• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Nature of the Bible....question

beeblebrox

New Member
The Bible: Inerrant and literal word of God, or collection of histories and didactic myths and legends designed to preserve and teach early Jewish culture?

This refers mainly to the Old Testament, but I'd like to know what people here think. BTW, I'm firmly in the "collection of histories and didactic myths" camp.
 

SonOfNun

Member
icon5.gif
Nature of the Bible....question
The Bible: Inerrant and literal word of God, or collection of histories and didactic myths and legends designed to preserve and teach early Jewish culture?

This refers mainly to the Old Testament, but I'd like to know what people here think. BTW, I'm firmly in the "collection of histories and didactic myths" camp.

Well what about all the prophecies that have been fulfilled in the OT? Go through the old testament read through what cities were supposed to be destroyed and then try to find out what happened to them. You will find that the prophesies come true. And these were cities that were great in their day, so it's not like it was by chance.

If this was just a bunch of myths and stories then why didn't the Jews portray themselves better? I mean in Judges and even farther back in the OT the Jews were constantly rebelling against God, God was constantly placing them in the hands of their enemies, and then they would repent, and then it would happen all over again.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Well what about all the prophecies that have been fulfilled in the OT? Go through the old testament read through what cities were supposed to be destroyed and then try to find out what happened to them. You will find that the prophesies come true. And these were cities that were great in their day, so it's not like it was by chance.

If this was just a bunch of myths and stories then why didn't the Jews portray themselves better? I mean in Judges and even farther back in the OT the Jews were constantly rebelling against God, God was constantly placing them in the hands of their enemies, and then they would repent, and then it would happen all over again.

Prediction and prophecy are two entirely different things. Prophecy is not a predictor of the future, but explains things as they now are.

Much of the Bible was "back written," that is, writers of a later period wrote the stories of an earlier period as if they were writing at that particular time. In fact, they did portray themselves as better. Archaeology tells us that there is not sufficient proof of economic and social development to support a total monarchy as portrayed in the Bible at the time of David and Solomon. The history was written much larger than it actually was. In fact, there is nothing in the archaeological record to show that the military invasion of Canaan by the Israelites (post-Egyptian captivity) happened as the Bible portrays it. Considered opinion now holds that it was probably a peasant uprising and not a military invasion.

Here's an interesting aside that is cogent here:
When Cyrus, king of Persia, sent Ezra and Nehemiah home to Jerusalem in the mid-400's b.c.e, following the Babylonian Exile, they came with a copy of the Torah.
What we now have in the Pentateuch is most likely invented history, brought to Jerusalem from Persian bureaucrats, who had come to rule the strategic area around Jerusalem. Abraham was originally from the Shiite region of Iraq. How convenient that we now have a story that says to the local people, "Your God, YHWH, gave us this land." It's Persian imperial propaganda to justify Persia's claim on the area.

I basically agree with the OP, although I don't think it's that simple.
 

SonOfNun

Member
Much of the Bible was "back written," that is, writers of a later period wrote the stories of an earlier period as if they were writing at that particular time. In fact, they did portray themselves as better. Archeology tells us that there is not sufficient proof of economic and social development to support a total monarchy as portrayed in the Bible at the time of David and Solomon. The history was written much larger than it actually was. In fact, there is nothing in the archaeological record to show that the military invasion of Canaan by the Israelites (post-Egyptian captivity) happened as the Bible portrays it. Considered opinion now holds that it was probably a peasant uprising and not a military invasion.

Back written?!?!?! I don't think so.. The OT is way to accurate a document to be back written. You would have to be very selective to use archeology as a base for proving the OT was wrong. Archeology is in fact proving the OT was not back written, for example: The Mari Tablets, the Nuzi Tablets, The Lachish Letters.

Here's an interesting aside that is cogent here:
When Cyrus, king of Persia, sent Ezra and Nehemiah home to Jerusalem in the mid-400's b.c.e, following the Babylonian Exile, they came with a copy of the Torah.
What we now have in the Pentateuch is most likely invented history, brought to Jerusalem from Persian bureaucrats, who had come to rule the strategic area around Jerusalem. Abraham was originally from the Shiite region of Iraq. How convenient that we now have a story that says to the local people, "Your God, YHWH, gave us this land." It's Persian imperial propaganda to justify Persia's claim on the area.

People used to "disprove" the OT on the grounds that the Hittite civilization didn't exist. But, after an archaeological find they found numerable references to there being a Hittite nation.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Back written?!?!?! I don't think so.. The OT is way to accurate a document to be back written. You would have to be very selective to use archeology as a base for proving the OT was wrong. Archeology is in fact proving the OT was not back written, for example: The Mari Tablets, the Nuzi Tablets, The Lachish Letters.

For one thing, the different writers of different books vary in their archaeological verifiability, which gives the illusion of "selectivity." For example, the archaeology of Jerico indicates that the biblical story in Joshua is completely impossible in every way. However, the Lachish letters and Amharna tablets and other archaeological evidence confirms the history of Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt that Jeremiah records.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Back written?!?!?! I don't think so.. The OT is way to accurate a document to be back written. You would have to be very selective to use archeology as a base for proving the OT was wrong. Archeology is in fact proving the OT was not back written, for example: The Mari Tablets, the Nuzi Tablets, The Lachish Letters.



People used to "disprove" the OT on the grounds that the Hittite civilization didn't exist. But, after an archaeological find they found numerable references to there being a Hittite nation.

In the Judges 1:1-20 account of the Invasion, it is said that the conquest was nearly total and that Jerusalem was burned. However, in the Judges 1:21-36 version of the same invasion, it is stated that the conquest was only partial and that Jerusalem was not captured. How do we verify which version of the story is correct? We could look in extra-Biblical sources, but there is not one single mention of this event in any writing but the Bible. So we turn to archaeology. There is nothing in the archaeological record to show that Jerusalem was burned at that time in history.

I'd be interested to know where you got your Hittite info. Have you been reading Albright, Wright, or Bright? their theories have been largely refuted by subsequent, more accurate study.

The preponderance of the OT as we now have it was written during the Babylonian exile (ca. 580 b.c.e.), including events that happened in the 1200's b.c.e. and the 900's b.c.e., etc. Of course it was back-written. Do you think someone sat down with a typewriter and wrote about the creation "as it happened???"
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
In the Judges 1:1-20 account of the Invasion, it is said that the conquest was nearly total and that Jerusalem was burned. However, in the Judges 1:21-36 version of the same invasion, it is stated that the conquest was only partial and that Jerusalem was not captured. How do we verify which version of the story is correct? We could look in extra-Biblical sources, but there is not one single mention of this event in any writing but the Bible. So we turn to archaeology. There is nothing in the archaeological record to show that Jerusalem was burned at that time in history.

I'd be interested to know where you got your Hittite info. Have you been reading Albright, Wright, or Bright? their theories have been largely refuted by subsequent, more accurate study.

The preponderance of the OT as we now have it was written during the Babylonian exile (ca. 580 b.c.e.), including events that happened in the 1200's b.c.e. and the 900's b.c.e., etc. Of course it was back-written. Do you think someone sat down with a typewriter and wrote about the creation "as it happened???"

I think that the scholars who have done this would prefer "revise" rather than "refute."
 

SonOfNun

Member
For one thing, the different writers of different books vary in their archaeological verifiability, which gives the illusion of "selectivity." For example, the archaeology of Jerico indicates that the biblical story in Joshua is completely impossible in every way. However, the Lachish letters and Amharna tablets and other archaeological evidence confirms the history of Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt that Jeremiah records.

Author of the Creation magazine article, Bryant Wood, is an internationally recognized authority on the archeology of Jericho. Following are some of the major points he makes in his column:
First, the words, "fell down flat" carry the suggestion in Hebrew that it "fell beneath itself." An Italian group excavating in 1997 found a "heap of bricks from fallen city walls." British archeologist Kathleen Kenyon also found, "fallen red bricks piling nearly to the top of the revetment."
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Author of the Creation magazine article, Bryant Wood, is an internationally recognized authority on the archeology of Jericho. Following are some of the major points he makes in his column:
First, the words, "fell down flat" carry the suggestion in Hebrew that it "fell beneath itself." An Italian group excavating in 1997 found a "heap of bricks from fallen city walls." British archeologist Kathleen Kenyon also found, "fallen red bricks piling nearly to the top of the revetment."

This post radically abuses archaeology, and is plagiarized from Answers in Genesis, a propaganda site.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/jericho.asp
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
The wiki article accurately summarizes the problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

Walls of Jericho
The Biblical account of the destruction of Jericho is found in the Book of Joshua. The Bible describes the destruction as having proceeded from the actions of Joshua, Moses' successor. The exodus is usually dated to the 13th century BC (based on Ussherian calculation) − according to interpretation of archaeological evidence from the Merneptah Stele followed by new settlements in the next century. At that time the Pharaoh of Egypt would be Ramses II. Alternatively, the exodus is dated to the 15th century BC − according to a prevailing Christian reckoning of biblical chronology, which is synchronized with several ancient calendars with astronomical observation. At that time the Pharaoh would be Thutmose III (1490-1430). Neither biblical chronology matches the popular interpretation of the archaeological evidence at Jericho.

The Taking of Jericho, by Jean Fouquet



A destruction of Jericho's walls dates archaeologically to around 1550 BC in the 16th century BC at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, by a siege or an earthquake in the context of a burn layer, called City IV destruction. Opinions differ as to whether they are the walls referred to in the Bible.

According to one biblical chronology, the Israelites destroyed Jericho after its walls fell out around 1407 BC: the end of the 15th century. Originally, John Garstang's excavation in the 1930s dated Jericho's destruction to around 1400 BC, in confirmation, but like much early biblical archaeology, his work became criticised for using the Bible to interpret the evidence rather than letting the facts on the ground draw their own conclusions. Kathleen Kenyon's excavation in the 1950s redated it to around 1550 BC, a date that most archaeologists support.[7][8] In 1990, Bryant Wood critiqued Kenyon's work after her field notes became fully available. Observing ambiguities and relying on the only available carbon dating of the burn layer, which yielded a date of 1410 BC plus or minus 40 years, Wood dated the destruction to this carbon dating, confirming Garstang and the biblical chronology.

Unfortunately, this carbon date was itself the result of faulty calibration. In 1995, Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht used high-precision radiocarbon dating for eighteen samples from Jericho, including six samples of charred cereal grains from the burn layer, and overall dated the destruction to an average 1562 BC plus or minus 38 years.(Radiocarbon Vol. 37, Number 2, 1995.)[9][10] Kenyon's date of around 1550 BC is widely accepted based on this methodology of dating. Notably, many other Canaanite cities were destroyed around this time.
 

beeblebrox

New Member
The reason I was asking this is because I have only recently become exposed to the idea that the Bible, especially the OT, is the infallible and inerrant word of God. I grew up in a largely secular, nominally Catholic community where Biblical literalism was largely unheard of and was taught that only certain sections were divinely inspired.
So I was wondering how many on here would consider themselves as holding the view that the Bible is 100% literally true, versus the (I believe majority) view that it is comprised of some history, some metaphor and a lot of folk stories.
 

SonOfNun

Member
The reason I was asking this is because I have only recently become exposed to the idea that the Bible, especially the OT, is the infallible and inerrant word of God. I grew up in a largely secular, nominally Catholic community where Biblical literalism was largely unheard of and was taught that only certain sections were divinely inspired.
So I was wondering how many on here would consider themselves as holding the view that the Bible is 100% literally true, versus the (I believe majority) view that it is comprised of some history, some metaphor and a lot of folk stories.

Hmm, well I was always taught that you can't just pick and chose which parts of the bible you wish to believe.. and for the the most part I believe that. I don't see how you can just say,"hmm well I think I am just going o believe this today", no offense.

Either there is a perfect God out there or there isn't a God at all.
 

beeblebrox

New Member
SonofNun wrote: "Hmm, well I was always taught that you can't just pick and chose which parts of the bible you wish to believe.. and for the the most part I believe that. I don't see how you can just say,"hmm well I think I am just going o believe this today", no offense.

Either there is a perfect God out there or there isn't a God at all."


But what if the Bible contains errors? And what if such errors are attributed to God, in a direct quote? Wouldn't God at least make sure that whoever wrote this stuff down got His words right?

Here's an example of what I mean, and I'm no expert on textual criticism or Biblical interpretation; also I would like to be clear that my intention is not to mock believers, I seek genuine understanding and enlightenment on this subject:

Leviticus 11:6

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean to you.


This is from the KJV. It is a direct quote from God Himself, and it is factually wrong. Hares do not chew the cud, and they do indeed divide the "hoof". So either God is omniscient and the Bible is wrong, or the Bible is right and God's knowledge is finite, or God is omniscient but wants us to think He is fallible, which calls into question His benevolence and integrity.

So how can someone reconcile this with a belief in Biblical inerrancy? Is the Bible flawed? Given this false statement, can we trust as fact anything else the Bible has to say?

I am new to this subject and seek genuine answers and guidance...hope someone can help
 
Back written?!?!?! I don't think so.. The OT is way to accurate a document to be back written. You would have to be very selective to use archeology as a base for proving the OT was wrong. Archeology is in fact proving the OT was not back written, for example: The Mari Tablets, the Nuzi Tablets, The Lachish Letters.
For what it's worth, I believe that parts of the Bible were "back-written," (written after the events took place) but I still believe it's completely accurate and inspired.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Hmm, well I was always taught that you can't just pick and chose which parts of the bible you wish to believe.. and for the the most part I believe that. I don't see how you can just say,"hmm well I think I am just going o believe this today", no offense.

Either there is a perfect God out there or there isn't a God at all.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the perfect God reveals God's self in an imperfect world, and usually through imperfect human beings. Responsible Biblical sholarship means that we try to discern a perfect revelation through imperfect writings. Those writings have, of necessity, to be considered for what they are. Some may be rejected as not being very helpful to revelation and some may be embraced as presenting revelation in a very poignant way. It's not really a matter of "picking and choosing." And it's definitely not a matter of "what I choose to believe today. This isn't whim.
 

SonOfNun

Member
[FONT=TREBUCHET, ARIAL, HELVETICA]
"Good scholars, honest scholars, will continue to differ about the interpretations of archaeological remains simply because archaeology is not a science, it is an art. And sometimes it is not even a very good art."
- William Dever, Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Arizona
An artist manipulates given materials, determining what the final product will look like. Dever, one of the most highly respected voices in his field, is not referring to the manner in which archaeological remains are retrieved, but rather to the manner in which one interprets the significance of those remains.
When it comes to interpretation of remains from the time and place of the Bible, the radical "differences" in interpretive style seem more like the art of war than the art of culture. For example, here are the infamous words that launched the most recent battle concerning archaeology and the Bible:
"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel."
- Ze'ev Herzog, Professor of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Tel Aviv University
Herzog, along with other archaeologists, are considered biblical minimalists (or revisionists as Dever calls them) who see very little historical value in the Bible. Revisionists, like Herzog and Prof. Israel Finkelstein have attempted to speak in a bombastic fashion on behalf of the entire school of biblical archaeology. They are so convinced of their position that they ignore any other approach that does not concur with their own.
If anything gets Dever's blood boiling it is when revisionists distort archaeology, thus cheapening and mocking the integrity of his entire academic field.
Revisionists stubbornly dismiss as fictitious most historical aspects of the Bible. To them, the patriarchal period (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is all imagination, the story of Joseph and the sojourn in Egypt is fabricated, as are the Exodus and the desert wanderings. The conquest, settlement and united monarchy (Saul, David and Solomon) are mere "propaganda" to quote Philip Davies. Marit Skjeggestad, a Scandinavian revisionist, said that on biblical history, "the archaeological record is silent."
"In fact," asserts Dever, "the archaeological record is not at all silent. It's only that some historians are deaf."
So let's turn to the evidence.
[SIZE=+1]PATRIARCHAL PERIOD[/SIZE]
One of the assumptions of Bible criticism is that the Bible was written much later than the time period it occurred. Specifically, the claim is that the Bible was written at least 1,000 years after the Exodus. As a result, the alleged biblical writers, who could not possibly know the minutiae of cultural norms of 1,000 years before, would by default include many details that were anachronistic. This would be like watching a movie about life in the 1950s where the actors wore digital watches because the writers did not do their research properly.
cleardot.gif
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]All this changed with the turn of a shovel.[/SIZE][/FONT]
cleardot.gif
cleardot.gif
One of the main indications of an anachronism in the Bible was thought to be that of the camel. The Book of Genesis reports that camels were mainstay beasts of burden and transportation already at the time of Abraham, in the 18th century BCE. Yet it was originally thought that camels were first domesticated in the Middle East no earlier than the 12th century BCE. This anachronism was a clear indication of the later writing of the Bible. Or so it was thought.
All this changed with the turn of a shovel. Recent archaeological finds have clearly demonstrated that the camel was domesticated by the 18th century BCE. What was previously thought to be a knockout punch against the Bible, is now evidence supporting it.
Prof. Kenneth Kitchen, an Egyptologist at the University of Liverpool (retired) points out that the sale of Joseph to a caravan of Midianites (for 20 silver pieces) could have been an example of anachronism in the Bible, since 1,000 years later the price for a slave was much higher (ancient inflation). However, the price reported in the Bible matches precisely the going price of slaves in the region from Joseph's time period. This is just one example that demonstrates, according to Kitchen, that "it's more reasonable to assume that the biblical data reflect reality."
Furthermore, we find that the detailed descriptions of the court of the Pharaoh and its protocols, as reported in Genesis, are extremely accurate to that time period. Joseph's Egyptian name, clothing, and court orders are all very much in line with what we now understand to have been the norm for that time and place.
[SIZE=+1]SOJOURN IN EGYPT[/SIZE]
What about evidence of Jewish slavery?
Egyptologist Sir Alan Gardiner said of Egyptian archaeology: "It must never be forgotten that we are dealing with a civilization thousands of years old and one of which only tiny remnants have survived. What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters."
This sketchy archaeological record makes a document preserved from the Israelite slavery period even more astounding. Known as the Brooklyn Papyrus (because it is in the Brooklyn Museum), this document portrays Israelite names from the Bible as the names of domestic slaves: Asher, Yissachar, and Shifra. The document also includes the term "hapiru" which many scholars agree has clear historical affinity to the biblical term "ivrim," meaning "Hebrews."
The Bible records that Jews built the storage cities of Pitom and Ramses. Austrian archaeologist Manfred Bietak has succeeded in positively identifying the city of Pi-Ramesse. This city he found dates exactly to the period of the sojourn in Egypt, and even contains many Asiatic (of Canaanite origin) remains at the area of the slave residences.
Egyptian records also tell how Pharaoh Rameses II built a new capital called Pi-Ramesse (the House of Rameses) on the eastern Nile delta, near the ancient area known as Goshen, the precise geographic area where the Bible places the Israelites.
Further, the Leiden Papyrus (another Egyptian document of that era) reports that an official for the construction of Ramasses II ordered to "distribute grain rations to the soldiers and to the Apiru who transport stones to the great pylon of Ramasses." (Apiru, as we said, is related to Hebrews.)
Professor Abraham Malamat of Hebrew University infers from this that the Hebrews were forced to build the city of Ramasses. "This evidence is circumstantial at best," notes Malamat, "but it's as much as a historian can argue."

[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]
[/FONT]
 
Top