Audie
Veteran Member
Flash frozen mammoths in Alaska muck?
-
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!
The Bible - Why Trust It
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Flash frozen mammoths in Alaska muck?
Audie
Veteran Member
nPeace
Veteran Member
Perhaps you can explain how you know that they wrote things that were not true, while believing that what they wrote was true.
How could one believe there was a burning mountain, where a man ascended, and received tablets written on by a deity, come down the mountain, break the tablets, head back up, get two new ones...?
Were these men hallucinating, or in some trance, while writing?
Tell me which video tapes showed you this.
People do make some weird assertion when they want an excuse to deny the truth.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Ah. Good. We are considering what the Bible tells us. Cool.
Did the Bible say God brought the flood, to quote you, "because someone offended him"?
"I'm going to wipe mankind off the earth because they offended me." Is that what God said?
See what I mean by missing the facts. Or do you not yet see.
The illustration I used of the scene in the alleyway, is not saying the viewer has zero facts. The man holding the bloodstained iron rod, and the prone body on the ground, are facts. Also one may reasonably assume that the guy on the ground, was struck very hard with the rod, by the man holding it. These may be facts, but they are by far, not all the facts. Therefore, one cannot reach a conclusion, with just those few facts.
We see it all the time, in court cases, don't we?
Likewise, you may read the Bible, and it may provide you with a fact, or a few facts, but you may not have all the facts... sufficient that would lead to a fair conclusion.
So. according to your "request", I will enlighten you.
Facts :
!. Killing the firstborn - this included livestock also - was just one of ten acts.
2. The plagues served one purpose - (Exodus 9:13-21) I hope you liked Comprehension, at school. Rather than state the reason, I deliberately gave you the passage where you can find the reason.
With those facts, it is clear God was doing a few things - 1) Making a point to Pharaoh, and all Egypt. 2) Declaring a message to all nations.
If you recall, Jesus did the same thing, as well as the apostles. By the miracles Jesus demonstrated that he was God's son, and knowing that message would spread throughout the regions, where people would hear. The apostles - by performing miracles - demonstrated that they were God's chosen servants, and it would become known, that the Christian congregation that formed, had God's support, and backing.
Neat.
So, we see, that it is a case of God being interested in saving people, by directing them to the only true source of deliverance - the real deal. Not some imaginary God, that is helpless.
Each plague had a significance. Just check each one against the Egyptian beliefs in their gods, and see that Jehovah was really humiliating each of the imagined gods of Egypt... demonstrating to the Egyptians, that they were powerless.
What God did, accomplished his will in Egypt too. (Exodus 9:20, 21) . . .Anyone among Pharaoh’s servants who feared Jehovah’s word quickly brought his own servants and his livestock into the houses, 21 but whoever did not take Jehovah’s word to heart left his servants and his livestock in the field.
...and also Israel. (Exodus 14:31) . . .Israel also saw the great power that Jehovah wielded against the Egyptians, and the people began to fear Jehovah and to put faith in Jehovah and in his servant Moses.
...and as mentioned earlier, earth wide. (Joshua 9:8, 9 ; Joshua 2:9, 10 ; Jeremiah 32:20, 21)
So, the conclusion... God was demonstrating his power over Egypt's gods. The killing of the firstborn wan the final blow. Here we have it in writing - (Exodus 12:12) For I will pass through the land of Egypt on this night and strike every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from man to beast; and I will execute judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am Jehovah.
This is why Jehovah did not just swat Pharaoh, like an insect (which he could easily have done), and why he did not just kill every firstborn at the giddyup.
What about the great Flood? Fact : (Genesis 6:9-13) This one is easier.
Many people are still not seeing the big picture.
You probably don't see the connection either, do you.
Is Jehovah delaying his execution on "Egypt" and "Pharaoh" (Modern day), to allow people in all the earth to hear his message?
Today many people are just like those ancient Egyptians. They do not believe that Jehovah is the God of the whole earth. ...but they are being told. They are hearing - even though many don't want to.
Sorry. I don't see your point.I hardly know where to begin
Yes ASSUMING God exists then he would be the sovereign dictator and have the right to do as he pleases. But policemen are hired to preserve the current established law in a country, which is why they will go against protesters if told to. Not everyone agree with whomever is protesting, just as when Nazi sympathizers think its a good idea to protest. Therefore most countries (Not all obviously) have rules of how one is allowed to protest.Depending on the amount of corruption in that country, just keep it simple, these are handled differently.
The reason that people are not allowed to go all vigilante on each other, is because it have been decided that everyone is going to be punished according to the established law. People can state their opinions regarding these during elections, at least in most countries.
So the government have been given the authority to handle matters like this by the citizens. Its a result of how civilizations have evolved.
Did you bother to watch at the video?
Consider the wise words of a man - Gamaliel. (Acts 5:27-40)
If Jesus was not overseeing the work he started, it could not increase, and spread throughout the entire earth, especially in the face of extreme opposition. It would have been stamped out - ended. Instead, 2,000 years after, it is in every corner of the earth, and continuing to grow rapidly. The message is the same, and the method has not changed.
Jesus said, just in case you didn't read the texts... "...this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations... Also, in all the nations, the good news has to be preached first. I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things." (Matthew 24:14; 28:20 Mark 13:10)
Everything he prophesied.
There are many, but whether to put them here, or not, would be dependent on your response to the one above.
When Goliath was bellowing for someone to fight him, beating his chest, and roaring... he lost his head... literally.
Goliath mistakenly overestimate himself. Don't make the same mistake Goliath did. You still have time to retreat, before... you lose you head.
Here is the little shepherd boy David. No armor. No sword.
"You are coming to me with the knowledge of an Atheist. I am coming to you with the knowledge of Jehovah. Retreat now... or lose your head."
What say you? A. Retreat. B. Proceed.
...........
On second thought...
David's words ring in my head... "who is this uncircumcised Philistine that they should taunt the battle line of the living God?"
I can imagine what must have been going through David's mind... "Prepare to die, Philistine."
I have five stones, but I only need one.
Matthew 5:17-19
First, Jesus said, I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. Did he? When?
Second, Jesus said, "until everything has been accomplished." What did he mean by everything? Was it accomplished?
Based on the answers to those questions, the law covenant ended at that point in time
This is where Paul comes in, as well as Peter, and John. (Please see the scriptures referenced earlier, to your fourth question) (Galatians 3:13, 14)
By the way, the other scriptures you used, are not in reference to the Mosaic Law.
Here is a question for you.
If the Mosaic Law was still in "place", how could Gentiles be accepted into the covenant (according to scripture)? Acts 10:34, 35, 44-48;
nPeace
Veteran Member
Facts + facts = more facts.I like you write "with a few facts"
After just reacting to what I quoted from the bible it self about the killing the first born...
"Could have fooled me.
So according to you, God killed the firstborn, so that Pharaoh would let the people go. Huh?.....
....So, what's the point. You are obviously missing some facts."
So it weren't according to me, but the bible. Yet your conclusion is that, "im obviously missing some facts."
So just wondering, how you can refer to your citations as being facts, while those I quote from the very same book are missing some?
Obviously, after two years of getting truth, you decided, "Nope. That's not for me." Your choice.
Interestingly, you don't deny that these are the rules they are told to live by. You just think they should not live by them. In other words, "break the rules. You don't have to live by them."
Do you realize the implications of that suggestion?
That's like saying, "Because I am an Atheist, every one of you believers should be an Atheist as well."
In other words, you don't believe in God, so as far as you are concerned, there are no rules, so Christians should have that view. Do you see what I am saying?
The thing about that, is, Christians do believe God is, and that obeying God's rules is good for them. They benefit from obeying his rules, in other words.
Have you not been paying attention to those mentioned in the Bible, as having faith, and what that faith moved them to do?
Read Hebrews 11. What did Paul encourage, following that? Hebrews 12:1-4
You are sorely mistaken.
Remember too. You don't think there is good or bad, so what can you possibly instruct anyone about, regarding what is good?
If God is, as you rightly said, then he sets the standard of what is good. So since Christians unlike Atheists, through an investigation, have come to realize that God is, they follow the rules of the Bible, because they are good.
Opinions of others do not govern their decisions.
What you would have to prove, is that the rues they obey, are not truly from God, or the Bible is not of God. Can you?
Easy, they did not have the knowledge of science we have today, nor were they witnesses as to what they wrote
The meaning to me is not the literal, also . . . again and again there is absolutely no evidence that the Pentateuch was written by Moses nor anyone living at the time the Exodus took place. In fact the evidence indicates that the whole Pentateuch was compiled and edited from different sources much later like ~1000-100 BCE.
I make no claims 'they were hallucinating or in some trance.' Ancient people of all religions wrote things the believed were true and the evidence demonstrates that they were not true.
People mak some weird assertions when they want to believe things are the 'truth' when there is no evidence to support their claims.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Please provide proof of these assertions.
Right now you don't have any that I see.
What do you mean by there is no evidence? Do you mean like a video tape?
What evidence "indicates that the whole Pentateuch was compiled and edited from different sources much later like ~1000-100 BCE"?
Please provide it.
What evidence?
Proof?!?!? It is a fact that the ancient cultures lacked the knowledge of science that we have. There is simply no evidence nor known documents that would demonstrate that the Pentateuch was written at the time exodus too place, The Hebrew written language did not even exist at that time.
Yes, as discussed many many times the video did not provide any evidence.
.
The earliest known Hebrew language and the first scrapes of text in Hebrew. There is absolutely no known text before this. Actually we do not have any extensive text until much more recent, like the Dead Sea scrolls.
Can you provide any evidence of text before these dates?
Still waiting . . . as before.
nPeace
Veteran Member
No proof. Just empty assertions. Noted.
Ha ha. Cute.
All you have are baseless assertions.
... and using that tactic has expired. It's so old now. Isn't it about time you bury it.
The problem is you have failed to present on shred of evidence to demonstrate your cas;
Requests remain unanswered.
Can you provide any evidence of text before these dates?
Still waiting . . .
The earliest known Hebrew language and the first scrapes of text in Hebrew. There is absolutely no known text before this. Actually we do not have any extensive text until much more recent, like the Dead Sea scrolls.
Can you provide any evidence of text before these dates?
Still waiting . . . as before.
nPeace
Veteran Member
My cas? What cas?
When did you first ask this question? Was it not after failing to provide proof for assertions you made?
Why are you being a bully then? Provide the evidence you claimed exist, or you can just enjoy yourself, repeating yourself.
Whatever makes you happy on the debate forums.
Sorry for the typo, corrected.
The problem is you have failed to present on shred of evidence to demonstrate your case;
Requests remain unanswered.
Can you provide any evidence of text before these dates?
Still waiting . . .
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I wish you would answer the questions straight away, rather than this sort of arrogant approach that you seem to enjoy. Because it makes these discussions so very confusing, having to decipher what you mean. So please if you want to have a chat about this, fine. But then answer the questions rather than me having to go through several answers of riddles, trying to guess what you mean, its really annoying.
I think you are mistaken regarding this and are reading way too much into the meaning of the story compared to what the bible is actually telling us.
The purpose of the story, had I known that this were actually what you were trying to ask about, is giving in the beginning of Exodus and is about the covenant that God made with the Israelites.
Exodus 2:23-25
23 The king of Egypt eventually died, and the Israelis groaned because of the bondage. They cried out, and their cry for deliverance from slavery ascended to God.
24 God heard their groaning and remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
25 God watched the Israelis and took notice of them.
After this God have a long chat with Moses about what he have to do, while Moses complain a bit, because the Jews won't believe him etc. At no point does God give any other reason.
Exodus 3:6-8
6 Then he said, "I am the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look at God.
7 The LORD said, "I have certainly seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and I have heard their cry caused by their slave masters. I really do understand their pain,
8 so I have come down to deliver them from their domination by the Egyptians and to bring them out of that land to a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to the territory of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.
Exodus 3:13-17
13 Moses told God, "Look, when I go to the Israelis and tell them, 'The God of your ancestors sent me to you,' they'll say to me, 'What is his name?' What should I say to them?"
14 God replied to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM," and then said, "Tell the Israelis: 'I AM sent me to you.'"
15 God also told Moses, "Tell the Israelis, 'The LORD, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob sent me to you.' This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation.
16 Go and gather the elders of Israel. Tell them, 'The LORD, the God of your ancestors, appeared to me—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—and he said, "I have paid close attention to you and to what has been done to you in Egypt.
17 I have said that I will bring you out of the affliction of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites—to a land flowing with milk and honey."'
Why is that important? This is because of the first covenant that God made with Abraham. And surely God is not going to break it, as you already know, the Jews end up breaking it and God gets angry at them.
Genesis 17:7-8
7 I'm establishing my covenant between me and you, and with your descendants who come after you, generation after generation, as an eternal covenant, to be your God and your descendants' God after you.
8 I'll give to you and to your descendants the land to which you have traveled—all the land of Canaan—as an eternal possession. I will be their God."
So it have nothing to do with showing off to the world or the Gods of Egypt, are they ever mentioned again in the exodus story, I cant remember, do you know?
To me according to the bible and the meaning of the covenant with the Jews and eventually establishing the land of Israel is what is important here. We already know that the OT is about God and his relationship to the Jews and not all sorts of other people. So why you would think he would suddenly in the middle of Exodus start to focus on other nations seems to make little sense to me.
Also how does prophecy and free will work together? Can our free will interfere with it or not?
Because if something doesn't cause harm to others, then I would consider that beneficial for humans. So I could "instruct" others about that, rather than doing things that are clearly harmful and without any evidence too why one ought to do it.
Likewise, you may read the Bible, and it may provide you with a fact, or a few facts, but you may not have all the facts... sufficient that would lead to a fair conclusion.
So. according to your "request", I will enlighten you.
Facts :
!. Killing the firstborn - this included livestock also - was just one of ten acts.
2. The plagues served one purpose - (Exodus 9:13-21) I hope you liked Comprehension, at school. Rather than state the reason, I deliberately gave you the passage where you can find the reason.
With those facts, it is clear God was doing a few things - 1) Making a point to Pharaoh, and all Egypt. 2) Declaring a message to all nations.
I think you are mistaken regarding this and are reading way too much into the meaning of the story compared to what the bible is actually telling us.
The purpose of the story, had I known that this were actually what you were trying to ask about, is giving in the beginning of Exodus and is about the covenant that God made with the Israelites.
Exodus 2:23-25
23 The king of Egypt eventually died, and the Israelis groaned because of the bondage. They cried out, and their cry for deliverance from slavery ascended to God.
24 God heard their groaning and remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
25 God watched the Israelis and took notice of them.
After this God have a long chat with Moses about what he have to do, while Moses complain a bit, because the Jews won't believe him etc. At no point does God give any other reason.
Exodus 3:6-8
6 Then he said, "I am the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look at God.
7 The LORD said, "I have certainly seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and I have heard their cry caused by their slave masters. I really do understand their pain,
8 so I have come down to deliver them from their domination by the Egyptians and to bring them out of that land to a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to the territory of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.
Exodus 3:13-17
13 Moses told God, "Look, when I go to the Israelis and tell them, 'The God of your ancestors sent me to you,' they'll say to me, 'What is his name?' What should I say to them?"
14 God replied to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM," and then said, "Tell the Israelis: 'I AM sent me to you.'"
15 God also told Moses, "Tell the Israelis, 'The LORD, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob sent me to you.' This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation.
16 Go and gather the elders of Israel. Tell them, 'The LORD, the God of your ancestors, appeared to me—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—and he said, "I have paid close attention to you and to what has been done to you in Egypt.
17 I have said that I will bring you out of the affliction of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites—to a land flowing with milk and honey."'
Why is that important? This is because of the first covenant that God made with Abraham. And surely God is not going to break it, as you already know, the Jews end up breaking it and God gets angry at them.
Genesis 17:7-8
7 I'm establishing my covenant between me and you, and with your descendants who come after you, generation after generation, as an eternal covenant, to be your God and your descendants' God after you.
8 I'll give to you and to your descendants the land to which you have traveled—all the land of Canaan—as an eternal possession. I will be their God."
So it have nothing to do with showing off to the world or the Gods of Egypt, are they ever mentioned again in the exodus story, I cant remember, do you know?
To me according to the bible and the meaning of the covenant with the Jews and eventually establishing the land of Israel is what is important here. We already know that the OT is about God and his relationship to the Jews and not all sorts of other people. So why you would think he would suddenly in the middle of Exodus start to focus on other nations seems to make little sense to me.
Not sure how this is different than us knowing about all the other Gods throughout history, like the Roman, Greek, Norse etc.? Furthermore, there are no evidence for Jesus performing any miracles at all. Just as there are no evidence of the Romans or Greek gods having ever existed. These are all claims that are not verifiable in any way.
Ohhh Lord more riddles, Strike me down God!!What about the great Flood? Fact : (Genesis 6:9-13) This one is easier.
Many people are still not seeing the big picture.
You probably don't see the connection either, do you.
It all depends on you assuming that God exist. But that is a bold assumption that requires proof. That is why I bolded the "Assuming" as I replied to you, playing along with it. So unless your assumption can be proven to be true, its worthless, its just another claim.
Can you give me the time in the video, where you think he is presenting some actual evidence and not just making a claim and then we can talk about that?
How exactly does any of this proof he is the son of God? All I see is reference to the very book that make the claim to begin with. Its like me claiming that Odin were the all-father, because that is what the runes tells us, would you consider that sufficient and good evidence?
So can you give an example of the best one?
Also how does prophecy and free will work together? Can our free will interfere with it or not?
Honestly.... I pray for God to strike me with lightning.Here is the little shepherd boy David. No armor. No sword.
"You are coming to me with the knowledge of an Atheist. I am coming to you with the knowledge of Jehovah. Retreat now... or lose your head."
What say you? A. Retreat. B. Proceed.
Well that is according to the NT, so in that case one would have to be baptized. But that is a discussion you will need to have with those of Judaism as I doubt they will buy that. Otherwise you could convert to Judaism, you don't have to be born a Jew to be one.
I like that you pass judgement without having any clue why we decided to stop talking... Thumbs up
No, I don't care whatsoever what people choose to believe in or not. I do however care if believes causes harm to others, in that case I think its fair to demand evidence for such believe. But what you or anyone else personal believe in, that is up to you.
Remember too. You don't think there is good or bad, so what can you possibly instruct anyone about, regarding what is good?
Because if something doesn't cause harm to others, then I would consider that beneficial for humans. So I could "instruct" others about that, rather than doing things that are clearly harmful and without any evidence too why one ought to do it.
No, you are gravely mistaken here. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. What you are doing here is trying to shift the burden of proof. I don't claim that God exists, I simply state that the claims put forward does not proof that God is real.
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
I have no idea why this is here, or what it means.
Could you please clarify / explain, so that I understand. Thanks.
I don't understand what all this has to do with what we are discussing - namely, the reason God killed the firstborn of Egypt.
You may get that wish. I don't want to assume you are tired living.
Still, there is no point to that.
We are discussing things from a Biblical perspective, regarding the Bible.
Whether God is, or not, is irrelevant to that. Our considering if God is, can be determined in one way, by determining if the Bible is true.
We can get into other evidence for God, later, if you like.
You are looking at the wrong video.
Start from 1:22
Perhaps you did not understand what you read. I'll highlight the points for you.
Consider the wise words of a man - Gamaliel. (Acts 5:27-40)
If Jesus was not overseeing the work he started, it could not increase, and spread throughout the entire earth, especially in the face of extreme opposition. It would have been stamped out - ended. Instead, 2,000 years after, it is in every corner of the earth, and continuing to grow rapidly. The message is the same, and the method has not changed.
Jesus said, just in case you didn't read the texts... "...this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations... Also, in all the nations, the good news has to be preached first. I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things." (Matthew 24:14; 28:20 Mark 13:10)
The red part is what is in the Bible. The blue part is external to the Bible.
Let's consider your response to the above.
God's seeing the future has nothing to do with making the future.
When one acts according to free will, God seeing that - if he chooses to - does not change it, nor has it been fixed.
You are saying that Jews would not accept Gentiles. Fair enough.
Jews that did not accept Jesus as the Messiah, likely feel that way.
This is therefore an example of judging a situation without having all the facts. So I just provided you with an object lesson.I like that you pass judgement without having any clue why we decided to stop talking... Thumbs up
What do you think I should have done, and what should I do now?
I agree with asking why someone does something, if it is not criminal. I might learn something I didn't know, which I probably assumed was wrong.
This is quite vague, and seems to be in riddles.
Can you be specific about what you have in mind, please.
I have provided the evidence. That was the purpose of the thread.
Since you were not here from the beginning, I could take you through them one at a time, rather than you having to search through the thread.
Earlier, you said, "I think some of the stories reflect actual historic events". Are there any "historical" accounts you have a problem with?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
So do you believe all tales that were ever written down, or only the ones you like?
Nimos
Well-Known Member
How is that a reply to what I was writing as you made a claim about all the apostles claiming the same thing. I then showed you in the bible that this was not the case. And rather than actually addressing it, if you believe im wrong, you go on talking about Goliat? And making comments like "with the knowledge of an Atheist. I am coming to you with the knowledge of Jehovah. Retreat now... or lose your head."
". Which means that not only do you not answer the question, but then I have to spend time addressing something that is completely irrelevant to what we were talking about. Which is why I answered as I did, because I simply can't be bothered, having to spend 5 posts going off track, just to end up with a new chat that have nothing to do with what it was about originally.But yet you stated that him showing off to the world and the Egyptians Gods were? Which is why I wrote that I doubt that to be the reason for the meaning of the Exodus and that it is about the covenant God made with Abraham. Maybe its because you don't really explain what you mean, I don't know. This were your explanation:
So. according to your "request", I will enlighten you.
Facts :
1. Killing the firstborn - this included livestock also - was just one of ten acts.
2. The plagues served one purpose - (Exodus 9:13-21) I hope you liked Comprehension, at school. Rather than state the reason, I deliberately gave you the passage where you can find the reason.
With those facts, it is clear God was doing a few things - 1) Making a point to Pharaoh, and all Egypt. 2) Declaring a message to all nations.
If you recall, Jesus did the same thing, as well as the apostles. By the miracles Jesus demonstrated that he was God's son, and knowing that message would spread throughout the regions, where people would hear. The apostles - by performing miracles - demonstrated that they were God's chosen servants, and it would become known, that the Christian congregation that formed, had God's support, and backing.
None of what you have written here have anything to do with the answer of why he killed the first born, yet that is what you keep asking about. Which is very confusing, rather than simply state plain and simply what you believe is the reason. What type of answer is this: "I hope you liked Comprehension, at school. Rather than state the reason, I deliberately gave you the passage where you can find the reason." It should be rather obvious by now that I think you are wrong, so throwing random quotes at me, without any context to what you mean, with what appears to be an expectation of me, having to try figuring out what you are talking about, is not going to work.
So again I think you are wrong about Exodus, and will give it one last attempt to explain why, and why the killing of the children is probably not all that important as you might think, but will get to that as well.
Again, starting with the covenant that God made with Abraham, is ultimately about the pact between the Jews and God and him promising to be their God and give them Israel and we will come back to this multiple times.
Genesis 15:18-21
18 That very day the LORD made this covenant with Abram: "I'm giving this land to your descendants, from the river of Egypt to the great Euphrates River—
19 including the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites,
20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim,
21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girga****es, and the Jebusites."
Genesis 46:3-4
3 "I'm God, your father's God. Don't be afraid to move down to Egypt, because I'm going to turn you into a mighty nation there.
4 I'm going down with you to Egypt, and I'm certainly going to bring you back again. And Joseph himself will be with you when you die."
So after Joseph dies a new king comes into power in Egypt. And "enslave" the Jews because he is scared of them turning on them.
Following from the last post about God noticing the suffering of the Jews there and send Moses to sort it out...etc. So ending the story of the release of Jews from Egypt.
Exodus 13:3
3 Then Moses told the people, "Remember this day on which you came out of Egypt, from the house of bondage, because the LORD brought you out from this place with a strong show of force. Moreover, nothing leavened is to be eaten.
Exo 13:5 When the LORD brings you to the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, which he swore to your ancestors to give you—a land flowing with milk and honey—you are to observe this ritual in this month.
So exactly as the story started and is the beginning of how God is going to make them into a mighty nation and bring them to the promised land. The reason the killing of the Egyptian first born is given in here:
Exodus 4:22-23
22 You are to say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: "Israel is my firstborn son.
23 And I say to you, 'Let my son go so he may serve me.' If you refuse to let him go, then I will kill your firstborn son."'"
So Israel as a nation is by God considered to be his first son, as it might be for the Egyptians with their children.
Adding it all together....and put it into context as I see it:
- The Jews are God's chosen people and he is their God (Covenant).
- The Exodus story is there to serve several purposes. For God to illustrate his power and for him to show his commitment to the Jews.
- The Jews need to be suffering, so God can step in and be their saviour.
- To show that when God is with the Jews they can do anything.
- And to tell the story of how Israel eventually were given to them by God, If God had just killed all the Egyptians, then there would not have been much of a story to tell, God needed to be the savior for the story to be powerful.
Yes, but this was original about whether God had the authority to kill or pass judgement on whom ever he felt like, where as "something" with policemen or government didn't or something.
That was the video you posted in the other thread, but fair enough, not problem. Ill address this one in a separate post due to length limits.
I understood what you mean, but how does that proof that he is the son of God? Lots of people throughout history have said a lot of things that haven't changed over time, also you have newer religions, that are spreading today, how is that possible without Jesus, and today people are probably a lot more skeptical regarding these things than they would have been back then?.
So im not denying whether Jesus said some of them or not, simply how it proofs that he is who he claim? And there are good explanations of why Christianity spread so fast across the world, First of all Paul, secondly Constantine the Great and last the monks copying the bible, making it more accessible to people.
So a prophecy doesn't necessarily has to come true, is that what you mean?
This is definitely not the same, again I refer to my first comment at the start of the last post.
You have absolutely no facts in regards to my discussion with this person, for all you know I could be lying (Which I ain't). But you believe you have all the facts in regard to the bible and therefore feel justified to "teach" or use that as an excuse, when you say that you did so to teach me a lesson of not having all the facts. Do you not see why that is a strange way to approach someone?
Well you asked what gave me as an atheist the right or authority to instruct others about what is good, if I did not believe in objective morality. And I simply stated, that advising someone to do something that is not harmful to them seemed to be a good start. Rather than me pretending to know it what is best for them, even if it could cause them harm. Like when certain religious people choose to shoot abortion doctors, because they are convinced that they are commiting a crime. I doubt, they got the idea to do something like that from an atheist. So teaching people that abortion is the same as killing and causing certain people to react on it, is harmful both for the person they shoot but also themselves.
I haven't read the original thread you have had with others, so don't know what they are about.
To just give an example I would say the Exodus story, seems to me to be almost completely made up. There might be slight truth to some of the things, like names etc. But for the most part, I think its a story which held a lot of meaning for the ancient Jews as nation and to help them establish their identity.
nPeace
Veteran Member
That question assumes that all tales have a mark on them saying, "This is a tale."
Because someone does not believe something being related to them, does not mean it is a tale.
I can understand, that the person finds it hard to believe, and says, "Nah. I don't believe that. That sounds made up." However, for someone to say, the person was not making it up, but really believed what they were saying, yet they were not hallucinating, I would more believe, that someone, was telling a tale, than the one relating the story, because I don't see how someone can believe, for example, that a snake with eight heads spoke to them as a man would, if they were not hallucinating, or something like that.
Can you relate to that - someone wrote down something like that, because they believe it happened, only it didn't happen, yet the person is in their right mind? If you (not you) tell me, the person is lying, that makes more sense to me.
Or not, you (not you) are the one telling the tale.
Is a tale, any story you don't believe? Then tales are relative.
I don't refer to a story as a tale, just because it involves supernatural event. I can understand, why an Atheist would, because in his mind, there is no such thing.
The thing about the Bible, is that it is about the supernatural - the entire book.
So if one has an a priori - no supernatural - the entire Bible would contain fables... from the garden of Eden, to the wedding feast in Cana in Galilee, to the island of Patmos.
For the believer though, he considers the reliability of the document. If he finds he can trust, say 80%, then he has no valid reason for doubting the other percentage, if it cannot be proven false... especially if he sees a connection to the greater percentage, and he understands the connection to the symbolism.
To give an example...
The snake in the garden did not actually speak, as skeptics believe. The believer knows from related scriptures, what was speaking.
The trees in the middle of the garden, did not have any special powers, as skeptics believe. The believer understands the trees had a symbolic representation.
The believer knows that most of the book of Revelation is symbolic.
Apart from these, the acts that some find hard to believe, are merely acts done by supernatural beings. All that means is, a life-form way higher than our own is obviously capable of feats greater than ours.
That's not anymore unbelievable than time travel... imo.
If one has already closed their mind to such a possibility, however, it will be unbelievable... regardless of what anyone may relate, or what may be observed.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I watch the movie and its a lot more interesting than the first one.
I will go through each of the reasons he present in why we can trust the bible.
Reason 1
- It is written early after the event -
He put forward a statement that the earlier one recollect the event the more likely they are to be accurate, which I agree with. He then go on to present the date of when the different books were written.
Which seems to be far earlier than what the majority of the scholars think (Approximately around 20 - 40 years earlier) But doesn't really say how he arrived at those or how come they do not seem to match those of the biblical scholars. He might have an explanation, but it is just not presented very clearly here.
Dating the Bible - Wikipedia
I think he make one mistake as he seem to treat Jesus followers as if they were unbiased spectators with the sole purpose of telling the truth, as if they were eyewitnesses to a murder. But that is not exactly what we are talking about here. We have people that are committed to Jesus and are followers of him. Yet we find lots of differences in gospels will get to that next. So I think he is partly correct, but I do not think that this is a very compelling reason overall.
Reason 2 / Reason 3
- It's being corroborated - / - Haven't changed over time -
Basically he say that things are being corroborated between the different writers and therefore the Gospels are trustworthy, I want to point out though, that this person is not claiming that all the details are identical either.
But Ill quote Bart Ehrman as he is considered one of leading person's in regards to the bible on this. (I have to shorten it down, because it is very long, but ill leave the link to the whole article.)
Also Im not saying that just because he is Bart Ehrman that then he is clearly right, but rather that I think he present a good case.
According to Bart Ehrman
Let me stress here a fairly obvious point. When historians try to reconstruct what happened in the past, they desperately want to find internally consistent sources. To that extent, they are like trial lawyers. Suppose there was a court case about a murder: All the witnesses on the stand agree that there was a murder, but that’s the only thing they agree on. Everything they say — about the time, the place, the people involved, the weapons used, the events leading up to the murder, what happened immediately afterward — everything they say is different, from one witness to another, sometimes different in ways that simply can’t be reconciled.
And suppose some of them say things that simply defy plausibility. Would a trial lawyer — or a jury! — consider these to be reliable witnesses? How could they all be reliable?
So, too, with historical sources: We want independent and supportive accounts that are completely consistent with each other.
Evidence that Gospel Stories Were Changed (or Even Invented): Discrepancies in the Gospels
But how do we know that the stories have changed? That there are parts of stories — or entire stories — that are not historically accurate? We know this for two reasons: because there are abundant discrepancies among our stories, and because a number of the stories can be shown to be historically completely implausible.
First, let me mention some discrepancies — not an exhaustive list of them (that would take an entire book), but just a couple of examples to give you the idea.
In Mark’s Gospel, at his Last Supper, Jesus informs Peter that he, Peter, will deny Jesus that evening three times “before the cock crows twice” (Mark 14:30). In Matthew we have the same scene, but here Jesus tells Peter that he will deny him three times “before the cock crows” (Matthew 26:34). Well, which is it? Is it before the cock crows or before it crows the second time? Again, it seems like a picayune detail: but why the difference? What is more interesting (and possibly important), is that in the different Gospels Peter actually denies Jesus to different people on different occasions. So, what is going on?
But when it comes to the resurrection narratives, that’s not what we find. Here, I would encourage you again simply to do a horizontal reading of our four New Testament accounts (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20–21). For every detail, ask yourself if you are reading the same account or a different account.
Here are the some of the differences that you will find, some of which really can’t be reconciled with one another. There are others you will find for yourself. (Recall the setting: Jesus has been crucified and buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea; and then, on the third day.… )
- Who goes to the tomb? Is it Mary by herself, or with other women? If with other women, how many women? And what are their names? (As is true for this and all the other points I made, the answer in each case will appear to be: “It depends which Gospel you read!”)
- Do they find that the stone is already rolled away from the tomb (before they arrive) or does it roll away after they get there?
- Whom do they see there? A man? An angel? Two men? Two angels?
- Do they ever see Jesus himself there?
- What are they told there – that they are to go tell the disciples that Jesus will meet them in Galilee? Or that they are to remind the disciples what Jesus told them when he was in Galilee?
- That is, are the disciples to go to Galilee (about a four-day walk north) to see Jesus, or are they to stay in Jerusalem to see him?
- Do the women tell anyone? (Take special note of Mark 16:8. The original Gospel ended with that verse – as will probably be indicated in your Bible. It says, “And the women said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” And that’s where it ends. If the author doesn’t really mean that they never told anyone, why does he say that they didn’t tell anyone? And if he thinks they did tell someone, why doesn’t he say so?)
- Do the disciples ever learn that Jesus has been raised (take note of Mark’s account)?
- Do the disciples go to Galilee? Or do they stay in Jerusalem?
- Does Jesus appear to them just on the day of his resurrection, and then ascend to heaven? Or does he make appearances for a period of time?
- Does he ascend on the day of the resurrection or 40 days later (see Acts 1)?
Let me explore briefly just one of those differences to show you why the accounts seem to be truly at odds with one another. Do the disciples meet Jesus in Galilee or do they never leave Jerusalem? In Mark’s Gospel, the women are told to tell the disciples to go to meet Jesus in Galilee. But they never tell them. So, it’s not clear what Mark thinks happens next: Did no one ever hear? Surely, someone heard, since Mark knows the story!
In any event, the women are told something very similar in Matthew, and there they do tell the disciples to go meet Jesus in Galilee. And the disciples go to Galilee (again, it’s about over 60 miles, and they would have gone on foot). Jesus meets with them there and gives them their final instructions, and that’s the end of the Gospel.
But how does that stack up with what we find in Luke’s account? In this case, the women are not told to tell the disciples to go to Galilee; they are instructed to remind the disciples what Jesus had told them earlier when they were all in Galilee. And what happens? Here, it is very important to pay attention to Luke’s explicit chronological statements. On the day of the event, the women tell the 11 disciples what they heard from the two men at the tomb (24:8). “That very same day” Jesus appears to two disciples on the Road to Emmaus (24:13–32). “At that same hour” they went and told the disciples in Jerusalem what they had seen (24:33–35). “As they were saying this” (24:36), Jesus then appears to the disciples, shows them he has been raised from the dead, and gives them their instructions, which include the injunction that they are to “stay in the city” until they receive the promised Spirit from on high (24:49). He then takes them to a suburb, Bethany, and ascends to heaven. The disciples then return to Jerusalem itself and worship in the temple (24:50–53). And that’s where the Gospel ends, on the day of the resurrection, in Jerusalem.
As you probably know, the same author who wrote the Gospel of Luke also wrote the book of Acts. It is interesting, and puzzling, to read the first chapter of Acts immediately after reading the Gospel of Luke. Even though Jesus ascends to heaven on the day of his resurrection in Luke, we are told explicitly in Acts that in fact he stayed on earth for another 40 days, convincing his followers “with many proofs” that he had been raised from the dead (Acts 1:3 — I’ve always found this one of the most perplexing verses in the entire New Testament: Why would Jesus need to “prove” that he was raised from the dead? They knew he died and now he was still with them! So, what were his “many proofs”? It’s an intriguing question!). For this entire 40 days, they have followed Jesus’s instruction, and are still in Jerusalem. He then ascends to heaven as they watch (1:9–11).
They continue to stay in Jerusalem until the Day of Pentecost (which would have been 50 days after Jesus’s crucifixion), when they receive the Spirit from on high (Acts 2). And in fact, they continue to stay in Jerusalem even after that (see Acts chapters 3–8).
I am giving this relatively detailed summary in order to make a fundamental point. In Luke’s version of the events, the disciples are told to stay in the city of Jerusalem and they do stay in the city of Jerusalem. Not for a day or two, but for weeks. This is where Jesus appears to them before ascending. But in Matthew’s version, they leave Jerusalem and travel up to Galilee (it would take some days to get there on foot), and it is there that Jesus appears to them.
So, which is it? It depends on which Gospel you read. Can they both be absolutely accurate? I don’t see how. They are at odds on a most fundamental point. I don’t see how we can accept these books as historically reliable sources of information about what happened. There are simply too many discrepancies.
(You can read the whole article here: Ehrman's Statement: The New Testament Gospels Are Historically Unreliable Accounts of Jesus)
Reason 4
- The authors lacked bias -
This one I find to be the best reason, because I think he make a good case here in regards to what exactly the apostle would get out of it, based on the only 3 options puts forward to why someone would murder, lie or steal, which are financial gain, power or sexsual benefits.
And I think he is correct that neither of the apostles seems to be gaining a lot of that through maintaining their believe in Jesus. However I do not think that he is looking at all possible reasons, one which could be conviction. Sort of like when a terrorist (Not trying to compare the apostle with such) decide to blow themself up for a cause they believe in. One would have a difficult time I think arguing that such person would get any of the three options that he is putting forward. Yet they blow themselves up anyway, so how would he explain that?
But again I find this one to be the most interesting.
Reason 5
- It matches and explain reality -
Not really anything to add here, its basically just a word salad of claims.
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
Can you show me where I made that claim?
Was it here, where I said...
If one follows the law, given by Moses, they have rejected the Messiah, according to the writings of the apostles. I believe their words, as they follow the words of the prophets, and are in line with God's will.
A few scriptures - Colossians 2:13-17 ; Ephesians 2:11-18 ; Romans 7 (It would help to read Paul's entire letter to the congregation in Rome).
I don't see any claim about all the apostles claiming the same thing.
What I see there, is an answer to your question, "If you believe that he did not abolished the law, would you then like it to be followed or does it only apply to the Jews."
To which I am explaining that the ending of the Law was in harmony with God's will, which was confirmed by the apostles, and was in accordance with what was spoken through the prophets.
However, it is true, the apostles agree.
Actually, you didn't show me that what I said was not the case.I then showed you in the bible that this was not the case. And rather than actually addressing it, if you believe im wrong, you go on talking about Goliat? And making comments like "with the knowledge of an Atheist. I am coming to you with the knowledge of Jehovah. Retreat now... or lose your head."
You used a number of scriptures, which you felt were in conflict, and I showed you that you had a mistaken view, and the scriptures you quoted, had nothing to do with the Mosaic Law... except the one where Jesus confirmed that the law would come to it's end. When?, was the question.
The Goliath bit was just to emphasize to you that you were even failing at how you understood the scriptures, and applied them.
I think the problem here is with how you broke the post up.
I find this is a common problem, as it breaks an argument that is supposed to be connected.
It's similar to someone taking the "therefore" statement and splicing the paragraph right there.
What my post should look like...
Facts :
!. Killing the firstborn - this included livestock also - was just one of ten acts.
2. The plagues served one purpose - (Exodus 9:13-21) I hope you liked Comprehension, at school. Rather than state the reason, I deliberately gave you the passage where you can find the reason.
With those facts, it is clear God was doing a few things - 1) Making a point to Pharaoh, and all Egypt. 2) Declaring a message to all nations.
If you recall, Jesus did the same thing, as well as the apostles. By the miracles Jesus demonstrated that he was God's son, and knowing that message would spread throughout the regions, where people would hear. The apostles - by performing miracles - demonstrated that they were God's chosen servants, and it would become known, that the Christian congregation that formed, had God's support, and backing.
Neat.
2. The plagues served one purpose - (Exodus 9:13-21) I hope you liked Comprehension, at school. Rather than state the reason, I deliberately gave you the passage where you can find the reason.
With those facts, it is clear God was doing a few things - 1) Making a point to Pharaoh, and all Egypt. 2) Declaring a message to all nations.
If you recall, Jesus did the same thing, as well as the apostles. By the miracles Jesus demonstrated that he was God's son, and knowing that message would spread throughout the regions, where people would hear. The apostles - by performing miracles - demonstrated that they were God's chosen servants, and it would become known, that the Christian congregation that formed, had God's support, and backing.
Neat.
Comments :
So, we see, that it is a case of God being interested in saving people, by directing them to the only true source of deliverance - the real deal. Not some imaginary God, that is helpless.
Each plague had a significance. Just check each one against the Egyptian beliefs in their gods, and see that Jehovah was really humiliating each of the imagined gods of Egypt... demonstrating to the Egyptians, that they were powerless.
What God did, accomplished his will in Egypt too. (Exodus 9:20, 21) . . .Anyone among Pharaoh’s servants who feared Jehovah’s word quickly brought his own servants and his livestock into the houses, 21 but whoever did not take Jehovah’s word to heart left his servants and his livestock in the field.
...and also Israel. (Exodus 14:31) . . .Israel also saw the great power that Jehovah wielded against the Egyptians, and the people began to fear Jehovah and to put faith in Jehovah and in his servant Moses.
...and as mentioned earlier, earth wide. (Joshua 9:8, 9 ; Joshua 2:9, 10 ; Jeremiah 32:20, 21)
Each plague had a significance. Just check each one against the Egyptian beliefs in their gods, and see that Jehovah was really humiliating each of the imagined gods of Egypt... demonstrating to the Egyptians, that they were powerless.
What God did, accomplished his will in Egypt too. (Exodus 9:20, 21) . . .Anyone among Pharaoh’s servants who feared Jehovah’s word quickly brought his own servants and his livestock into the houses, 21 but whoever did not take Jehovah’s word to heart left his servants and his livestock in the field.
...and also Israel. (Exodus 14:31) . . .Israel also saw the great power that Jehovah wielded against the Egyptians, and the people began to fear Jehovah and to put faith in Jehovah and in his servant Moses.
...and as mentioned earlier, earth wide. (Joshua 9:8, 9 ; Joshua 2:9, 10 ; Jeremiah 32:20, 21)
Conclusion :
So, the conclusion... God was demonstrating his power over Egypt's gods. The killing of the firstborn wan the final blow. Here we have it in writing - (Exodus 12:12) For I will pass through the land of Egypt on this night and strike every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from man to beast; and I will execute judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am Jehovah.
This is why Jehovah did not just swat Pharaoh, like an insect (which he could easily have done), and why he did not just kill every firstborn at the giddyup.
This is why Jehovah did not just swat Pharaoh, like an insect (which he could easily have done), and why he did not just kill every firstborn at the giddyup.
No. This was originally in relation to you saying that God kills people, [at the drop of a hat] simply for offending him.
No problem.