

I don't think that he said whether the scribe was Christian or Jewish.

If he's talking about the Septuagint, the first edition was written 3BC-1BC, so Jewish. Why would that matter?

The quote I used is from the article you posted to me.
It was the video I originally posted to you (Dr Seth Postell) that you said to be from an apologist.
Personally I agree with both of them (I think they both said this) that it really does not matter to the Christological content whether the word was meant to be "like a lion" or "dug" or "pierced", or bored.

The post from R.L. Solberg, he is an apologist. He believes the Septuagint has a scribal error. The earliest version is from a Dead Sea Scroll fragment and looks to say "like a lion, they are at my hands and feet", I posted 2 sources in another post and am sticking with experts in Hebrew.
Mark used Psalms so whatever matches up can be reasonably seen as Mark creating a narrative from the Psalms text.

 

[joelr]

So are you saying that people made up stuff about gods and passed it off as the truth?

Are you really asking this question? There are over 4000 recorded religions in history. You think there are 4000 deities and every story is true?
You think Krishna and the Hindu Gods are real and Brahman is the supreme ultimate reality/God? You think Joe Smith was really given golden plates with updates on Christianity? You think Gabrielle really visited Muhammad and gave major updates on Judaism and Christianity (they apparently are liars is one update)??
Most of the time the people writing the stories likely convinced themselves their God contacted them and wanted them to re-write whatever mythology and they would be dictated the "true version". They "felt" their God was the real God and wanted to finally give the "real version". That is more likely what happened.

However, if you read Platos Republic he states to have a proper society you have to invent a mythology, have an all powerful God, people who don't believe are called heretics and killed and have the God dictate the laws. Knowing full well it's all B.S.

or do you think that the members of the religions knew it was made up?

I think by default most people assumed (science didn't exist) the supernatural was just a regular part of the world. Except Greeks who explored philosophy and often did not expect an afterlife. Those who believed in Gods thought they were living separate lives and would sometimes answer prayer for weather and crops. No afterlife. Then comes Hellenism, personal saviors, personal afterlife, souls that live on..........

You certainly see to think this is the case in every religion and that angels or demons could not have been involved in some religions.

There is no evidence for anything supernatural. Specific mythic characters like angels and demons are pure fiction. No different than fairies or trolls.

As I said, the Bible tells us about Israel's worship of idols and archaeology shows it to be true. Great, the Bible is proven by archaeology.

If scripture couldn't even explain what its people were doing it would be ridiculous. Yes Israel had a folk religion that was different than whatis in scripture for many centuries.
If you are going to cite archaeology then great because it also shows,
Genesis is Mesopotamian
No Exodus, that is a national foundation myth
No Egypt, Canaanites
and many other things the Bible got wrong

PROVING THE BIBLE​

Q: Have biblical archeologists traditionally tried to find evidence that events in the Bible really happened?

William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

But perhaps we were asking the wrong questions. I have always thought that if we resurrected someone from the past, one of the biblical writers, they would be amused, because for them it would have made no difference. I think they would have said, faith is faith is faith—take your proofs and go with them.

The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible. Archeologists can often tell you what happened and when and where and how and even why. No archeologists can tell anyone what it means, and most of us don't try.

Q: Yet many people want to know whether the events of the Bible are real, historic events.

Dever: We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.

NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Archeology of the Hebrew Bible | PBS

In this article, archaeologist and biblical scholar William Dever discusses how archeology can offer vivid insights into the biblical world.

www.pbs.org

The Bible does actually say that at some times in history the majority of Israelites were into idols.

What does it say?

The article you posted shows nothing about when the Hebrew scriptures were written unless you go to it fully convinced that the Pentateuch and other parts of the OT were written a long time after the times suggested in the Bible.

600 BC

Hebrew Bible Interpretation 1, Lecture 1

Dr. Joel S. Baden Yale Divinity Lecture


23:49 - Psalms (not written in 10th century)

Ezekiel - 600 BC

Kings - 600 BC

Ezra - 600 BC


24:22 - Bible not the oldest book in the world, and not that unique

24:55 - creation stories and laws like in Deuteronomy, we have from 3rd millennium BC from Mesopotamia

-Wisdom literature, like Proverbs, in some cases verbatim, word for word, from Egypt, well before Proverbs.

-Epic poetry and ritual text like Leviticus from Ugarit.

-Laws like Deuteronomy from the Hittite Empire

-Historiography from Greece

Biblical authors were writing with literary conventions of their time.

 

[joelr]

Yes archaeologists find evidence for what the Bible tells us happened.

Sure, let's ask William Dever, Biblical Archaeologist:
"The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible. Archeologists can often tell you what happened and when and where and how and even why. No archeologists can tell anyone what it means, and most of us don't try."
Dever: We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story.
Dever: The stories of Solomon are larger than life. According to the stories, Solomon imported 100,000 workers from what is now Lebanon. Well, the whole population of Israel probably wasn't 100,000 in the 10th century. Everything Solomon touched turned to gold. In the minds of the biblical writers, of course, David and Solomon are ideal kings chosen by Yahweh. So they glorify them.

Now, archeology can't either prove or disprove the stories. But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale.

The truth is that Canaanite archaeology for around 1400 BC confirms the Book of Joshua, the conquest story.

Q: What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?

Dever: The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.
Q: If the Bible's story of Joshua's conquest isn't entirely historic, what is its meaning?

Dever: Why was it told? Well, it was told because there were probably armed conflicts here and there, and these become a part of the story glorifying the career of Joshua, commander in chief of the Israelite forces. I suspect that there is a historical kernel, and there are a few sites that may well have been destroyed by these Israelites, such as Hazor in Galilee, or perhaps a site or two in the south.

In the end Canaan was made up of just Israel so they kicked the Canaanites out.

Dever: We know today, from archeological investigation, that there were more than 300 early villages of the 13th and 12th century in the area. I call these "proto-Israelite" villages.

Forty years ago it would have been impossible to identify the earliest Israelites archeologically. We just didn't have the evidence. And then, in a series of regional surveys, Israeli archeologists in the 1970s began to find small hilltop villages in the central hill country north and south of Jerusalem and in lower Galilee. Now we have almost 300 of them.

NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Archeology of the Hebrew Bible | PBS

In this article, archaeologist and biblical scholar William Dever discusses how archeology can offer vivid insights into the biblical world.

www.pbs.org

Kicked out??????
Archaeological data suggests that Canaanite cities were never destroyed or abandoned. Now, ancient DNA recovered from five Canaanite skeletons suggests that these people survived to contribute their genes to millions of people living today. The new samples come from Sidon, a coastal city in Lebanon.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

I see that the evidence confirms the Bible.

No evidence confirms any supernatural events or beings. Canaanites, not Egypt. No Exodus. Small scale. Then Persian/Greek theology.

Yes I know the hypothesese and what their ideas are based on.
Composition of the Torah - Wikipedia

That is way beyond what I discuss with fundamentalists. You won't even face plain easy obvious facts, never mind the DH.

I mean how many times now have you made this misleading blanket statement "Archaeology confirms the Bible" because it mentions idols?
The Bible does not say that up until the 2nd Temple Period most Israelites were worshipping a polytheistic religion and having figurines of the deity. The commandments were written after that period, written to show what they wanted Judaism to actually be.

I know of the hypothesese and why they have developed.

uh huh.

Israelite tribes in the hills agrees with the Bible.

So that is one thing. Like Hindu and Islamic scriptures they record some true history. It isn't all made up, just most of it.

 

[joelr]

Well, what would happen in those heady days, was that one faction or “army” would cause the capitulation of a city, then they would kill most of the men, raise the children to have their own particular tribal cosmology and ideology, and keep the women for breeding. So, “kicked out” might not be the best characterization, but “absorbed” might just do it.

Israelites moved away from Canaan and formed tribes in the hill country around 1200 BC. Centuries later the tribes had to come together because of the Philistines raiding them.

THE ORIGINS OF ISRAEL​

Q: What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?

Dever: The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.

NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Archeology of the Hebrew Bible | PBS

In this article, archaeologist and biblical scholar William Dever discusses how archeology can offer vivid insights into the biblical world.

www.pbs.org

 

[joelr]

There are three theories pertaining to how Israel came to inhabit the land: the conquest theory, which is basically taken from scripture and was later embellished; the peaceful infiltration theory, which is an early scholarly attempt to reconcile the conquest theory with a shifting academic understanding; and the revolt theory, which is that most accepted today and indicates that the nascent Israelites arose from amongst and usurped their Canaanite kinsmen. Here is one paper on the subject:

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA375170.pdf

This is a thesis for Master of the Arts?

The consensus is talked about here, by Dr Joel Baden, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale Divinity, PhD from Harvard

Canaanites Were Israelites & There Was No Exodus

Prof. Joel Baden
1:20 DNA shows close relationship between Israelites and Canaanites. Israelites ARE Canaanites who moved to a different place.

6:10 Consensus. Biblical story of Exodus and people coming from Egypt and taking over through battle is not true. With slight variations here and there basically everyone will tell you they gradually came from the coastlands into the highlands. Canaanites moved away to the highlands and slowly became a unified nation after first splitting into tribes.

No Israelites until after 1000 BCE.

18:18 Isaiah 1 is 8th century. Ch 40 is suddenly different. Cyrus shows up, enter end times, Persian influence. Messianic concepts.
The only reason one would not see this is if committed to the idea that it’s not written in separate parts.

 

[joelr]

I thought of that when I posted those questions. I asked because Joel said that he was not a conspiracy theorist but then said things that showed he is in relation to all religions. It's all made up and and foisted on people as if it is the truth.

I never said it's all made up. I said there is no evidence anything supernatural is real. So until there is reasonable evidence to believe in anything supernatural it is not a reasonable belief to hold.

If someone tells you they have Superman powers and you demonstrate they do not, you haven't automatically shown the other claims of people having Superman powers false but you have no reason to believe any of them are actually true.

BTW, it is not a conspiracy theory to say you don't believe all ufo stories, big foot sightings, ghost stories, mythologies, cold readers, psychics..........that isn't what a conspiracy theory is. That's just not buying into crank. Prove one of those things is true EVER for starters.
You don't get to take a bunch of supernatural wu-wu and call it a conspiracy theory to not buy any of it.
Ancient religions are how people thought back then. It was normal. Apologetics may not be a conspiracy, it's more of cognitive and confirmation bias.

I say a similar thing about some religions, there are scammers out there and have been in the past. Evidence points to Joseph Smith and Ron Hubbard as scammers for example. Others are probably sincere in their mistakes and are believers themselves. Others such as Muhammad and Baha'u'llah seem to have been led astray by demons and are probably sincere also.

"Seem" to ???????? Uh, yeah, demons are real in Marvel Comics. Mephisto and so on. Not in real life.
There are early versions of the Quran so it was a work in progress. They may have genuinely felt Allah was dictating to them, just as Paul may have really thought Jesus was telling him stuff.
Mark on the other hand is writing brilliant fiction, high level, no chance he didn't know. A schooled writer, pulling from several sources, he's creating a masterpiece of Jewish/Greek theology using some basic stories that have been spreading around.

Just read the 7 authentic Epistles and you will see how much Mark made up. He even used the letters of Paul to create events. But he was probably aware the Roman religion, Mithras, wasn't real and the other mystery religions were not and knew people lived by myth and wanted to contribute his skills.

Also the Quran may be a bit violent at times, and angry, but it's also full as just as much wisdom, ethics and calls for peace unless provoked.
You should read it, a demon that gives people advice for making a strong community and a peaceful, content life? Ridiculous.

Muslims are actually doing it way better than Christians. They have a stronger community, family values, they are going to outnumber Christians because of their strong focus on family over material gain. Islamic philosophy is actually very deep. Your shallow idea that it's from a "demon" is truly uneducated.

Demon????????because it's not a Greek savior demigod? Even they know the NT was Greek myth.

"Whoever kills a human being, it is as if he had killed all mankind. Whoever saves the life of one, it is as if he had saved the life of all."

1. Don't confuse truth with falsehood or knowingly conceal the truth. 2:42
2. Be good to parents, relatives, orphans, and the needy. Speak kindly and pay the poor-due. 2:83
3. If you believe it, prove it. (A good rule, but does it apply to Muslims, too?) 2:111
4. The Jews say the Christians are wrong, and vice versa. Yet they both believe in the Scriptures. 2:113
5. Give of your wealth to family, relatives, and the needy. Set slaves free. 2:177
6. Do not fight wars of aggression. (Does this apply only during Ramadan?) 2:190
7. "Do good." 2:195
8. Spend your money for good: to help your parents, your family, orphans, wayfarers, and the needy. 2:215
9. Help orphans. 2:220
10. "Make not Allah, by your oaths, a hindrance to ... making peace among mankind." 2:224
11. "There is no compulsion in religion." (But see the next verse which says that disbelievers will burn forever in Hell.) 2:256
12. Pay the poor-due. , , 2:277
13. "If the debtor is in straitened circumstances, then (let there be) postponement to (the time of) ease." 2:280
14. Don't argue about things that you know nothing about. 3:66

"

1. Feed and clothe the needy. Set a slave free. 5:89"
2. Do good to parents, don't kill your children or other living things unnecessarily. 6:151
3. Pay the poor-due. 7:156
4. Be kind and forgiving toward others. 7:199
5. And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it. 8:61-Quran

 

[Kenny]

So focusing on 5/6 H fragment and that interpretation, we can get deeper into who says this. The argument I most often see is made by Dr. Flint.

"
In his book, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (2002), Dr. Peter Flint claimed that scraps of scroll found at the Nahal Hever Cave support the Christological reading rather than the Masoretic Text which clearly reads, “like a lion.” The Nahal Hever Cave is located about 30 km south of Qumran. The document Flint is making reference to is designated as 5/6HevPs.

Bear in mind that the Nahal Hever manuscripts are considerably younger than the Dead Sea Scrolls. While the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts predate the first Jewish War (66 CE), the manuscripts from Nahal Hever came from a later period; between the two Jewish Wars (between 70 CE and 135 CE). Despite the claims made by Professor Flint in the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, the passage in 5/6HevPs does not “unambiguously read pierced.”

Hebrew​	Translit.	Meaning	Comment​
כארי	Kaari	“Like a lion”	This common word appears in all the Masoretic texts in the world.
כארו	Kaaru	Does not exists in the Hebrew language	Christians claim that this non- existent word means “pierced,” and appears in the Nahal Hever Cave.
כרו	Karu	“Dig” or “excavate”	The root of this word appears many times in Tanach. It does not mean to “pierce” through flesh.

The below
image was digitally enhanced, and it is difficult to discern by studying the faint, ancient text whether the word in question ends in a elongated י (yud) or a shortened ו (vav). Unlike other ancient texts, the writing on this script found at Nahal Hever is not sharp or uniform. If, for argument’s sake, we conclude that the debated word written in the Nahal Hever script is כארו (ka’aru), as Rosen and Flint argue, it is obvious that this anomaly is the result of the scribe’s poor handwriting or spelling mistake. There is clear evidence, in fact, from an obvious spelling mistake in the script itself that the second century scribe was not meticulous. The very next word after the debated word is “my hands.” The Hebrew word in Psalm 22:17 is ידי (yadai). The Nahal Hever scribe, however, misspelled this word [as well][/as] by placing an extra letter ה (hey) at the end of the word. Thus, the Nahal Hever 5/6HevPs reads ידיה instead of the correct ידי. The Hebrew word ידיה (yadehah) means “her hands,” not “my hands.”
Moreover, as explained above, there is no verb in the Hebrew language as כארו (ka’aru). In order to create the word “dig” or “excavate” in the Hebrew language, the א (aleph) would have to be removed from the word כארו as well. Again, כארו (ka’aru) is Hebrew gibberish.
A Closer Look at the “Crucifixion Psalm” - Outreach Judaism. Rabbi Tovia Singer



next, -

"The answer to your question is No. The assumption that the word "pierced" is in the Dead Sea Scrolls is not true. As we see in the following:

Virtual Yeshiva Discussion Forums-Dead sea scrolls and Psalm 22

Is it true that the dead sea scrolls have כארו written instead of כארי? What does this mean as far as our understanding of transmission of Teh

www.tapatalk.com

Written by Uri Yosef, Psalms 22 - "Nailing" An Alleged Crucifixion Scenario Lesson notes

fragments containing Psalms 22:17[16] were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). In the first fragment, which was found at Qumran (4QPs-f; known as the Qumran MS, the word in question is not preserved.

In the second fragment, found at Nahal Hever (HHev/Se 4 (Ps); known as the Bar Kochba MS, the word is preserved.

The fragment HHev/Se 4 (Ps) shows the Hebrew letters (kaf), (aleph), (resh), and what appears to be a somewhat elongated letter (yod), which some perceive to be the letter (vav).[3] Thus, the reading of this word would be either (ka'ari) or (ka'aru), respectively.

Although the latter of these two renditions of the term has been the focus of much controversy and discussion, it is a fact that no root verb exists which contains the letter (aleph) in it, conjugated in this fashion (3rd-person, plural masculine gender, past tense), with the meaning of they pierced, as rendered in most Christian translations.

Without the letter (aleph), and using, for the moment, the argument that the last letter [the elongated (yod)] is a (vav), the word would be (karu), for which the Hebrew root verb is (karah), [to] dig [in dirt], such as digging a ditch (e.g., Ps 57:7). In other words, (karu) has the meaning [they] dug [in dirt]. This verb is never used in the context of piercing, either literally or metaphorically, in any of its 15 applications in the Hebrew Bible.

What could cause such a variation between the two terms (ka'ari) and (ka'aru), i.e., with an elongated letter (yod) that resembles the letter (vav)? Since the word (ka'aru) does not exist in the Hebrew language, the most plausible explanation is that such discrepancy is simply a case of scribal variation (or error).

The word in Psalm 22 is ka'ari (lion) not karu (which means "to dig" BTW, as in digging a ditch, not pierce).

The Dead Sea Scroll version of the Psalm has kaari, but some Xians think it is kaaru because the yod is longer than normal and can be mistaken for a vav.

But here lies the problem: kaaru is NOT a word. There is no such word in Hebrew ancient or modern. Karu is a word -- but that isn't what is in the Dead Sea Scrolls or in any other Hebrew copy of the Psalm.

Ka'aru is not a word but karu IS a word. Some Xians try and say that the word in Psalm 22 should be karu. The only problem is that karu doesn't mean "pierced" either. It means to dig". If you use its cognate 3rd person plural masculine gender "KARU" it translates to they dug. But note that kara or karu do not us the letter "aleph".

Kaf-resh-vav is a word. Kaf-ALEPH-resh-vav is not a word. It is as if someone came upon dutg in English and wants to say it is dug.

BTW the KJV translates ka'ari correctly in other places that arent proof texts misquoted by the GT.

Numbers 23:24 (veka'ari), and I as a young lion

Numbers 24:9 (ka'ari), like a lion

Isaiah 38:13 (ka'ari), like a lion

Ezekiel 22:25 (ka'ari), like a lion

So the KJV translators correctly translated it until they got to Psalms 22:17[16] and suddenly the KJV doesn't know what it means and translates it as "they pierced."

One more little bit of Hebrew grammar. If the word really was "pierced," (which we've proven it is not) the sentence would have an "et" to identify the direct object which would be affected by that verb. There is no et.

written by - Sabba Hillel

The problem we are having, imv, is that you are simply referencing those scholars and opinion that support your position while ignoring that which doesn't.

If you read only those manuscripts that have the word Ka’ari and go from there you would be right.

The reading of Ka’aru (to pierce) however, is found in the oldest Hebrew manuscript of the Psalms, an ancient copy discovered at Nahal Hever and dating to about the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (HarperCollins Books, 1999) 519)

Not only that, but the reality is that the Septuagint had to be translated from manuscripts older than that (which we no longer exist).

So, we will actually be at odds since we are basing our understanding on different manuscripts.

Obviously the "anti-Christian" stance will be held by those who do not believe in the Christ and the those who do believe in Christ will hold my position.

 

[Zwing]

I asked because Joel said that he was not a conspiracy theorist but then said things that showed he is in relation to all religions. It's all made up and and foisted on people as if it is the truth.
I say a similar thing about some religions, there are scammers out there and have been in the past.

Nobody is saying that the Abrahamic religions have been intended to deceive, i.e. a “scam”, but rather that they were founded by those with interests, generally with political ramifications and sometimes vested (e.g. the Canaanite priests of YHVH), amidst a general environment wherein critical and rational appraisal was not commonplace. I am sure that the originators of these faiths believed that they possessed validity. These were late Bronze Age peoples…what can you expect?? The fact that we take any cosmological view of Bronze Age man to reflect truth even obliquely is, to me, astonishing, and it is obvious to me that the deficits of our impersonal, disenfranchising and hierarchical modern society results in these religions and their provision as providing much needed succor to isolated, disenfranchised and deprivileged man, thus causing his avoidance of critical appraisal thereof.

 

[Zwing]

So, we will actually be at odds since we are basing our understanding on different manuscripts.

Obviously the "anti-Christian" stance will be held by those who do not believe in the Christ and the those who do believe in Christ will hold my position

My question pertaining to this would be, what does the wording of these ancient manuscripts matter at all? I can show you even older writings which indicate that Zeus and his cohort live atop Mr. Olimbos in Greece. What of it; shall I believe, or place faith, therein? As pertains to the question of the validity of a given cosmology, the minutiae of ancient manuscripts would seem to be utterly irrelevant. What should it matter to me whether somebody either “pierced” or “dug” in an old folk-tale? How does this help me to assess the epistemic validity of the story?

 

[Brian2]

Nobody is saying that the Abrahamic religions have been intended to deceive, i.e. a “scam”, but rather that they were founded by those with interests, generally with political ramifications and sometimes vested (e.g. the Canaanite priests of YHVH), amidst a general environment wherein critical and rational appraisal was not commonplace. I am sure that the originators of these faiths believed that they possessed validity. These were late Bronze Age peoples…what can you expect?? The fact that we take any cosmological view of Bronze Age man to reflect truth even obliquely is, to me, astonishing, and it os obvious to me that the deficits of our impersonal, disenfranchising and hierarchical modern society results in these religions and their provision as providing much needed succor to isolated, disenfranchised and deprivileged man, thus causing his avoidance of critical appraisal thereof.

Are you saying that people who made up the story of Abraham and his sons and their stay in Egypt and subsequent slavery and release from slavery by God and their gift from God of the land of Canaan etc were not trying to deceive anyone?

 

[Zwing]

Are you saying that people who made up the story of Abraham and his sons and their stay in Egypt and subsequent slavery and release from slavery by God and their gift from God of the land of Canaan etc were not trying to deceive anyone?

I don’t think so, but it would be difficult to show either way. Perhaps an historian of the Middle East and Israel could answer that better than I. What I suggest is that they wrote down a non-historical origin myth which had developed among certain of the the Israelite tribes, and at the time of said writing probably believed it themselves. They may not have been lying, but were probably deluded about their own ethnic origins.

 

[Brian2]

I think by default most people assumed (science didn't exist) the supernatural was just a regular part of the world. Except Greeks who explored philosophy and often did not expect an afterlife. Those who believed in Gods thought they were living separate lives and would sometimes answer prayer for weather and crops. No afterlife. Then comes Hellenism, personal saviors, personal afterlife, souls that live on..........


There is no evidence for anything supernatural. Specific mythic characters like angels and demons are pure fiction. No different than fairies or trolls.



If scripture couldn't even explain what its people were doing it would be ridiculous. Yes Israel had a folk religion that was different than whatis in scripture for many centuries.
If you are going to cite archaeology then great because it also shows,
Genesis is Mesopotamian
No Exodus, that is a national foundation myth
No Egypt, Canaanites
and many other things the Bible got wrong

You believe the Biblical minimalist position and interpretation of archaeological evidence about Israel in Egypt and the Conquest and the authorship and reliability of the Bible. and date of writing etc Then you even refuse to see that there is a minimalist and maximalist position in archaeological circles. To you the minimalist position is where the evidence leads and the other archaeologists are fundamentalists with no evidence.
OK so we have to agree to disagree.
I certainly am not going to answer the flood of opinions of your favourite archaeologists and historians which you post with a flood of the same sort of stuff from mine in return.

 

[Brian2]

I don’t think so, but it would be difficult to show either way. Perhaps an historian of the Middle East and Israel could answer that better than I. What I suggest is that they wrote down a non-historical origin myth which had developed among certain of the the Israelite tribes, and at the time of said writing probably believed it themselves. They may not have been lying, but we’re probably deluded about their ethnic origins.

Whoever made up the stories knew they were BS.
Whoever believed them was deceived.

 

[CG Didymus]

Well, it is true that the three others are basically adaptations of the Jewish cosmology, but that only matters if one takes a literalist view of scripture. In Roman Catholicism, for instance, very little reliance is placed upon the literal truth of scripture; in Catholicism it is accepted that God reveals himself to man mysteriously… it is basically a mystery religion. For my part, I view most of scripture as false for not standing up to rational scrutiny.

Yeah, Baha'is do the same thing. They find a way to say the Bible is true, in a spiritual, symbolic way, but false in a literal, historical way. Which makes the Bible stories fictional. Yet, the main character in the story, God, is real? But then he didn't really create the world in six days. He didn't really speak from heaven and on and on, and, for Baha'is, includes that God did not raise Jesus up physically from the dead, just spiritually.

But Baha'is still use the Bible to support their claims of being a true religion from the God of Abraham.