To be Like the Most High
On Easter Morning, I published an article which challenged my previous assumption that Jesus Christ physically rose from the dead about 2000 years ago. Concerning the debate that the article generated, Reader Stan offers the following comment:
But it is quite evident that the process taken here is based on the goal. Christians want to believe that there is a risen Savior. They want to believe that there is good news, a Gospel. They want to believe that there is hope for today and tomorrow and after this life. They want to believe. The other side, the anti-Christian, wants to believe that there is no risen Savior, no God, no “sins”, no “hereafter”.
Stan, yes I agree that in general people end up believing what they want to believe. But is that really the case when it comes to deconverts from Christianity? I don’t know, I have never met any besides myself. I don’t blame Stan for wanting to believe in a risen Savior. I don’t blame him for wanting to believe in a risen Savior, a Savior for the sins of a lost and searching world.
My question to Stan, and to any other Christian who assumes our motives is this - why would I not want to believe also? Who does not want to believe in hope for the here-after? Who does not want to believe in an eternal paradise, a paradise with no sickness or pain, an eternity with my family and loved ones, an eternity of great joy, worship of God and a heavenly universe of continual discovery (as I used to imagine it). Of course I want to believe in these things - why would I not want to believe in this?
One Christian that I know says that I am doing this because I want place myself above God or as my own God, saying that I want to ascend like the Most High (Is 14:14). Maybe my motive is that I want to fall into a life of Sin, whatever that means. I have always been a sinner, and I have always accepted that. It’s not like I am saying, “forget this Jesus Junk, I want cheap wimmin, cheap whisky and to play cards with my buddies”. You have to be kidding me! If anything, this experience makes me strive to be a more loving and devoted husband to my wife, and given me a renewed committment to my family - because this may be all there is.
The notion that I want to place myself as my own God is absurd. I am not out to worship my own greatness and place my knowledge and wisdom above God Almight. I would never dare! I realize my frailty, my weaknesses, my nature to occassionally fail, and yes if you wish, my own sinfulness. I claimed Jesus as my Personal Savior, my Lord for as long as I remembered, and relied on his unique and perfect sacrifice on the Cross for the remission of my own sins. I had no problem confessing my sins to a loving Savior who gave His all for me. That I am rejecting Jesus because I love darkness rather than light is patently absurd.
I love my Christian church family. I love my biological family, some of whom are Christians. I grew up with them. I lived with them. I learned with them, worshiped with them, witnessed with them. I have been a Christian my entire life. I loved being a Christian. The Christian belief system is ingrained in me. How could I not love them?
Of course I want Christianity to be true. To change my entire life’s paradigm at 43 years of age is … .. not exactly easy.
Stan, I agree with you when you say:
Now, being on one (obvious) side, I can’t really begin to fathom why someone would want to believe the other way.
It is simply this - after much reading, consulting Church members, researching, praying and thinking, I find the claims of Christianity, our Bible, and the here-after to be wholly implausible. I may be wrong. I want to be wrong. I am still looking.
I am a physicist by training and profession. I must take loads of evidence, and relate many variables before I make a decision on how to procede with an experiment. I must take observations that I have made in the past, and extrapolate those into predictions. Why should Christianity be any different? I have looked, studies, probed and prodded, and as much as I want Christianity to be true, right now, as of 10 April 2007, I find it very unlikely. If God holds me guilty because I see very little probabilty of the claims made in the Bible with relation to other alternatives, then this universe is truly mad.
There is one more misconception that I must address. I am not ‘deciding’ one belief system over the other. I once believed the long held notion that our Earth was flat (not really, but work with me here). Somebody presented me with some evidence to the contrary. Very interesting, I thought. But my evidence still outweighs theirs. Pretty soon more and more people piled on the evidence for a round earth. Pretty soon, I became convinced through the preponderance of evidence. My decision that the earth is spherical is a reaction based on the evidence presented to me, and I am making a similar reaction based on the evidence from Chrisitanity. I am not converting or deconverting to anything because of a pre-concieved ethical notion of right or wrong, who I want to be lorded over, or my desire that there be no accountability to a God. That is rubbish!
At the same time, I have to understand. As a Christian, I thought all apostates maybe were never Christians in the first place, and wholly lost in their sins. It is what we were taught. How wrong I was…
April 10th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
” I am a physicist by training and profession. I must take loads of evidence, and relate many variables before I make a decision on how to procede with an experiment. I must take observations that I have made in the past, and extrapolate those into predictions. Why should Christianity be any different?” (HIS)
That’s an interesting stance I have always thought. I have heard a lot from lots of scientifc type thinkers and it seems very convincing on some level. But that isn’t the point of the books anyways - to stand up to scientific reasoning in order for it to have validity.
The problem with that is the book(s) are written as stories to tell us about the teachings (values) of this person called Jesus. And I think the point of that is not the denial of things like the ‘virgin birth’ or ‘the resurrection’ but the denial of the ‘values’ being taught. I think this is where the real conundrum enters with intellectual vs. ethics in this arena.
You see I know a lot of people that deny a lot of the events within the bible - ex: creation, Moses events, the virgin birth, the miracles, etc…on the basis of ‘not enough proof’. I got no problem with the outright denial of it all if they can’t get that ‘proof’ they so desire. The real problem for me is when they deny the values that also follow along with those events - ex: the created universe is good, determination, community, love, or compassion.
One’s views of the scripture as a historical account is not accurate and can mis-represent the readings. What seems to be at the essence of all the writings is the idea of a value system - from Adam to Paul. Finding contradiction after contradiction for me means a very little thing to the nature of the bible. I think the values/ethics are more important anyways - and this seems to be a huge part of the message. Determining values is also as critical as determining the stories accuracies.
How can one say ‘they stopped following Jesus’ when they have refused to drop the ‘values they got from the teachings’? I think in that is the essence of the gospels.
April 10th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Hi HIS
I have been reading your posts but not responding, but I feel good enough to do it now. This is hard. You really nailed this on the head. The hardest part for me, is that now I am the person I spent so many years fearing, putting down, and demonizing. You are so right when you say we are not “favoring the darkness over the light” or wanting to lead big scandalous lives, we are just wanting the truth and unable to pretend it is there and live life accordingly–at least that is true for me. And thanks so much for showing that us deconverts can still want to believe, and long for a God, but we just can’t accept what we are told.
This time is hard, but all the other deconverts I have talked to have said that it only gets better and you will find peace, and so will those around you. If anything, we can bring a more balanced view of unbelievers to the church.
thanks HIS
marie
April 10th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Hi Societyvs!
I only speak for me, but if I just take the Bible on its teachings, then why stop there? Why not go to the Koran, the Book of mormon, ancient Buddhist teachings, Cinderella, the Three Pigs? Why does Christianity offer the only way and truth–when you are not really believing its historial validity, but just its message, then all these sources of teaching seem to be of more equal value.
Believing in and living the teachings is a good thing–but that has no effect on whether or not the Bible is true, whether or not God exists, and whether or not christianity has validity. I like Jesus, and I want to live by a lot of his teachings–but for me, that does not mean that I can believe Jesus is God, Jesus died and rose again, and that he is coming again “soon.”
April 10th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Societyvs sez:
“You see I know a lot of people that deny a lot of the events within the bible - ex: creation, Moses events, the virgin birth, the miracles, etc…on the basis of ‘not enough proof’. I got no problem with the outright denial of it all if they can’t get that ‘proof’ they so desire. The real problem for me is when they deny the values that also follow along with those events - ex: the created universe is good, determination, community, love, or compassion.”
Sorry, Societyvs, but I think HeIsSailing got this one right. One of the “values” the Bible teaches is truth. If we accept that value, then the Bible MUST be truthful. 100%. Anything less is a cop-out.
The Jesus I know says that he is THE TRUTH. He will never be found by dropping the standards and allowing for error in his revelation of himself. Either we don’t understand, but we can, or the Bible as a revelation of God is a crock and needs to be relegated to the dusty shelves of historical annals.
April 10th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
**Sorry, Societyvs, but I think HeIsSailing got this one right. One of the “values” the Bible teaches is truth. If we accept that value, then the Bible MUST be truthful. 100%. Anything less is a cop-out.** That would depend on ‘truth,’ though. The Judaic religion doesn’t hold the creation stories as literal truth, but still finds them as true. Same with many other stories in the OT — they hold it true in the mythos sense.
April 10th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
**I realize my frailty, my weaknesses, my nature to occassionally fail, and yes if you wish, my own sinfulness.**
This is one thing that’s puzzled me about this particular viewpoint — those that aren’t Christians don’t choose so because they’re in love with sinning, or wantonly rebelling against God. Many people I know are horrified by the Bible, because of what sections of it say about God, or that people must suffer for a lack of belief. Others aren’t Christian because they can’t stand the us vs. them mentality, or the hypocrites, or the arrogance.
Overall, based on how sin is defined in the Bible, in terms of the exploitation and the sorrow and the death it causes — most people do shun that, and don’t indulge in that side of themselves.
But everything you mentioned in the line I just quoted is often things that non-Christians recognize about themselves, too.
I don’t see being a non-Christian as something you’re rushing to embrace. IF anything, you want something that will help you maintain your faith. Otherwise, why would you be blogging?
**The other side, the anti-Christian, wants to believe that there is no risen Savior, no God, no “sins”, no “hereafter”.** Technically, the anti-Christian can still believe in God and a ‘hereafter.’
April 10th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptOne Christian that I know says that I am doing this because I want place myself above God or as my own God, saying that I want to ascend like the Most High (Is 14:14). Maybe my motive is that I want to fall into a life of Sin, … [...]
April 10th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
HIS wrote**I find the claims of Christianity, our Bible, and the here-after to be wholly implausible. **
I would say they are impossible! Naturally speaking, the unbeliever holds all the cards. Fortunately for believers, at the core of objective truth is the fact that our own existence is just as inexplicable as the resurrection.
Marie said **Believing in and living the teachings is a good thing–but that has no effect on whether or not the Bible is true, whether or not God exists, and whether or not christianity has validity.**
My first eye-opening experience with Christianity is that it’s principles were infallible. If the Bible were not true, wouldn’t it’s fruit be misery and broken relationships? If Christianity did NOT work, then I’m sure you’d say it’s untrue. Since it DOES work why wouldn’t you consider that as evidence?
April 10th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
**If Christianity did NOT work, then I’m sure you’d say it’s untrue. Since it DOES work why wouldn’t you consider that as evidence? ** Because there are other religions that can produce the same ‘fruit’ as Christianity, so then that could be used as proof for all of them. I think that’s why many are examining the historical validity of the New Testament.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Hey Jim
I would say that is evidence that the Bible and Christianity are convincing to a lot of people, and that those who do good works believe it–but I do not think that is evidence of the existence of God or the truth of the Christian message.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Ladies,
Let me clarify my point, our belief in the truthfulness of Christianity is not limited to this discussion of trying to collapse the resurrection details into a perfectly folded fan. We all believe for a variety of reasons, not the least of those being our personal experience.
In regards to Heather’s comment **Because there are other religions that can produce the same ‘fruit’ as Christianity**
I respectfully disagree. There are nice and sincere Hindus and Muslims and so on but the fruit of their goodness is not directly derived from their doctrines. What other religion says “love your enemy” and “men and women are equally made in the image of God”? I don’t know of any. Perhaps you do.
Last, I believe in the resurrection for the same reason I believe in Christ, He called on me in a powerful way that left no doubt in my mind.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Jim,
**There are nice and sincere Hindus and Muslims and so on but the fruit of their goodness is not directly derived from their doctrines.** One of the five pillars of Islam is charity to the poor. They also have clear instructions to avoid evil, and do good. Mainstream Muslims would agree with both statements you’ve made.
Judaism would also agree — they have a rule similar to the Golden Rule.
I wouldn’t say that behavior derives from doctrines, because those are associated with belief. One could believe everything about conservative Christianity and still be incredibly hateful. I’ve known people who have become more loving after leaving Christianity.
I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t think it can be used as proof that Christianity is valid, because it applies in other areas.
** “men and women are equally made in the image of God”?** Technically, no religion has really done this until recently in history.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Jim Jordan sez:
“In regards to Heather’s comment **Because there are other religions that can produce the same ‘fruit’ as Christianity**I respectfully disagree. There are nice and sincere Hindus and Muslims and so on but the fruit of their goodness is not directly derived from their doctrines. What other religion says “love your enemy” and “men and women are equally made in the image of God”? I don’t know of any. Perhaps you do.”
Does Mormonism count? Or are their relatively virtuous lifestyles a trick of Satan? I would also say that Christianity does not work for everyone, it sure as heck does not work for me, but that is just rehashing old ground.
April 11th, 2007 at 12:22 am
This is an interesting discussion for me, since I was raised without religious belief, then decided Christianity was true when presented with the evidence in college years, then had a significant doubting period in my early forties, which I’ve just emerged from. The way I view my faith now is more like a relationship with a person than a decision to follow a theory. I suppose God has provided some “theory” in the Bible, but I see that as somewhat vague and imprecise. That is exactly the reason for divisions in the faith that are quite substantial. Using comparative religions for an example, are there Mormon groups or Islamic groups as distinct as Quakers vs. Charismatics vs. Roman Catholic nuns vs. Coptic vs. whatever. It seems that Christianity is almost like the chameleon religion in its manifestations. No, it is not a belief in a set of facts that it is we are to seek, some of them may be important in our understanding, but it is the person of God in all His manifestations that we are to know. So, there is no point in getting lost in philosophy, history, or science related to the faith. It is to get to know a person. Now, admittedly this person cannot be seen by nearly all of us, but yet he seems so real to those who believe. In that case, are they just using some psychological wish to manufacture God? I don’t think so, since there are myriad religions as examples of how people make up God or gods to explain their sense of the supernatural.
Speaking of seeing Jesus, let me tell you about a situation I was called in to help with many years ago as a psychiatric consultant. There was a young woman who was completely hysterical admitted to the hospital. She had just survived a flash flood in which she managed to rescue one of her twin sons and another child who was in the car. Unfortunately, her one 3 year old twin son was swept from her arms and drowned. The woman’s parents had come in, and they were able to relate the events of that day. It was utterly stunning. They had been watching the twins and the other child all that day. During that day, they had become frustrated with the twin who ended up drowning. He kept insisting that he saw Jesus out in the yard, and kept trying to go out there. They ended up locking the door to keep him inside, and he cried and asked them to let him go out and see Jesus. The other twin and child had no such actions. The twin who made the big fuss about Jesus had never acted so strangely before. Three year olds don’t typically act in that fashion. The family said they were surprised that the twin even knew much about Jesus. They only attended church with him a few times per year, and weren’t particularly religious, nor was his mother. The family stuck with the story for the next years, but I’ve since moved from the area and lost touch with the situation.
April 11th, 2007 at 4:35 am
Ed mused:
“In that case, are they just using some psychological wish to manufacture God? I don’t think so, since there are myriad religions as examples of how people make up God or gods to explain their sense of the supernatural.”
Hi Ed - sorry, but I don’t see how Christianity is any different here. Isn’t God there to explain our sense of the supernatural? I have a feeling you mean something other than what you wrote, because I don’t understand your point here. Maybe you can clarify?
April 11th, 2007 at 7:10 am
I don’t think Christianity’s revelation is all that instructive about the supernatural, except with relationship with God and some general guidelines about how to live our lives. I’ve had some contact with the demonization crowd. They are a group of Christians who believe that essentially all people are demon possessed, and up to 85% of Christians have demon oppression due to sin in their lives. That is just plain bizarre to me, yet they use the Bible to back up their beliefs. I’ve known many others who believe that the USA is the “New Israel”, God’s chosen people and likewise use scripture to back them up. I find them equally weird. No, much of what we think of as “Christianity” is add ons that are quite similar in nature to what other religions offer: convenient means to make sense of something we can never make sense of.
My reading of the Scripture and experience with Jesus is that God is wooing me. I don’t really understand much at all about him, nor does he expect me to have some “ah-ha” moment when it all falls into place (at least in this world). But he wants me to interact with him via scripture, prayer, and service to others. Usually I find it is my selfishness to get more complete understanding or control of the process that interferes with his wooing. In my understanding of other religions, I don’t see them operating that way. My faith is not exactly very gratifying about the understanding of the supernatural. I know only marginally more than I ever did. That is not exactly psychologically useful, so that is why I see that others (and myself?) use add-ons to enrich the experience. Of course, I’ve only lived as an agnostic and as a Christian, so I don’t have complete experience there. Perhaps the perspective of a convert from one of the other religions into Christianity might be useful to explore.
April 11th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
“I only speak for me, but if I just take the Bible on its teachings, then why stop there? Why not go to the Koran, the Book of mormon, ancient Buddhist teachings, Cinderella, the Three Pigs? Why does Christianity offer the only way and truth–when you are not really believing its historial validity, but just its message, then all these sources of teaching seem to be of more equal value.” (Marie)
Hi Marie, I don’t disregard it’s historical validity - but this is not even within question in the gospels (it’s from exterior of the biblical texts this point is raised). I don’t think the gospels stand to reason their own historical accuracies - to be honest - they seem quite uninterested if someone was to ‘ask any historical questions’ - since this is not something they set out to defend. This is a question we ask of the gospel accounts and how can the gospels defend themselves? - none of the writers live as of now to speak to their assertions. All I can do is trust they weren’t lying (and I do).
What is even more funny is I read the Qu’ran, The Book of Mormon, and have the Gita. I read them also since I respect those people who do read them. I am not concerned with their validity since 2 of 3 of them base their claims on the validity of the bible (borrowing validity in that sense). But to be perfectly honest, even truth can be gleamed from those writings - I have a good friend who is a Muslim and met many good Mormon peoples - who all practice decent values. It seems the purpose of those religions also is ‘ethics’ or the ‘teachings’. What’s the harm in that?
But to be-little me with the 3 little pigs and the Cinderella story - well that’s just absurd. But I suppose if someone wanted to believe those fairy tales and find ethics they could. But they would know by quite a simple read this is a ‘tale’ (ex: the pigs can talk or the fairy godmother). Those writings have never raised claims to historicity in any sense.
“Believing in and living the teachings is a good thing–but that has no effect on whether or not the Bible is true” (Marie)
But that was the very simple purpose of it being written - for teaching value. But what can make that book any more true for you outside of living the teachings - and will it help any? Is there something that will outright establish it’s accuracy once and for all - for all? There are many avenues on this subject and can take a lifetime to study (ex: Jesus seminar, mythological aspects, archaeology and history, etc) but in the end none of that does more than ask the same question to you ‘do you believe the disciples wrote this stuff accurately?’. And in all those ‘avenues’ of study few of those scholars all agree on the same thing 100% through and through - which seems to be the same problem we have with the harmonization problem within the bible - so where does this end - with you.
“One of the “values” the Bible teaches is truth. If we accept that value, then the Bible MUST be truthful. 100%. Anything less is a cop-out.” (Jennypo)
Finding truth (within a teaching) and historical accuracy are very different fields of study. I am not saying the bible isn’t telling the ‘truth’ but it isn’t the purpose of a single gospel to write a history book (again where is all the dates of every event?). Now we can re-construct the bible to find historicity but what ‘value’ is that teaching us exactly? How to be more analytical of the history in the texts? Is that what the purpose of the writings is? If so, then I think I am wasting my time studying Jesus’ teachings. But I do believe in the stories told by the disciples - and I take them at their words (since none of them can come and defend their writings) - and that’s as good as it will ever get. Why do people think I am ‘copping-out’? Because I don’t see the gospels as history books? Well, they aren’t.
The bible being 100% true is who’s standard exactly? If it isn’t then what - the bible isn’t God’s word? Or worse, lying? Do you know for certain Moses wandered the wilderness for 40 years? Could of been 28? Or that God created in a literal 6 days? How many days did Joshua march around the walls of Jericho (6)? Was there a global flood and did it last 40 days? Was Jesus in the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights? It’s funny but are all those events concerned with absolute historical accuracy or is this something we ‘put on them’. I still think there is truth to be ascertained but as for literalness - I doubt every single one (since numbers were used as symbols by Jewish people). So explain historicity in that sense?
“The Jesus I know says that he is THE TRUTH. He will never be found by dropping the standards and allowing for error in his revelation of himself. Either we don’t understand, but we can, or the Bible as a revelation of God is a crock and needs to be relegated to the dusty shelves of historical annals.” (JennyPo)
Jesus is the ‘truth’ - what does that even mean? That Jesus is concerned with absolute historical accuracy? Dropping the standards - is that what you think I am doing? There are errors, but they are not in those texts, they are within our interpreting of them and of our expectations upon them. I have pointed out handfuls of historical inaccuracies related to numbers as symbols - but that doesn’t mean the event did not happen. Moses likely wandered in the wilderness, a flood likely occured, the walls of Jericho fell, and Jesus was probably in the wilderness - but as for the symbols involved - a literal interpretation of them is a betrayal of context.
So the resurrection accounts have some dubious events prior to it - oh no. I have claimed Matthew does not need Luke for vindication, nor Mark needs John (and any other combination of those people). But someone feels this is neccesary and we all jump. Yet we find none of them denying the event whatsoever. Well jump then, skip rope even, it doesn’t change the purpose of each writer. They simply wrote an account of the events of Jesus life - and it seems to me historical perfection was not the key point they are making.
At the same time I am not denying the events happened - I take their word(s) on this but at the same time I have to be careful with their words. I have to wonder if I am trying to make them say something they are not. Historical events occured - we know this - but I see the gospels (and the bible in general) relating the story and emphasizing the teaching values within it.
The concern for non-contradiction is a good one, but that’s our expectation and I find it nowhere within a single text as the point. Actually some of Jesus’ teachings contradict the Tanakh - what of that then? (ex: love your enemies) - where Jesus challenges the meaning of ‘hate your enemies’ (and even the ‘eye for an eye’ ideal). Throw out Matthew since it changes a Tanakh value of his day? It’s as much a contradiction (more so) as the resurrection stories - and ensures the Tanakh will not line up 100% with the gospels. We never emphasize things like that for some reason. Why do 4 competing stories shake you faith?
April 11th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
societyvs, how do you determine what historically actually happened in the accounts of the Bible, and what may or may not have happened? What method do you use to determine the difference?
I understand that you are not requiring them to be historical documents. Yet then you go on and recount events recorded within that historically happened. (Resurrection, flood, wandering in wilderness, etc.) Apparently, as even we non-believers do, you hold that some things within are history.
You seem to take grand items as having happened, but the details or nuances within may not. I get this from your claim of it being likely that Moses wandered the wilderness, but not necessary that it was 40 years. Likely a flood, not necessarily 40days. How do you determine, though, what is “grandiose” enough to be considered actual, and what is detail?
For example, the Ten Plagues. Do you say that it is likely some plagues occurred, but not necessarily ten? Or do you say 10 plagues occurred, but not necessarily as traumatic as recorded? Or do you say that it is likely the Hebrews left Egypt, and no plagues occurred?
I guess I am confused as to where you draw the line between “This must have happened” and “but that detail within may not have.”
April 11th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
“How do you determine, though, what is “grandiose” enough to be considered actual, and what is detail?” (Dagoods)
With reference to this historical events and symbology within the OT - one has to consider the numbers being used also. Can I prove any of what I am saying - not bloody likely - this is up to archaeology but even in that pursuit - they will be extremely limited as to exact-ness. I respect the sciences in that regard but I also have to admit they are limited in re-construction.
As for symbolism and numbers within Jewish circles - this is a tradition of theirs I was not quite acquainted with. When I looked into it in some detail I found there is legitimacy in the symbolism in their writings - which they use those numbers to explain something about an event. So a 40 day flood can represent that 40 means a completed time (not a literal number but signifies a moment has reached fulfillment). Also the same is seen with numbers like 6 and 7 in certain situations (ex: 6 day creation is incomplete without a 7th day - the sabbath). That whole walls of Jericho is strongly patterned after this 6 days of doing - but the 7th day completes the endeavor.
A prescribed methodology is to take the claims as they are - within the context they are being claimed in (which requires a look in to culture, time-period, etc). But ‘as they are’ does not mean absolute literalness all the time - since the book is also phrased in many types of metaphors and symbolism (and other linguistic ideas). If archaeology proves something otherwise (for any of those stories) then we have to consider that as part of the equation.
That being said archaeology isn’t going to change what is written as someone’s spoken words (in that we go to manuscripts, studies in Jewish cultural-isms, rabbinical ideas, and studies in various types of literature being used). I don’t think there is any single easy definable pattern in the whole matter - since who of us can easily discern ideas of ‘apocalypse lit’ with European understanding alone? What kind of writing do we have that even mimic prophet writings like that of Isaiah or Ezekiel? Top that off, the OT has writings so various to have one simple methodology would betray the whole thing - pslams, proverbs, kings, leviticus, genesis, jonah - these writings couldn’t be more all over the place? Genesis itself seems to hop from a creation story that doesn’t seem literal to a more literal storytelling genre from Abraham to Joseph. Is there a defined methodology - that works for all of it?
“I guess I am confused as to where you draw the line between “This must have happened” and “but that detail within may not have.” (Dagoods)
In the story with the plagues all I can do is take these writings at ‘their word’. I have to think 10 plagues happened since in the Exodus all 10 are outlined and mentioned (and they are not just bantered about as a number). So for that instance there seems to something within the text saying = 10 plagues (yes) and what they all were and why. I have no problem with that - it is explained. It is the way they said.
But as for a 40 day and 40 night account about anything - well how can anyone be sure this isn’t symbolicly used? Do any of the 40 day accounts have a 40 page journal accompanying them explaining the journey - a day by day if you will? No. But if 40 days is symbolic of the completion of the journey - kinda like a 4 season year - I get it - I come from a culture that does that also. It seems this is a nuance of the Jewish culture and the idea of symbolic numbers (ex: 3, 6, 7, 12, 40).
I think if the number is followed by detail then we have all the reason to assume that number is true (in which I could be wrong about the walls of Jericho - since 6 days isn’t that long - it’s just odd on the 7th the walls fall (sabbath - do no work)). But I think each episode has historical aspects contained within it (happened in a certain place, at a certain time, to certain people) but the ‘details’ have to be looked at closely as to what the writers mean (which is an analysis of literature and intent). Anything less than that is selling the writer short.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Just to respectfully clarify, Societyvs–I really was not trying to belittle you with the Cinderella and Three Pigs examples. I really just saw those as fitting with the other stories in my brain. I was thinking historocity of the stories was negated in the conversation. My purpose here is in no way to belittle anyone, or necessarily defend anything–just to discuss and learn through questions and perspective.
Oh, and referring to the pigs talking being part of a “tale”… Numbers 22:28 has a talking donkey.
April 12th, 2007 at 4:03 am
Thus saith societyvs:
“But as for a 40 day and 40 night account about anything - well how can anyone be sure this isn’t symbolicly used? Do any of the 40 day accounts have a 40 page journal accompanying them explaining the journey - a day by day if you will? No. But if 40 days is symbolic of the completion of the journey - kinda like a 4 season year - I get it - I come from a culture that does that also. It seems this is a nuance of the Jewish culture and the idea of symbolic numbers (ex: 3, 6, 7, 12, 40). ”
Yes, numbers are very significant in Jewish writting, of that there is no doubt. I am reading a book right now that shows how Revelation may be interpreted as tied to some kind of astrological calander. But regarding the Biblical flood story, I think its claim is of a *literal worldwide flood*. I say that because of the rainbow story. God places a rainbow in the sky as an everlasting covenant between God and all living flesh that “the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh”. Well, there have been LOTS of local floods since this time, and the ancients were no dummies. Either that covenant is literal in the sense that God promised he would not destroy the whole earth in a flood, or it is meaningless.
This is a claim by the Bible, a literal claim in my view, that can be checked archeologically and geologically, and astronomically too if you buy the ice canopy theory. Studies in these areas point to the same thing: No evidence anywhere of a worldwide flood, lots for local floods in the lower Tigris/Euphrates river valley. Is the Noah story mythology based on embellishments of natural floods? I think that is unquestionably the case. Yes God/Bible claims a worldwide flood - what are we to make of that?
Societyvs banters forth:
“In the story with the plagues all I can do is take these writings at ‘their word’. I have to think 10 plagues happened since in the Exodus all 10 are outlined and mentioned (and they are not just bantered about as a number).”
Again, this is something that can be checked archeologically and historically. I agree when you say archeology can only piece together part of the story. But as Finkelstein and Silberman show (see my reading list article from a few days ago), the *lack of evidence* speaks volumes. Several MILLION (600,000 adult males extrapolated out for the families) marched around the Sinai Wilderness for 40 years around 1400BC (using Biblical chronology), and left absolutely no trace of themselves. In these days of satellite infrared remote sensing, we can detect ancient trade routes. I saw an article the other day where satellite imaging has found and practically reconstructed an ancient buried city in Eastern Lebenon (I think it was there). The Sinai wilderness should be loaded with dentritus from this vast number of people camping out for 40 years. But there is nothing. The 10 plauges of Egypt, if taken literally from Biblical accounts, would probably have completely destroyed the Egyptian empire. Yet they continued on for at least another 1800 years.
What do we conclude from this? Finkelstein and Silberman argue that the Biblical accounts of the Exodus are myth, but the stories tell something like the hope of the Israelite people. Sorry if I got a detail wrong here or there - it is 4AM - but you get my meaning. Lack of any evidence speaks volumes.
The way I look at it is this: We cannot scientifically prove/disprove spiritual things. Yet the Bible does make claims - historical claims, astronomical claims, scientific claims, claims that CAN be checked scientifically. If those claims do not pass the test of authenticity, what are we to conclude about the Spiritual claims made by the same book?
April 12th, 2007 at 4:16 am
Verily Marie saith unto us:
“Oh, and referring to the pigs talking being part of a “tale”… Numbers 22:28 has a talking donkey. ”
You know, there were some things I did not like about being a Christian. One of them was trying to justify stories like ‘Balaam and his talking Donkey’ to unbelievers, and do it with a straight face.
I once brought an unbeliving friend to church the night our pastor was going over Genesis chapter 5. She burst out laughing when our Pastor went over the Patriarchs living in excess of 900 years. I mean she laughed LOUDLY. Boy was that embarrassing. I don’t mean I was embarrassed for her, I was embarrassed for our pastor having to explain this stuff to an obvious skeptic who found the whole thing hilarious. The pastor looked in our direction and said, “and for those of you who may think these long lives sound strange, please check out our library. We have books that show how ancient peoples actually had extended lives”. To which she started laughing again - LOUDLY. After the service, which was like a Comedy Club show to her, she asked me if I really believed ‘that stuff’. I said yeah, but maybe the long lives not so literally - totally unconvincing. The fact that I had to believe this kind of stuff to keep my Christian faith legitimate was pretty embarrassing to me. Wow, there is one girl who will never become a Christian.
April 12th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Regarding the legend of the Noah flood, there is an interesting theory that could be its basis. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory . I don’t think there are any comparable local floods in historical times that covered 60000 square miles of inhabitable land. Given the proximity to the emerging civilizations, it is no wonder that the oral traditions of such a flood might find their way into many ancient cultures, like the Hebrew culture. Its placement in the Bible is a clear message of the need to stay faithful. I think it is too literalistic to interpret the story as a documentary history of a worldwide flood. There are common uses of “the whole world” meaning “the known world” or “widely distributed” in language. The meaning of the Bible ought not hang on the interpretation of a word or expression in an ancient language no one spoke for hundreds of years. See http://www.quodlibet.net/thron-communication.shtml for what I think may be a more enlightened view of the communication method of the Bible.
April 12th, 2007 at 10:45 am
**The 10 plauges of Egypt, if taken literally from Biblical accounts, would probably have completely destroyed the Egyptian empire.** I’ve read that, too. Between the land and livestock that would’ve been destroyed, an entire generation of young men, and the fact that I believe the account says Egypt gave Israel a lot of jewels and such … there should’ve been archelogical evidence for that, as well as the Egyptians having an account in history. As it is, I don’t think the Jews take that as literal history.
**One of them was trying to justify stories like ‘Balaam and his talking Donkey’ to unbelievers, and do it with a straight face. ** In some ways, and this is for the religion overall, not directed at you, HIS, I think it would almost be more honest if when someone asks about the talking donkey, or the angels having the children with the women, or even the fact that Noah curses Canaan because one of his children saw him naked and did nothing about it, a Christian just said, “You know, there is some pretty ridiculous stuff in the Bible. But here’s why I still believe in God.” And then give a personal account or something. I think it would go a lot farther with an ‘unbeliever’ then trying to justify all that.
Of course, this would also have to work for some of the horrific stuff in the Bible, which might be harder. Like God ordering Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, or God sending the bears to kill the children, or even some of the things God orders Israel to do against other nations — ‘unbelievers’ have sincere problems with those stories, and I think it would go farther if a Christian would say, “They bother me, too.”
April 12th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Ed Lyman sez:
“Regarding the legend of the Noah flood, there is an interesting theory that could be its basis. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory . I don’t think there are any comparable local floods in historical times that covered 60000 square miles of inhabitable land. Given the proximity to the emerging civilizations, it is no wonder that the oral traditions of such a flood might find their way into many ancient cultures, like the Hebrew culture. Its placement in the Bible is a clear message of the need to stay faithful. I think it is too literalistic to interpret the story as a documentary history of a worldwide flood. There are common uses of “the whole world” meaning “the known world” or “widely distributed” in language. The meaning of the Bible ought not hang on the interpretation of a word or expression in an ancient language no one spoke for hundreds of years.”
Thanks for the interesting articles, Ed. I have never heard of this evidence before, so I enjoyed the read. I agree that the Noah story is actually an exaggerated myth, probably based on some devestaing real event. I once heard that the Biblical flood account is actually two stories by two separate but similar traditions woven together into the one event that we find in Genesis 6-9. I sat down to try and separate the two stories a couple weeks ago. It was pretty easy to do - it took me about 10 minutes, although I have no idea if I did it properly - but I bet I am close.
Your theory makes sense Ed - but I think the Bible claims it is worldwide primarily because of the covenant of the rainbow. Then again, the whole world to the ancients meant their known world to their known horizons, so who knows?
COnsider this interesting article from the Fundamentalist position that I used to hold. From Answers in Genesis:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.asp
Pitman (Columbia University geologist who headed the investigation) knows that his link between the Black Sea flood and Noah’s Flood does not fit with the Bible. For example, his Black Sea flood does not have 40 days and nights of rain (He says the ‘whole event probably lasted about 40 years’), does not have a 140-meter ark as described in the Bible, does not cover the highest mountains, does not recede off the Earth etc, etc. Pitman knows it does not fit, shrugs his shoulders and when questioned about it he simply said he does not read the Bible literally. Therefore, his link with Noah’s Flood is totally arbitrary. He wants a flood, so plucks Noah’s Flood out of the air. It is a good flood to pick because it sells lots of books. Furthermore, the geologists love him. They think by saying that Noah’s Flood was a local flood then they can dismiss the implications of the real global Flood described in the Bible.
This is just another attempt to undermine the integrity of the biblical account of Noah’s Flood. However, the Bible claims to be the Word of God and ‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God,’ (2 Tim. 3:16). To say that Noah’s Flood was anything other than what Scripture says it was (i.e., a global flood) is tantamount to declaring that God is a liar. If God is lying, then we cannot trust any part of the Bible, including the Gospel message of the Cross, which means there is no hope for salvation and eternal life. The implications of Ballard’s claims are far more serious than many realize.
April 12th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
**However, the Bible claims to be the Word of God and ‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God,’ (2 Tim. 3:16).** Does inspiration have to mean literally/historically true, though? There are some good messages in the Flood, even if one doesn’t take it as a flood for the entire world.
April 12th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Heather sez:
” Does inspiration have to mean literally/historically true, though? There are some good messages in the Flood, even if one doesn’t take it as a flood for the entire world. ”
No way. I used to think so as a Fundamentalist, but I have learned much since. 2 Tim 3:16 is all the Bible has going for it for its claim to inerrancy - and that ain’t much. I looked around at Answers in Genesis website, and they seem to be the hyper-literalist type of Christianity that I was trapped in for most of my life - kicking and screaming to get out by my brain, but trapped in by my beliefs. Not a happy place to be.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Certainly there are many of the stories, especially of the Old Testament, that are not patterns of the prescription God gives to man, but instead show some aspect of how man must conform his thoughts to understand God. The Hebrew wars against the Canaanites, for example, are described not to show that God needs some people to commit genocide against another, but to show that God is alone the true and holy deity. Those who recorded the words and what we may read into it may confuse the meaning. This shows the human derivation of the Bible. That is the remarkable parallel to me: Jesus was fully human. He peed, he took a crap, he farted, he burped, he may even have had bad breath at times. It was not the human Jesus that was so appealing, it was his message from the divine nature. In the same way, the Bible is bloody, tribal in perspective, egocentric for some of the writers, has legends that are not literally true, and parts can leave a sour taste in someone’s mind. But, when we seek its divine message, and are enabled by the Holy Spirit to really understand, it shows itself inspired. Note the context in 2 Tim 3, the purpose of the Scriptures is entirely spiritual. There is no mention of a historical or scientific accuracy, or even a process of dictation. The Q’uran claims to be a dictation and all of God. Not the Bible, in fact, its canon wasn’t even formalized for hundreds of years, and some people still have disputed some of the books of the canon (Martin Luther for one). No, the fundies have confused a lot of people about the nature of the Bible and thus the faith. Remember, fundamentalism is a NEW sect in Christianity. Their weird claims about the early church being like them are silly to the extreme, some of the early church fathers included apochraphal writings in their canon!
April 13th, 2007 at 9:27 am
This might not be believable but I am not an expert in the Tanakh, Torah, Prophets, etc. Just thought I’d throw that out there - I am not a rabbinical scholar (I am only learning as I go and studying the Tanakh is where I want rabbinical viewpoints - ie: their writings). Just a dis-claimer to the fact I have a lot of opinions but not all the answers.
“Oh, and referring to the pigs talking being part of a “tale”… Numbers 22:28 has a talking donkey.” (Marie)
I get it, sounds like a fairy-tale…hey I’ll check into it and see what rabbincal viewpoints might be - as for me - I have no clue about Balaam’s donkey - but it does seem mythical.
“But regarding the Biblical flood story, I think its claim is of a *literal worldwide flood*. I say that because of the rainbow story. God places a rainbow in the sky as an everlasting covenant between God and all living flesh that “the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh”.” (HIS)
Good? A lot of opinion in there but how much of that is a definite position either all Christendom would take or Rabbinical schools? I think the concensus is still out on this one.
I agree with Ed Lynam as to ‘all world’ meaning the ‘known world’. I think there was a flood in that region and how devestating it was - I have no clue - neither does science or archaeology (since I just watched a documentary on this the other night and they were ‘guessing’). So we are left with words on the page to decipher. We make of that flood what we will - but I do know this has been quite Europeanized (ie: whole world idea and literalness). As for the promise, I think it has been true to word for the ‘known world’ region.
“The 10 plagues of Egypt, if taken literally from Biblical accounts, would probably have completely destroyed the Egyptian empire. Yet they continued on for at least another 1800 years.” (HIS)
I will look into this one and see what I get - but as for your belief this is non-literal event - I am not sure that is the Jewish concensus as of yet. As for archaeological evidence - where is it, what is their ‘guess’timate, and how sure are they of their findings? Just in case we think because someone proports a theory they have it ‘all figured out’ - nothing could be farther from the scientific truth (ie; hypothesis need to be tested, re-tested, sometimes changed, etc).
As for the assumption this would have destroyed the Egyptian empire - I will also look into that - maybe they are exaggerating - I have no clue. Again, I am not the rabbinical scholar on this subject - I am just someone who reads the stories. But I will check into this.
“If those claims do not pass the test of authenticity, what are we to conclude about the Spiritual claims made by the same book?” (HIS)
What test of authenticity and by how much do they have to pass in order for them to hold any value to you? Who’s test of authenticity are we supposed to use? How am I to know this test of authenticity is authoritative? It’s interesting - wanna be scientific on the issue - but even science is not absolutely conclusive and we also soon forget science sometimes offers a few hypothesis’ to one issue (ie: global warming). But your yanking a chain and hoping it’s a certain breed of dog on the other end.
I checked into a lot of the ideas being bantered about on here and how conclusive they really are (or have been made to seem since some believe it to be so).
The whole synoptics thing about scritpure has no concensus whatsoever within the theological community - and there are at least 4 various theories which are ‘works in progress’ and on one knows which is totally true. Yet, I have Dagoods spouting one to me (the Mark and Q theory) like it was proven. That however is not the case one iota.
The whole resurrection thing is being judged by some inconsistencies within the texts (and this is proof enough to deny the event happened?). How so and by who’s overwhelming great criteria? When there are proponents on both sides of the debate claiming the lack of inconsistency works to support their position…who’s right? Do you see the inherent problem in that - both sides believe that! You guess who’s right.
Now I have questions about the Tanakh (of which I am not a rogue scholar on) and there are theories accompanying them (flood, Moses, Egyptians) - am I supposed to assume they are ‘telling the truth’? I am yet to find one area of biblical studies that isn’t under scrutiny and comes with a form of 1 to 2 hypothesis (or more) on the issue. I think we need to keep our minds a little more open on this before we close the cave. But if it’s to find the achilles heel within me - a question I cannot answer - cool. Just say it…I am really not as smart as I get credit for (I basically take people at their words).
April 13th, 2007 at 10:28 am
I would disagree that the 10 plagues, even if literally true, would have brought down the Egyptian empire. The Black Death destroyed 1/3 of the population of Christendom in the 14th century, and by the 16th century the vast European colonization and domination of the world was well underway. It seems to me the aspects of the Exodus story are like the flood story: likely based on real events (the Hyksos and monotheistic groups challenging the prevailing polytheism in Egypt) and written to teach spiritual truth, not a modern documentary or historical treatise.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Hmm…four quick general points.
The Flood
Not sure how a straightforward reading would mean anything but that God was destroying every living thing. Gen 7:21. If it was a local flood, or read to be a local flood, that must mean that every living thing was within that locale. Otherwise there would not be a reason to take 2 of every living thing in order to replenish the earth. Some of those creatures would live elsewhere.
Secondly, if it was a local flood, why go to all the trouble of building a boat? Why not walk out of danger? Think of how far, if one wanted ALL the animals, they would have to walk. They walked into a local flood?
We are uncertain as to how long it took for Noah to build a boat. God apparently gave 120 years to humans to give them a chance to straighten up. Sometime within that period, he instructed Noah to build a boat. Assume God came to Noah when there was only 50 years left. And told him to walk 40 weeks out of the year, 5 days a week. This gives Noah Saturday and Sunday off, as well as 3 months vacation. Not bad.
And, God says he only has to average 5 miles a day. If he could walk at 1 mph, it would only be 5 hours a day. Do you know how far he could walk in that period? Literally around the world. Twice.
If it was only a local flood, the far, FAR simpler solution would be a bit of travel. (How many hours and days and weeks and years would he have to work on a boat?)
The Ten Plagues
It would have destroyed the Egyptian society, and would have made resulted in so many ramifications for nearby countries, that it would be an impossibility to not appear archeologically. It is a either a complete fabrication, or a monumental distortion.
I wrote on it here:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/04/ten-plagues.html
Interesting, there is such a dearth of archeological evidence for the plagues/Exodus/genocide, that Christians cannot agree within a millennium (NOT century) when this event happened.
Synoptic problem
societyvs: The whole synoptics thing about scritpure has no concensus whatsoever within the theological community - and there are at least 4 various theories which are ‘works in progress’ and on one knows which is totally true. Yet, I have Dagoods spouting one to me (the Mark and Q theory) like it was proven.
First, if the only way one is going to believe anything about the Bible is if there is consensus in the theological community (unless one defines “theological community” to a very narrow set of people) then one can’t believe anything. There is no consensus as to whether Jesus even existed! Are we, therefore bound to not make any claim as to his existence?
I am uncertain as to where this concept comes from that simply because not every person agrees must mean that no one is correct.
Secondly, I would not narrow it down to four theories. Last I knew there were at least 23 in contention. A site that to list them for you, and further links:
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
However, the theory with the strongest support, and greatest number of backers is Markan priority. Which is what I hold to. (So does Daniel Wallace, a theological professor at Dallas Theological Seminary who has written a good essay on the subject. Not exactly a hotbed of atheistic liberalism, eh?)
Thirdly, a common misconception is that Markan priority also means a two-source hypothesis. In other words, “Q.” I don’t hold to “Q.” I am agnostic in the position. In other words, the jury is still out. If forced to make a decision today, I think the arguments against “Q” are slightly stronger.
The case of Markan priority has been proven. Whether that is sufficient or compelling to the reader is quite another story. Yes I “spout” it (interesting term). I haven’t seen a substantial argument that addresses it, nor that supports Matthean or Lukan priority. Johannine is very difficult, indeed!
Resurrection
societyvs: The whole resurrection thing is being judged by some inconsistencies within the texts (and this is proof enough to deny the event happened?).
Please, please, please, please, PLEASE, I beg of you! Avoid the dichotomy. Life is not “if there are inconsistencies, we throw the whole thing out” Nor is it “there are no inconsistencies, therefore the whole thing is true.”
For me, due to the unique nature of the event, I would like disinterested witnesses, even opposition witnesses, opposing opinions, materials written by eyewitnesses, close to the time of the event. Corroboration is but one part of the total package.
What I keep saying, (not wanting to speak for others) that in the face of the complete lack of any of these things, the fact that the best we have is contradictory stories makes it more plausible that this is a myth. Heck, it is more plausible that it is a myth prior to the contradictions. Those just are the icing on the cake, as it were.
More: When there are proponents on both sides of the debate claiming the lack of inconsistency works to support their position…who’s right? Do you see the inherent problem in that - both sides believe that! You guess who’s right.
Very good point. What I generally attempt to do is see if we can, at the least, get “both sides” to agree to a method to determine which is more likely to be true. I inspect what the other side typically uses as a methodology in a situation, and see if they stay consistent when defending their own.
For a simple example, if someone states that the Mormon theory of an advanced society in Mesoamerica is debunked by archeology, I see if they can stay consistent. The method being, if archeology has not discovered a single item (when there should be plenty) in support of the Mormon’s claim, then the Mormon’s claim must bend to archeology.
Yet if a the person then tells me Exodus occurred in the face of the same lack of archeology, I see they are not being consistent.
The method I propose, no Christian likes. So, I see what they prefer and move from there.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
DagoodS on the Flood:
“Secondly, if it was a local flood, why go to all the trouble of building a boat? Why not walk out of danger? Think of how far, if one wanted ALL the animals, they would have to walk. They walked into a local flood?”
Dagood, I agree that the Bible is speaking of a literal worldwide flood, not a local. Even if this was a local flood, but reached beyond the limits of the known world, this rules out the possiblity of the Supernatural causing the flood, or writing the account in Scripture. God would have directed Noah to travel with his family to safety, and God would have been smart enough not to have Noah build the barge.
DagoodS on the 10 Plagues:
“Even though we should have extensive amounts of evidence of an invasion of Hebrews into Canaan, we have none. ”
I have never heard of any archeological evidence of the Exodus, and the lack of evidence speaks volumes.
more on the ten plagues:
“It would have destroyed the Egyptian society, and would have made resulted in so many ramifications for nearby countries, that it would be an impossibility to not appear archeologically. It is a either a complete fabrication, or a monumental distortion”
I used to live 1 mile from the Mississippi River. Can you imagine a river that size turning blood for Seven Days?? Your only source of water - gone for a week. The Egyptian magicians could duplicate this miracle, but I could never understand where they found spare water - at any rate, if anyone could survive no water for a week, the fish, irrigation systems, watering for livestock, all would be damaged severly for who knows how long afterward!! I don’t know how any civilization could survive just the first plague, let alone all 10.
I enjoyed your article. Reading Exodus as a child, I too wondered where all the fresh livestock kept coming from.
DagoodS on the synoptic problem:
“The case of Markan priority has been proven. Whether that is sufficient or compelling to the reader is quite another story. Yes I “spout” it (interesting term). I haven’t seen a substantial argument that addresses it, nor that supports Matthean or Lukan priority. Johannine is very difficult, indeed!”
I don’t know if Markan priority has been ‘proven’, but the arguments for it are pretty compelling to me. One can just read the nearly identicle passages between Mark, Matthew and Luke, see how the stories and theologies develop from the more sparse Mark to the other two, and move from there. I know there are other theories out there, but I don’t know if any of this will ever be proven.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:06 am
HeIsSailing sez:
“I have never heard of any archeological evidence of the Exodus, and the lack of evidence speaks volumes.”
I am no archaelogical expert, but it is an interest of mine. Actually, there is little conclusive evidence of anything that happened in the time of the exodus, but there have been a number of finds that lend support to the Biblical account of the Exodus. The most prominent find in recent years was the discovery of a large number of Egyptian chariots and chariot wheels, preserved by encasements of coral, on the Red Sea floor.
Archaeology is not in the business of drawing hard and fast conclusions. The more I look into it, the more I realize that everything in this field is debated. Even in Egyptian history, for which we have a huge artifact catalogue, there is a vast panorama of opinion. I do think it’s unfair to say that there is no evidence for the exodus, since this topic has been hotly debated by scholars for years now, each with their own battery of “evidence”.
If you are interested in archaeology, you might check out “Biblical Archaeology Review”. Don’t be fooled by the “Biblical” - it is clearly not written by people who consider the Bible evidence, but it is concerned with archaeological finds that some link to the Bible narratives. Peer-reviewed and well-respected. I often disagree with the writers’ conclusions (arrogant as that sounds!) but it gives me a good idea of what archaeology is turning up and what ideas are out there.
There is also a rather large inventory of archaeological evidence for the Israelites entry into Canaan, despite the fact that DagoodS hasn’t seen it.
DagoodS sez:
“The case of Markan priority has been proven.”
Markan priority aside, what a statement like this proves is a lack of understanding of historical analysis and what it is and is not capable of “proving”. Many things may have been proven in your own mind, but what has been “proven” in the world at large is actually a very narrow body of knowledge.
When it comes to examining evidence, we ALL have to be willing to admit that whatever we may believe, strongly believe, even know to be true, our absolute non-debatable knowledge is very limited. An embrace of the debate is our only hope of gaining real insight in almost every field. Truth, about anything, is not a rock to be found lying about in the gravel of the daily newspaper. It’s not going to fall on our heads like Newton’s famous apple. It must be sought, striven for, in history, archaeology, science, philosophy - every area of inquiry.
April 14th, 2007 at 5:14 am
Whoops! Sometimes I forget the language difference. (And I, of all people, should know better.) In my haste I used the word “proven” forgetting my audience.
To a lawyer, “proven” means utilizing a large body of evidence to persuade a neutral party of a proposition. I don’t mean it in the scientific or philosophical sense of “absolute proof.” For example, I would tend to say that in one light, it was “proven” that O.J. Simpson did not kill his wife, and in another it was “proven” that he Did. Clearly, from an absolute truth standard, both cannot be true.
It is the way I talk. There has been a large body of evidence, and from the theological aspect, the textual criticism and the higher criticism aspect—one conclusion provides the best answer (although not the only answer, true)—that being Mark was written first. People from across the board, including Matthean priority proponents, Christians, Liberals, and non-believers have been persuaded by the evidence.
As near as I can tell, anything BUT Markan priority is becoming the vast minority. (Tomorrow, of course, that could change upon new discovery.)
But is it absolutely proven? No—of course not. Nothing is, in this field, it seems. Is it by far the most likely based upon the evidence we have? Yes.
I will try to qualify my statements in the future. (And should have here, as well.)
jennypo: The most prominent find in recent years was the discovery of a large number of Egyptian chariots and chariot wheels, preserved by encasements of coral, on the Red Sea floor.
Do you have any citations for that? The only person that I knew who was claiming any chariot wheel(s) from Exodus was Ron Wyatt here:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm
This claim has been thoroughly debunked. (Why didn’t they bring up the wheel? Why is it that the wheel is NOT made the same way Egyptians made wheels? Hint: they were not solid metal. Why is it that we have no point-of-reference to determine the size of the wheel? Why is it that the wheel looks EXACTLY like a steam ship valve? And the coral formation could be anything. Including entirely coral. Like saying Peter Pan’s ship was flying in the sky because we saw a cloud in the shape of a ship.
These are little better than the alien or Elvis pictures. Blurred, indistinct photographs of what could be almost anything. The mind sees what it wants to see.)
But do you have any other links or cites? I am always interested…
jennypo: There is also a rather large inventory of archaeological evidence for the Israelites entry into Canaan, despite the fact that DagoodS hasn’t seen it.
What? What is the large inventory of evidence for Joshua’s Genocide? We all agree there is evidence over 1000’s of years of battles and wars within the tribal communities of Canaan. That cities were attacked, destroyed, abandoned and even rebuilt numerous times.
But this is a sporadic happening over a long course of history. There is no invasion evidence of Jericho. No influx of Egyptian goods. No indication of a spreading of destruction as described in Joshua. There is no introduction of a new culture, new language, new religious scheme.
You are quite correct, that I have not seen it. Perhaps some links or books by which I could find this evidence?
jennypo: Archaeology is not in the business of drawing hard and fast conclusions. The more I look into it, the more I realize that everything in this field is debated.
I agree. But let’s put the evidence we have on the table. We may disagree over the interpretation, we may disagree as to the dating—but at least let’s look at the evidence. ALL the evidence.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Don’t give us, HIS! I, and many others like me and you, are also out there struggling. It’s worth the struggle, though, to be free of such strangleholds as the church and the bible!
April 14th, 2007 at 10:05 am
oops. I meant to say, “Don’t give up.”
April 15th, 2007 at 1:30 am
DagoodS,
Thanks for your quick response. Sorry if it sounded like I was jumping on you for using “proven”. As a legal term, it is commonly used as you used it, but I took exception because of the fact that the arguments were not legal ones. Understandable if you’re a lawyer, though, which I think you are - ?
I’ve listed a few references for archaeological evidence supporting the Biblical exodus and settlement in Canaan. Of course, you won’t find it convincing. To tell you the truth, I’d lose respect for you if you did. Archaeology is a field whose funding comes from those with vested interests on both sides. It is interesting and can add much to our body of knowledge, but the minute we allow it to draw conclusions, we run into trouble.
For this reason, and because I am no expert, I’m ashamed of myself for joining this discussion. However, since I have jumped in, I’ll offer the back-up you rightly demand:
For a more-or-less “objective” description of the two sides of the debate, see the article in TIME magazine, which can be found at
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,133539,00.htm
You might also be interested in the following books or links:
http://www.geocities.com/genesiscommentary/hebrews.html
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn011/archaeol.html
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Bible_-_Part_2.asp
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/jericho/html
“Pharoahs and Kings” and “A Test of Time” David Rohl
“Ancient Orient and Old Testament” Kenneth Kitchen
“The Habpiru” Moshe Greenberg in “American Oriental Society”, 1955
“The Walls of Jericho” Bryant G. Wood in “Bible and Spade”, Spring 1999
“Origins Revisited” Neil Soggie in Journal of Biblical Studies, 3.1 2003
“Unwrapping the Pharoahs” John F. Ashton and David Down
“Israel in Egypt” James K Hoffmeier
I’ve tried to be fair here, and not include too many “religious” sources, but the fact is that most of the scholars in this area are divided into those who believe the Old Testament and are interested in seeing it supported, or those who do not and are interested in seeing it fall. The arguments have run in circles for centuries.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:32 am
I just read the TIME article - it pretty much confirms everything that I have read, and even cites Israel Finkelstein, archaeologist of Tel Aviv University and author of The Bible Unearthed which I read earlier this year. Concerning the Exodus:
“And considering that artifacts from as far back as the late Stone Age have turned up in the Sinai , it is perplexing that no evidence of the Israelites’ passage has been found. William Dever, a University of Arizona archaeologist, flatly calls Moses a mythical figure. Some scholars even insist the story was a political fabrication, invented to unite the disparate tribes living in Canaan through a falsified heroic past.”
This was all covered in great detail in Finkelstein. He also covered the Conquest of Canaan:
“Unlike the Exodus, the story of Joshua and the conquest of Canaan can be tested against a rich archaeological record. The scientific consensus: bad news for the biblical account. According to the Book of Joshua, the Israelite leader and his armies swept into Canaan, destroying cities including Jericho, Hazor and Ai, after which the Israelites settled the land.”
I also looked through the search engine of BAR looking for any articles about chariots found at the bottom of the Red Sea cited in BAR articles. I hit nothing but blanks. So a reputable publication like BAR has nothing on it that I could find. All I could find was the site that DaagoodS cited above, and a couple of articles like this one on worldnetdaily:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168
Ultimately, everything seems to link back up to Ron Wyatt’s arkdiscovery website. He seems to be the only man pushing the discovery of chariots on the bottom of the Red Sea. If there is only one guy out there pushing this claim - that smells of something fishy.
In the end, I think the best way to approach this whole matter is to just read the text of Scripture and see if a strightforward reading makes any sense. I tried to do that with the Eden Story, not looking at the science of our origins or archeology, but just reading the story - and asking, does our current interpretation of this story make any sense?
April 15th, 2007 at 11:49 am
jennypo,
If you don’t mind a momentary rabbit trail, I would like to follow this concept of legal method to give you some background on where I am coming from. Thanks for your patience…
Legal Method
The implementation of the legally system is designed to answer a simple question—“What happened?” It includes more than places, times and names, it also includes motivations, biases, and credibility. The same question we have in the Synoptic Question—“What happened?”
Think of the tools it uses: testimony, documents, circumstantial evidence, expert testimony, and argumentation. The same evidence we utilize with the Synoptic Question.
Further, how does the legal system attempt to be as objective as possible in this quest? Two particular things it does: First it uses the adversarial system, and second it has a neutral party making the determination. Both of these areas could use some further unpacking.
The adversarial system, a curious creature, is to pit two (or more) people of diametrically opposing views against each other, in the hopes that it will not be a one-sided presentation, but that the party making the determination can see ALL alternatives. In other words, we don’t get just one person’s view. We hope the fight will bring out ALL the possible facts and arguments.
On a personal note, this was, by far, the biggest shock to myself. I realized that within the single most important belief of my life, I abandoned the methodology I implemented in the vast predominance of my life. HeIsSailing mentioned in a blog entry how he had never used the same method he used in his work as he did in his Christianity. I relate to the sentiment 100%. I did the same thing.
On Monday through Saturday, while at work, I would question everything. I question my own clients, I question the witnesses, I question the other party and their attorney. I question the experts. I look at it from my side, from their side, and from the neutral position. I tear apart every claim to see how valid it is.
But on Sunday, I would only look at one side. The Pastor would say, “They found the walls of Jericho in archeology and they had fallen outside” and I would nod my head and never look up the other side. It is truly embarrassing to me (now) as to how I prided myself in looking up verses to see if the Pastor quoted them accurately (and catching him sometimes) but I never looked at it from the position of a non-Christian. To me the “opposition” was another Christian that would question the claim. I never looked at it from a non-theistic position.
What I would NEVER accept in myself for six days out of the week, on the seventh I gladly embraced! What a shock to realize what I had done.
This is the reason, jennypo, I post on Christian sites. Why I am a member of “Debunking Christianity.” Not that I am on some atheistic missionary bent. No—because I want people to NOT be like I was and have a chance to see both sides. See the arguments of both positions. If a person reviews my claims as to the authorship of 1 Timothy (for example) and a claim of Pauline authorship, is familiar with the arguments, weighs the evidence and concludes that Pauline authorship is more compelling, that is perfectly fine with me.
What I fear, though, are the millions of Christians who are sitting in pews and hearing just one side. A side, sadly, that is not completely forthright.
If Christianity is true, it should welcome an adversarial system. That would only reinforce its validity. Take on the best and come out winningly. Yet what I see are most Christians that have never read the other side. How many Christians have read a book written by a scientist that supports evolution? Or do they read what a creationist says that evolutionists say? How would Christians like it if I made claims of what theism was like, ‘cause Richard Dawkins told me? Wouldn’t they tell me to read Christians themselves, not what an atheist says a Christians says? Yet they do the same…
Secondly, the legal system uses a neutral. Someone uncommitted to either position to make a determination. This is such a HUGE value, that most do not recognize.
How often, in theistic debates do we see one side say, “I think…” and then the other side responds “I think..” and we go back and forth, each presenting their subjective opinion as to what is more plausible? How do we get the objectivity back into the process? How do we keep from entering the debate with a pre-conceived notion and then maintaining it despite the evidence?
Do Christians have a method in place by which they can recognize they are wrong?
The value of a neutral is that they can see all the evidence, all the arguments, all the claims and make the determination as to that all important question—“What Happened?” The neutral re-introduces an objective view.
This way, as we argue as to who wrote what Gospel was first; we can agree on a method, agree on the evidence, agree on the presentation. Let a neutral decide. Then you and I can walk away actually being willing to modify our beliefs to the evidence, rather than dogmatically maintain a belief despite all the evidence.
Frankly, I think the legal method is an outstanding way to determine such things as a resolution to the Synoptic problem. I have a sneaky suspicion as to why most Christians that I have debated significantly with do not prefer it. Even they see Christianity will lose. I find that intriguing.
Btu I am not addicted to only the legal method. If the Christian would like to propose a method that introduces ALL the evidence and provides an objectivity which would cause them to change their position, I would use it. I just don’t see Christians proposing such a method.
What I see a preference for the “I think..” and nothing more.
Joshua’s Genocide
I was slightly surprised by your claim of a “large inventory” of archeological evidence for the Hebrew’s entrance into Canaan. If anything I was perturbed you “jumped on” the claim of all this evidence that I have not seen.
I thought I had researched the area fairly sufficiently. That is why I asked for this “large inventory” of evidence.
And still have not seen any. None. Not a bit. Oh, we all agree there is evidence that a nation existed. The Moabite Stone or the Merneptah Stele would be indications of that. (And I would dearly love to dig in to these claims, but another time. Only enough I can type in a day.) Further, we all agree that there were fights and battles within Canaan.
What we are looking for is evidence of an invasion of a separate tribe. And there is no evidence of this occurring. None. Let alone a “large inventory.” While I appreciated the links, I was well aware of these articles. I have written against Kitchen, and if you insist I could probably dig that up. (If I remember correctly, it was a comment on another blog.) I was aware of Wood and his incorrect Radiocarbon dating. I was aware of Wyatt and his “chariot wheels.”
None of these even remotely present evidence of Joshua’s genocide. In fact, if you read your cited articles, like Soggie, no one is looking for evidence of an invasion. That is a dead issue. Gone. All they are looking for is some basis, no matter how small, to be the kernel of history by which the myth of the book of Joshua developed. As an analogy they are looking for the arrow point to prove that an archer/robber lived. The “history” of Robin Hood is no longer even considered.
Look how Christianity has developed in this regard. At the turn of the Twentieth Century, the feeling was that every turn of the shovel confirmed the Tanakh. (Don’t forget, the Jews have a far greater stake in proving its validity as to their claim for the land. Much more than Christians do.)
However, the evidence was not appearing. It was not showing what literalists desired. In the 60’s and 70’s rather than all this “confirmation” much of Christianity retreated to “all depends on how one evaluates the evidence. It is possible that some of the evidence could point in a direction of an invasion.”
It didn’t. By 2000, the same Christians are forced to retreat to “perhaps some day we might find some evidence that could confirm that something happened.” I suspect most Christians in the pews have no clue how far they have retreated in the archeological aspect. They still hear some pastor make some claim of how archeology has proven the Tanakh, and have no clue as to the actual state of the evidence.
jennypo: I’ve tried to be fair here, and not include too many “religious” sources, but the fact is that most of the scholars in this area are divided into those who believe the Old Testament and are interested in seeing it supported, or those who do not and are interested in seeing it fall.
Who is interested in seeing the Tanakh “fall”? What they are interested in is determining that most simple, yet difficult of questions—“What happened?” You may not realize how devastating this is to the Jewish community as compared to the Christian community. Their claim to the land rides upon it! Otherwise, they have as much “right” to the land as the Palestinians!
This claim of bias would need to be supported.
More: The arguments have run in circles for centuries.
Perhaps. But thanks to technology and the ability to share information, we have gained significant amounts of knowledge since 1970. None of which helps literalists.
Is this, now, where the retreat has gone? “Sure, all the information we have gained in the last 40 years is against our position, but heck—people have debated this for 100’s of years, so the jury is still out.”
Is that the best Christianity has to offer? That since its propositions have been debated for so long, despite the facts, it is possible to still be true? Seen in that light, it doesn’t sound very convincing, does it?
April 15th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Dagood,
you aren’t the first to notice that the airs many Christians put on on Sunday are quite different from their Monday to Saturday routine. But I’m not sure whether that is all bad. Perhaps they should use their brains on Sundays too and walk in the light of Jesus the other six days. I agree many if not most Christians are out of balance.
**Is that the best Christianity has to offer?**
It is interesting to note that Christianity doesn’t give us the option of being beyond any reasonable doubt. Christianity depends on the truth of its principles to survive, not on the unfolding archaeological record. BTW, evolution rests on this same idea that future discoveries will prove it true beyond any reasonable doubt. In your hypothetical courtroom, Christianity and evolution would be in the docket together.
What Christianity depends on are its two primary commands, love God first, love your neighbor as yourself. When you put God first, you take a great leap out of your own ego-centric world and enter the dimension of that Creator who thought more of us than He thought of His own quiet time. Loving your neighbor at least as much as you love yourself is the application of that principle on a daily basis - and we testify to the progressive transformation.
Jesus said that the Scriptures “hang on these two commands”. They do not hang on rows of people with metal detectors cris-crossing the desert.
This probably won’t be a satisfactory point to you, but it might help you understand why Christians can believe with certainty now that the Scriptures do not deceive them.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Jim Jordan Sez:
“Jesus said that the Scriptures “hang on these two commands”. They do not hang on rows of people with metal detectors cris-crossing the desert.
This probably won’t be a satisfactory point to you, but it might help you understand why Christians can believe with certainty now that the Scriptures do not deceive them. ”
Jim, JennyPo - the whole reason I started this website is because I have heard pretty much one side of the story my entire Christian Life. The orthodox story. That’s it - this giant world and a Christian tradition that is thousands of years old, and traditions that go on well beyond that - and I am in my comfy little cucoon with my cozy beliefs. Many things about my beliefs just did not add up - and I have to get out of this cucoon and just explore where my beliefs came from, why I believe, and what sense I can make of it.
I made this website to expore other options, other ways of interpreting the text, being a little more critical of my beliefs and traditions - and frankly the Christian arguments and apologetics, the very ones that I had down pat and used in witnessing for years are just - LAME.
I knew the arguments for my own Christian faith were lame when I was a Christian, I just took it on faith, but I could not continue parroting that stuff with any honesty or integrity. After doing lots of Bible Study, some critical thinking, some reading about where our Christian origins really come from, I never realized just how lame that stuff really is.
Do you know a single non-Christian who has been convinced that Christianity is true by reading a CS Lewis, Josh McDowell, Ravi Zacharias or William Lane Craig book? Maybe you have, but I never met any. That’s because those apolgetic arguments only work on the faithful, and only exist to bolster their own faith. Contrary to that, it seems that many people quit Christianity because many of those same arguments are just - LAME.
Leaving Christianity has nothing to do with egocentric thought. It has everything to do with not making sense anymore.
Jim, what you are asking DagoodS and me to do is to just ignore everything we read, everything we witness, all the evidence that points away from our orthodox beliefs - just close our eyes, close our ears and just - BELIEVE.
I wish I could, but it’s just not that simple.
April 15th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
**Do you know a single non-Christian who has been convinced that Christianity is true by reading a CS Lewis, Josh McDowell, Ravi Zacharias or William Lane Craig book?** If anything, some of those arguments/attitudes are enough to drive people further away from Christianity.
April 15th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Jim Jordan,
I apologize if I gave the impression that Christians “put on airs” on Sunday, or even that I did. What I was saying was that I used my skeptical mind on Monday through Saturday, and for some bizarre reason turned off that same mind come Sunday.
I did not mean to give the impression, either, that Christianity needs to be proven “beyond a reasonably doubt.” You are quite correct, to be fair, if I held others to that standard, I should equally be held to the same. Such a claim would surely come back to bite me in the hinny!
The standard I use is preponderance of the evidence. More likely than not. More plausible than the opposing position.
Actually, when copying Mark, the author of Matthew added Jesus saying the “Law and the Prophets” hang on “Love God. Love your neighbor.” Nothing about the historical (or poetic either, for that matter) books. Jesus took the history of Exodus literally. John 3:14.
I understand the sentiment. But this is asking me to take the person who said it at face value. To not test his credibility. (Oddly, in direct contradiction to what the Bible tells me to do. 1 Thess. 5:21)
If Jesus did not get history correct—why should I accept his statements about the Law and Prophets as valid?
April 15th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
DagoodS sez:
“This is the reason, jennypo, I post on Christian sites. Why I am a member of “Debunking Christianity.” Not that I am on some atheistic missionary bent. No—because I want people to NOT be like I was and have a chance to see both sides. See the arguments of both positions. If a person reviews my claims as to the authorship of 1 Timothy (for example) and a claim of Pauline authorship, is familiar with the arguments, weighs the evidence and concludes that Pauline authorship is more compelling, that is perfectly fine with me.”
DagoodS,
You are dead right here. I wasn’t trying to get into an argument over archaeology, since I simply don’t have enough of a background to do it. What I wanted to say is that there is another side. There are respected scholars (not just Ron Wyatt) who disagree with you. There are other arguments.
Looking back, it wasn’t a point worth making. The reason I am here is because I have met a God who doesn’t match the picture I see presented by popular Christianity. If I didn’t know him, I’d probably be forced into your position. I want to give other people hope that there is a God who is everything he should be, not a petty power-seeker who takes delight in pottery shards that back him up. This is not the way he will be known. He won’t accept it, and neither should any of you who ever wonder if there is really a God who is Love and Truth.
My response was childish and impulsive. I’m sorry. To you and to him.
April 16th, 2007 at 7:15 am
No need to apologize at all, jennypo. I should apologize to you. I have a tenacious personality, and don’t know when to quit. My tone was much harsher than necessary.
I feel, at times, as if I am perpetually debating “they.” You know who “they” is. When a person starts a claim or story with “They say…” We never can find the elusive “they” or where “they” came from. Often the person themselves will not remember where the claim originated or to whom I should turn to find this “they.”
The other day, I was listening to Dr. Kroll on “Back to the Bible” and he made the statement, “They found a copy of the Gospel of John dated to 125 A.D.” This is only correct in the most loosest of senses, being that they found a scrap of papyrus with portions of Greek words from five (5) verses from John, which was dated to 150 C.E. /- 25 years by the writing.
As he was speaking, I could picture in my mind the chain of events that was about to occur. Some pastor, listening to Dr. Kroll, will assume the Dr. had thoroughly researched the issue and was speaking the Gospel truth. Besides, no Christian would mislead, true? The pastor, justifiably, would accept that the research was done, and log this tidbit away for future use.
A few months later, to bolster his sermon on John 3:16, the pastor demonstrates his depth of study by proclaiming, “They found a copy of the Gospel of John dated to 125 A.D.” Some layperson, who teaches a Sunday School, hears that and files it away in memory. A few months later, uses the same sentence in a class. (And this is assuming that the statement stays the exact same. Most times it gets tweaked to more than the Gospel of John, or a bit earlier date.)
Soon that sentence is traveling ‘round the Christian circles. Some day a Christian hears it, and realizes that they heard it from a pastor, a teacher, and a radio personality. From THAT many sources (all Christian) it simply MUST be true!
And so, the Christian enters the Internet world, fully loaded for battle, and proclaims with confidence that “They found a copy of the Gospel of John dated to 125 A.D.” I ask where the person heard THAT claim. “They say it.” I am fighting “they.”
So I ask for evidence. Backing. Proof. Luckily for the Christian “Google” is a well-worn bookmark, so they googlewhack it. Only to discover that it was not exactly as they thought. What to do? Can’t have this blasted hard-hearted heathen actually be right, can we? (Note: I poke fun at myself, too.)
They cling on the fact that there is “some” controversy surrounding the dating, hold on to the fact that 125 must be true, since numerous other Christians say so, and wander off to discuss “election” with the Calvinists.
The reason I ask for evidence, jennypo, is not solely for me. (I am interested, of course, to see if something new developed that I was unaware. Often is the case some new theory is out there I hadn’t heard before.) It is partly for the theist. I hope the theist looks up the evidence for themselves. Rather than accepting it from a pastor, or teacher, or even a Christian book, look at the evidence itself.
For example, you listed articles by David Wood. Do you know what David Wood’s evidence, not his claim, not his argument, but what his base evidence was for the proposition of invasion? Incorrect radiocarbon dating of material from Jericho. You read that right—it was WRONG dating! Upon other dating of the same material, it was demonstrated he was off by 150 years. The correct date aligns with every other claim of Kenyon.
Yet what do I see? (And not pointing the finger at you, particularly, here.) Christians continue to use Wood (or Wyatt) as the evidence for the claimed invasion. It is the perpetual “they.” An incorrect claim is spread ‘round and ‘round the Christian community enough that everyone begins to believe it.
Thanks to interactions such as this blog, I am starting to see a glimpse of hope, though. I am starting to see Christians telling other Christians to NOT use this incorrect data. I think, frankly, it is a wise move.
Anyway, you are right. There are respected scholars who disagree with me. I have just never seen a single piece of evidence as to why. I know the claims; just don’t see the evidence. All I can do is keep asking for the evidence, in the hopes of either discovering something I did not know earlier, or, if there is no evidence, hope that the Christian discovers that fact for themselves.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Hi DagoodS
I see you can sympathize with many Christians’ frustration when given the “most scholars say…” canard. This is the same thing we hear in secular circles supporting the dubious and the unprovable.
**Jesus took the history of Exodus literally. John 3:14.
**
I don’t see that. Jesus indeed pointed to it but He also pointed to Jonah’s story as an example, and not many scholars have taken that literally at all, then or now. I can refer to the Good Samaritan as an example of how to act knowing full well that it was never determined that such a man or such an incident actually existed. It’s safe to say that Jesus made it up. It was a parable.
**If Jesus did not get history correct—why should I accept his statements about the Law and Prophets as valid? **
1) Was history the question or was Jesus’ truth the question? I’d say the latter was at issue. I don’t see a great error in not mentioning the literary writings. [I recommend posting a definition of what inerrancy means to you.]
2) You seem so sure that historical evidence, future historical evidence, will tell a far different tale, one that puts Moses into the realm of fiction. This is still a great assumption.
The truth is that Jesus used parables, and these stories are common in the Bible. By your measuring stick, wouldn’t these parables make the Bible errant because they were not factual? On those grounds, I would find the Bible indefensible. Most of the historical narrative in its pages would have to be considered fables until bit by bit it is backed up by archaeological discoveries. And then what? What if we find in the meantime that they are good fables? That we can apply their truths and see things fall into place around us?
I don’t see how anyone could walk in the light of Christianity while waiting for a more accurate historical confirmation of its principal facts. The fact is that the infallibility of Christ’s teachings are what attracts us to Christianity. Paul Tillich and Thomas Merton wrote volumes on Christianity yet not one book on archaeological data to back up the Bible’s historical claims. The answer as to why that is is simple; the evidence was in their own lives.
You and HIS are on an exciting journey to look for the historical roots of what the Bible claims. I’m with you 100% on that. It’s healthy for Christians to keep up with new discoveries both in science and archaeology. But we can’t make that the rock of our faith because it’s very crumbly. We don’t want to be the racehorse that gets stuck in the starting gate.
Blessings.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:42 am
DagoodS,
Don’t stop asking for the evidence. It only stands to reason that if we argue, we must produce evidence. No matter how strongly we believe, no matter how surely we know, it is impossible to communicate without something to back it up. I wish I knew enough about archaeology to give you the evidence you deserve in this area, but I don’t. That should have shut my mouth to begin with. But even were I able to produce enough evidence to change your mind, it would accomplish nothing except make me right.
No, this is not the message I have to tell.
I am here because I have met with a God who is vastly different from the God presented by popular Christianity. It is not my purpose to tell people that God exists - instead, I hope my experience of WHO that God is, will give people enough hope, enough hunger, to continue on their own road to knowing the God I know.
Demand evidence. Demand reason. Without it, we have no measuring board. Don’t let anyone tell you that reason has to be sacrificed in order to know God. Logic alone is not enough, but for some of us, it’s the only place to start, and you certainly won’t know the God I know by turning reason off. You are absolutely right that if Jesus didn’t get history correct, then you have no reason to accept his statements about the law and the prophets. He didn’t say he was a nice guy here to tell us a good way to live. He said he is God. If he is God, then every one of his statements has to be true, and holding him to that is respectful to him, not arrogant.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Ok, i only read 5 paragraphs before saying this, but you said something that kind of applies to my view. when you said “Who does not want to believe in an eternal paradise, a paradise with no sickness or pain, an eternity with my family and loved ones…” you pointed out why i didnt want to believe it also.My sister died and i knew she didnt believe in God. She was the only REAL part of my family that i knew because i was adopted. I only got to see her a few times so i didnt really get to know much about her. That made me hate the fact that i wouldnt ever get to see her again.
October 11th, 2007 at 10:30 am
World Religion Resources…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…
October 12th, 2007 at 6:07 am
Teen Lesbian Fucking…
Sorry, it just sounds like a crazy idea for me :)…
October 12th, 2007 at 9: