Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[joobz]

Funnily enough, I was going to comment about the complete lack of words of Jesus about homosexuality. I am pleased that there are no words which may be used by some to block gay-rights.

True, but that doesn't stop people from claiming Jesus' "I haven't come to destroy the laws.." line as proof that he supported the anti-gay stance of Leviticus.

In fact, I'm certain DOC here feels that gay rights would be an example of "moving away from god" in our society and something that we'll "pay for" later.

 

[Simon39759]

While I agree with your conclusion (as I did right here), your evidence is faulty. Both Card and Larson are LDS, and are fiction writers. They do not speak from a position of knowledge or expertise, and they're heavily biased, having relied on LDS mythos in their work.

I was not really making a point, to be honest, just illustrating the dumbness of this argument of authority.

Are you and Joobz saying Jesus supported the slavery of his own ancestors, the Jews, who were slaves for 400 years in Egypt and Babylon.

The Jews should be happy that slavery existed because if not the Egyptians and the Babylonians would have no need for them and most likely killed them all. Come to think of it if it wasn't for slavery all the people of Jewish decent might not exist. I'm serious about this.

This is why Joobz and others shouldn't interject our modern (post industrial revolution) concept of slavery into Biblical times. War was a way of life back then and if you couldn't use your enemy that you just beat in battle as a slave, it was in the best interest of you and your own tribes survival to kill them. There was no Geneva convention, there were no prisons that could handle hundreds of your captured enemy. You killed them or they were slaves. It would be crazy to let them go free so they could come back a month later and war with you again.

First of all, the slavery in Egypt probably never existed, it was a founding myth destined to unify the Israelites during their exile in Babylone.

Second point, you have little understanding of the ancient world.
There is no reason to believe that the Babylonians would have extermined the Jews. They certainly did not exterminate any of the other people they defeated.
In reality, wars of extermination was a very rare event in the classical world, much more common was annexing a kingdom and having it pay you a tribute.
The only reason why Jerusalem was burned down was to quell a revolt.

 

[Mr Clingford]

True, but that doesn't stop people from claiming Jesus' "I haven't come to destroy the laws.." line as proof that he supported the anti-gay stance of Leviticus.

Unfortunately so. I understand Jesus's 'fulfilling of the law' to supersede the OT laws. Besides, most of these people wear garments of more than one fibre etc so are open to the charge of picking and choosing.

In fact, I'm certain DOC here feels that gay rights would be an example of "moving away from god" in our society and something that we'll "pay for" later.

I can't say what DOC might think (although I have a good idea about kk) but it is not a stance that I think is true.


As to slavery in Egypt (or Egg-whipped as one person is meant to have pronounced it in a reading), my copy of The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible (with pretty pictures!) suggests that the Yahweh freeing people from Egypt slavery story might have been brought by a group of nomads which then became woven into the OT story. So an event that happened to a small group evolved into a story occurring to the whole. Something like that.

 

[RobRoy]

True, but that doesn't stop people from claiming Jesus' "I haven't come to destroy the laws.." line as proof that he supported the anti-gay stance of Leviticus.

In fact, I'm certain DOC here feels that gay rights would be an example of "moving away from god" in our society and something that we'll "pay for" later.

Actually, there's a couple of arguments which are pretty decent that show Jesus and some of the other NT writers were actually okey dokey with homosexuality. I can dig up the sources if you really want.

I was not really making a point, to be honest, just illustrating the dumbness of this argument of authority.

I'll plead Poe's Law.

 

[paximperium]

As to slavery in Egypt (or Egg-whipped as one person is meant to have pronounced it in a reading), my copy of The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible (with pretty pictures!) suggests that the Yahweh freeing people from Egypt slavery story might have been brought by a group of nomads which then became woven into the OT story. So an event that happened to a small group evolved into a story occurring to the whole. Something like that.

There is some archeological evidence that the early Jews were rebel Canaanites living at the periphery of Canaan. Some slaves were traveling away from Egypt and their tribes and stories merged with the early Jews.

 

[Simon39759]

There is some archeological evidence that the early Jews were rebel Canaanites living at the periphery of Canaan. Some slaves were traveling away from Egypt and their tribes and stories merged with the early Jews.

Wasn't the name Jehovah picked-up from some neighbouring tribe from the Israelites? I am a bit fuzzy on that...

 

[paximperium]

Wasn't the name Jehovah picked-up from some neighbouring tribe from the Israelites? I am a bit fuzzy on that...

The original name is actually Yahweh (written as YHWH).

There are multiple hypothesis ranging from it being the name of a local tribal Canaanite god or some other tribal god that was adopted by the Israelites to the more interesting one where YHWH was one of many gods worshiped by the early polytheistic Israelites.

Another interesting one is that YHWH had a wife by the name of Asherah but I believe that is only found in one archeological site.

 

[six7s]

Are you and Joobz saying Jesus supported the slavery of his own ancestors, the Jews, who were slaves for 400 years in Egypt and Babylon.

I'm saying that your messiah was just a naughty boy - a product of his times

The Jews should be happy that slavery existed because if not the Egyptians and the Babylonians would have no need for them and most likely killed them all. Come to think of it if it wasn't for slavery all the people of Jewish decent might not exist. I'm serious about this.

You might be serious... it doesn't mean you have thought about it. On the contrary, your conclusions have all the hallmarks of a bleever; they're absurdly, ridiculously, farcically illogical

This is why Joobz and others shouldn't interject our modern (post industrial revolution) concept of slavery into Biblical times.

This is why you ought to STFU

War was a way of life back then and if you couldn't use your enemy that you just beat in battle as a slave, it was in the best interest of you and your own tribes survival to kill them.

Thou shallt not love thy neighbour

There was no Geneva convention, there were no prisons that could handle hundreds of your captured enemy.

This is the work of the self-same sky daddy that could make light, an expanse with waters underneath and dry land with plants yielding seed, and fruit trees- then darkness to mark days, seasons and years with one light to rule the day, and a second to rule the night and then waters that swarm with swarms of living creatures, and birds that can fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens and then humans that look just like him...

And you reckon he's omni what?

You killed them or they were slaves.

Thou shallt not get hung up about being an oppressor?

It would be crazy to let them go free so they could come back a month later and war with you again.

Just cos its crazy don't mean its right

 

[Akhenaten]

<polite snip>


As to slavery in Egypt (or Egg-whipped as one person is meant to have pronounced it in a reading), my copy of The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible (with pretty pictures!) suggests that the Yahweh freeing people from Egypt slavery story might have been brought by a group of nomads which then became woven into the OT story. So an event that happened to a small group evolved into a story occurring to the whole. Something like that.

There is some evedince that there were groups of Hebrews living, not as slaves more in the nature of sharecroppers or crofters, up in the Delta. Could it be these of which ye speak?

Interestingly, this area is renowned for widespread flooding. Hmmm.

There is some archeological evidence that the early Jews were rebel Canaanites living at the periphery of Canaan. Some slaves were traveling away from Egypt and their tribes and stories merged with the early Jews.

I'll go along with everything but the word "slaves". The first reason for my thinking this is that when the Egyptians kept slaves they certainly didn't allow them to just wander off into the Eastern Desert. Or the Red Sea. Secondly, Egyptian slaves were obtained from the captured armies of Pharaoh's enemies and the goatherders up north never really achieved that status.

 

[DOC]

So, let me see if I've got this straight.

The all powerful God of the bible that you believe in condoned slavery because if he hadn't then his chosen people, the people from whom his son would be born, the people who would fulfil his promises to the world, and through whom he would save all mankind, would have all been slaughtered by the Egyptians?

Are you seriously saying that without slavery God couldn't have found another way to help the Jews?

Is he that powerless?

Strawman -- I was just showing why you can't interject our post industrial revolution age concept of slavery into biblical times where slavery was actually necessary because war against neighboring tribes and nations was a way of life. I assume you don't want all captured enemy killed, don't you. Some things are so ingrained into the culture like racism, (and in those times, slavery) that they can't be changed overnight. Even Jesus said to the apostles shortly before he died that he had more to tell them but they could not bear it yet.

 

[Simon39759]

The original name is actually Yahweh (written as YHWH).

There are multiple hypothesis ranging from it being the name of a local tribal Canaanite god or some other tribal god that was adopted by the Israelites to the more interesting one where YHWH was one of many gods worshiped by the early polytheistic Israelites.

Another interesting one is that YHWH had a wife by the name of Asherah but I believe that is only found in one archeological site.

Yeah; that much is known. The Hebrews actually were polytheistic right up until around their coming back from the Babylonian exiles.

 

[Hokulele]

Strawman -- I was just showing why you can't interject our post industrial revolution age concept of slavery into biblical times where slavery was actually necessary because war against neighboring tribes and nations was a way of life. I assume you don't want all captured enemy killed, don't you. Some things are so ingrained into the culture like racism, (and in those times, slavery) that they can't be changed overnight. Even Jesus said to the apostles shortly before he died that he had more to tell them but they could not bear it yet.

You certainly seem to be willing to inject your biblical concepts of feminism and same-sex relationships into this post-industrial age.

 

[Nogbad]

Strawman -- I was just showing why you can't interject our post industrial revolution age concept of slavery into biblical times where slavery was actually necessary because war against neighboring tribes and nations was a way of life. I assume you don't want all captured enemy killed, don't you. Some things are so ingrained into the culture like racism, (and in those times, slavery) that they can't be changed overnight. Even Jesus said to the apostles shortly before he died that he had more to tell them but they could not bear it yet.

Indeed, but was he going to say stuff you could not bear?

 

[DOC]

You certainly seem to be willing to inject your biblical concepts of feminism and same-sex relationships into this post-industrial age.

To my memory I"ve never talked about feminism in any of my threads. And have rarely talked about same sex relationships and not at all in this thread. So what all this has to do with my slavery quote, I don't know.

 

[joobz]

To my memory I"ve never talked about feminism in any of my threads.

You spoke of women being second to the man in marriage. This is a feminist issue.

 

[DOC]

Second point, you have little understanding of the ancient world. There is no reason to believe that the Babylonians would have extermined the Jews. They certainly did not exterminate any of the other people they defeated. In reality, wars of extermination was a very rare event in the classical world, much more common was annexing a kingdom and having it pay you a tribute. The only reason why Jerusalem was burned down was to quell a revolt.

So then do you believe the following from Wiki's article on King David of the Jews was not true:

"David conquers the Jebusite fortress of Jerusalem and makes it his capital...

<snip>

David goes on to conquer Zobah and Aram (modern Syria), Edom and Moab (roughly modern Jordan), Philistine lands, as well as other territories, in many cases exterminating large portions of their citizenry."

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

 

[Hokulele]

To my memory I"ve never talked about feminism in any of my threads.

Au contraire.

And I believe women can be leader's in government and business but as far as the family goes my interpretation of the Bible is that the man has "God given authority" to be the spiritual head of the family. And I said before that doesn't mean the woman doesn't have important input or even that the woman is not equal with man before God. But I believe the bible teaches that man has the final say in a household, and that is a God given authority. And I think that "most" woman would agree with that and want that.

Source:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3494480#post3494480

Stating that women want men as the authority in the household is a comment on feminism. And not a very nice one.

And have rarely talked about same sex relationships and not at all in this thread.

And the few times you have talked about it, you were firmly on the side of discrimination.

So what all this has to do with my slavery quote, I don't know.

Because it is rather hypocritical to condemn slavery (which the bible condoned) but not to condemn sexism or homophobia (which the bible condoned). All of those are oppressive mindsets that most modern societies seem to be moving past. Well, at least the moral ones...

 

[DOC]

You spoke of women being second to the man in marriage.

This is false.

 

[paximperium]

So then do you believe the following from Wiki's article on King David of the Jews was not true:

"David conquers the Jebusite fortress of Jerusalem and makes it his capital...

<snip>

David goes on to conquer Zobah and Aram (modern Syria), Edom and Moab (roughly modern Jordan), Philistine lands, as well as other territories, in many cases exterminating large portions of their citizenry."

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

Please don't project the blood lust of your god's worshippers onto other less barbaric or genocidal civilizations.

BTW: There is little evidence that anything David supposedly did actually happened as claimed by their little propaganda piece called the Bible.

 

[paximperium]

This is false.

This is false.

And I believe women can be leader's in government and business but as far as the family goes my interpretation of the Bible is that the man has "God given authority" to be the spiritual head of the family. And I said before that doesn't mean the woman doesn't have important input or even that the woman is not equal with man before God. But I believe the bible teaches that man has the final say in a household, and that is a God given authority. And I think that "most" woman would agree with that and want that.