|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: So what was Israel supposed to do with all the orphans?
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
No, you are seeing what you want to see.
I have not 'disregarded' 9 or 10 pages of evidence. I have responded to it. If people don't accept my arguments, that has nothing to do with me.
You keep insisting that I should roll over and accept your point of view, and that of others, simply on the basis that you say it. It doesn't work like that. Truth is not established by mob rule or majority vote.
You can try and bully me as much you like, but, like I said elsewhere, we learn in the classroom not the playground. In fact, the more you insist and hector, the less likely I am to listen, because I prefer to consider reasoned arguments and coherent evidence. None of the evidence presented to 'prove' that the account in Joshua is historically inaccurate is convincing, with the sole exception of one piece of C-14 evidence, which does not agree with other pieces of the same kind of evidence (i.e. other C-14 readings from the destruction layer ranging from 1347 to 1690 BC).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have not 'disregarded' 9 or 10 pages of evidence. I have responded to it. If people don't accept my arguments, that has nothing to do with me.
It could very well have to do with you. You could be presenting your evidence poorly. But if it does have nothing to do with you, that contradicts your statement
quote:
None of the evidence presented to 'prove' that the account in Joshua is historically inaccurate is convincing,
That's nothing to do with the evidence. Sauce for the goose.
quote:
You keep insisting that I should roll over and accept your point of view, and that of others, simply on the basis that you say it.
You immediately contradict this as well.
quote:
None of the evidence presented to 'prove' that the account in Joshua is historically inaccurate is convincing, with the sole exception of one piece of C-14 evidence,
Ah, it's NOT simply on the basis that it is being said here. There IS evidence presented. Gee, your earlier statement entirely fails to countenance this fact.
In fact the preponderance of the evidence ("prove" is nonsense in this context; Math has proofs--History, not so much) is against you. You have some pottery sherds, and your unshakeable conviction that the text MUST meet post-Enlightenment standards of historicity.
You've not yet even begun to attempt to defend the idea that a bunch of 5th century BCE goatherds could have a post-Enlightenment theory of history. Where did they get such an anachronistic theory of history? Is there any evidence of any of their contemporaries having a post-Enlightenment concept of historical writing? Let's hear it then.
Prediction: you'll blow this post off and not attempt to respond to my points, especially the last.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
He is indeed.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Then you've been winding us up and stringing us along all the time, then?
All this stuff about pottery and dating and you are either unable to respond to Mousethief's point about pre-modern histories apparently being written to suit Post-Enlightenment historical sensibilities or you don't think it's an issue at all ...
Either way, a pretty untenable position to hold.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But Jesus is not a liar. His righteousness does not involve giving false impressions.
Even if this assertion is, arguendo or otherwise, rock-solid certain, his righteousness does NOT preclude ordinary mortal humans from receiving or perceiving or developing false impressions. Or are we to assume that the scribe or scribes who recorded the Book of Joshua for posterity some 700 years after the events was/were infallible rather than mortal and/or human, and write in such a way that only one (correct) reading of their efforts is possible?
[ 20. March 2014, 15:45: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Then you've been winding us up and stringing us along all the time, then?
All this stuff about pottery and dating and you are either unable to respond to Mousethief's point about pre-modern histories apparently being written to suit Post-Enlightenment historical sensibilities or you don't think it's an issue at all ...
Either way, a pretty untenable position to hold.
Well, I really don't think my reply earlier today to goperryrevs was a wind-up. I look forward to a sensible response to that, although I notice that Porridge, who is a decent contributor, has responded, so I hope to give him the time of day later.
You expect me to listen to you, but you almost never engage with the arguments, but just spend your time playing a personality game with me.
I am not falling for it. You go on about 'myth', but when I quoted from a scholarly article on the subject, you just ignored it. You are clearly out of your depth.
If you seriously think that you can railroad me into accepting your point of view, when you present no evidence, then you are grievously mistaken. Give me just one good reason why I should.
And as for the "mob rule" approach, I frankly could not care less whether it is me against a million other posters. I am a free thinker (properly speaking), meaning I think for myself, and therefore I do not base my views on the combined opinions of mutually back-scratching opponents. In fact, if anything, such opposition only makes me feel more motivated to think for myself, and not give in to manipulators.
And by the way... if you think I am defiant just for the sake of it, I am very willing to admit that I am wrong and concede points, as I have done quite a number of times both on this site and elsewhere. But I will only concede if proven to be wrong with proper evidence and argument, and not insistent opinion and psychological pressure.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm going to rot in Hell over this but I seriously can't resist it.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You are clearly out of your depth.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
The day I see 'proper evidence' provided on this thread from your side of the argument then that's the day that Hell freezes over.
Your arguments have been demolished time and time and time again and you still claim to have the moral and intellectual high ground.
It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Yet again...
NO EVIDENCE.
Ah well...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Your arguments have been demolished time and time and time again and you still claim to have the moral and intellectual high ground.
Instead of bluffing, how about this..
List the refutations of my arguments.
Come on, let's see this great demolition job. I'll start you off...
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Please fill in the blanks. This should be good for a laugh...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Give me just one good reason why I should.
We've collectively given you lots of reasons why you should change your mind, including:
The most convincing independent scientific evidence (ie does not rely on interpretation of pottery) supports a date suggested by one interpretation of pottery that Jericho was uninhabited at the time the Israelites were thought to have destroyed the city.
The Book of Joshua is, by the best sources, written down up to 700 years after the events it describes.
Tribes which, according to Joshua's account were utterly destroyed, appear later on.
The Book of Joshua was written well before any notion of accurately recording impartial history was conceived.
The Book of Joshua contains supernatural occurrences (God speaking to man, the sun standing still in the sky, city walls collapsing to the sound of horns) that are unknown in 'normal' histories, but are well documented in other mythological texts of the time (which you don't take to be true).
So don't pretend we haven't come up with good reasons: we have. You choose to deny they're good reasons, and/or ignore their importance. You say you're waiting for evidence, yet I'm completely satisfied that there is no evidence that would convince you that you're either wrong, or would give you concern that you might be wrong.
I'd like you to state what kind of evidence you'd accept as valid. If nothing we've said so far fits the bill, it should be relatively straightforward for you to give us a list.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
The most convincing independent scientific evidence (ie does not rely on interpretation of pottery) supports a date suggested by one interpretation of pottery that Jericho was uninhabited at the time the Israelites were thought to have destroyed the city.
Unconvincing, because the C-14 readings are erratic from the same destruction layer of Jericho, ranging from 1347 to 1690 BC.
Furthermore, the dating of pottery is a standard discipline within archaeology, and therefore not to be dismissed, as you appear to be doing.
quote:
The Book of Joshua is, by the best sources, written down up to 700 years after the events it describes.
And your evidence for this claim is?
quote:
Tribes which, according to Joshua's account were utterly destroyed, appear later on.
I have already refuted that. Did you miss my post about the Jebusites?
quote:
The Book of Joshua was written well before any notion of accurately recording impartial history was conceived.
And your evidence for this assertion is?
quote:
The Book of Joshua contains supernatural occurrences (God speaking to man, the sun standing still in the sky, city walls collapsing to the sound of horns) that are unknown in 'normal' histories, but are well documented in other mythological texts of the time (which you don't take to be true).
I am not an atheist, and therefore I do not recognise arguments based on the assumption of the philosophy of naturalism. I would be very happy to have a discussion about philosophical presuppositions, but in the context of this debate, this 'evidence' is inadmissible, being an example of special pleading.
Oh, is that all?
Any more arguments to offer, since all those are utterly unconvincing or without any support?
[ 20. March 2014, 16:59: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
EE, if you want a serious debate and serious refutation of your points it might help if you practised what you preached and provided some evidence for the points you are making.
Instead, all you've done for page after page is provide flimsy citations from works that are hardly mainstream nor widely respected as either theology, archaeology or anything else.
Yet again...
NO EVIDENCE.
Ah well...
I really don't know how long you can keep this self-deception going.
I'm impressed with your persistence. I'll give you that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Do yourself a favour. Check out your own presuppositions. And if you haven't done so already ...
Read James Barr .
Even if you don't agree with any of the arguments, it might just possibly open up the possibility that you are not being bullied here. Personally, I think Barr is right to describe much of the range of positions we describe as fundamentalism as incoherent. He certainly produces some impressive arguments. He has helped a lot of us to understand a thought world which we found difficult to disentangle. And, certainly in my case, remain in good relationships with folks for whom it remains their preferred thought world.
It is possible to see these points of view, discuss them without rancour, lose the impression of being 'under attack', or 'bullied'.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Agreed. I've been accused of bullying by EE before. I can see why he might feel a bit ganged-up on here on this thread though, but it's certainly not bullying.
If anything, his own recalcitrance is what we're all banging our shins against - EE included.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Come on, let's see this great demolition job. I'll start you off...
1. There's no way in fucking Hell that 6th century BCE goatherds can have a post-Enlightenment histioriography.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
The thing is, EE, is that you could be arguing about anything here, literally anything at all - the existence of aliens, the location of Atlantis, the Illuminati - and whatever reasonable, academic refutation is presented, you'd always have some 'evidence' from the believers that you could use to dismiss it.
So, given a choice of two dates for the destruction of Jericho, as suggested by the pottery (see, not dismissing that at all), and a single date from the correct layer by C14 which agrees with one date and not with the other... the reasonable conclusion would be to go with the one where the C14 and one pottery date coincide. Not you.
Given the best scholarly evidence that Joshua was talking about events in ~1400BC, partly written in its present form during the reign of Josiah (~600BC) and completed during or even after the Exile, it would be reasonable to conclude that its historicity is doubtful. Not you.
Given that tribes that were supposedly destroyed during Joshua appear later in the OT, it would be reasonable to conclude that the events described in the text are of at least a partially exaggerated nature. Not you.
Given what we know of ancient writers, and that accurate history became a concept to be aspired to only in Roman times, it would be reasonable to conclude that the writer/s of Joshua did not aspire to write an accurate history. Not you.
Given that similar works of that period and later, contain passages where gods speak to other gods and to men, and supernatural elements are common, it would be reasonable to conclude that the writer/s of Joshua followed a similar style of mythic storytelling. Not you.
All of this, taken as a whole, is simply special pleading on your part. It's not about you not being an atheist - if I believed in the Greek pantheon, and took the Iliad as actual history, a pound to a penny you'd be lining up on the other side of this argument. There's better evidence for Grendel having existed, given what we know of the Anglo-Saxon world as accurately depicted in Beowulf.
Again, I ask you: what evidence would you be prepared to accept that Joshua was not an accurate historical document?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
EE, if you want a serious debate and serious refutation of your points it might help if you practised what you preached and provided some evidence for the points you are making.
Instead, all you've done for page after page is provide flimsy citations from works that are hardly mainstream nor widely respected as either theology, archaeology or anything else.
Yet again...
NO EVIDENCE.
Ah well...
I really don't know how long you can keep this self-deception going.
I'm impressed with your persistence. I'll give you that.
Well, given that I have conceded that the archaeological evidence is inconclusive, and therefore could support the biblical text, or may not, and given that I have simply given the biblical text the benefit of the doubt (taking into account the genre of the literature in question), then I think the burden of proof is on those who are making a definite dogmatic claim, and who are taking the unusual and less obvious textual route.
In other words, the burden of proof is on you and your back-scratching cronies.
By the way, it would be interesting to know which bits of the Bible you actually accept are true ('true' as in describing events that actually happened), and why. After all, according to your way of thinking, the entire story of Jesus is just a myth. He never actually existed, because apparently that's the way ancient texts work. Didn't you know that? We wouldn't want to be accused of "not understanding the idea of story" now, would we? According to your way of thinking, the whole of Christianity is a complete shame, but then as someone, who to all intents and purposes is clearly an atheist (or at least acting like one), you would accept that, wouldn't you?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In other words, the burden of proof is on you and your back-scratching cronies.
Care to retract that before I message a host?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Doc Tor -
You're churning out the same old arguments, to which I have already responded. Did you not see my earlier post?
quote:
Again, I ask you: what evidence would you be prepared to accept that Joshua was not an accurate historical document?
Well, perhaps just some small hint by Jesus that the Old Testament was a load of bollocks. ("It is said... but I say" doesn't count, because that is just an outworking and application of the Law, not a rejection of the Law.)
An explanation, proven by reference to clear biblical evidence, that God's righteousness is manifested in Jesus through brazen deceit, given that (if you are right) he conned people into thinking that the Old Testament events were true, when God knew they were not.
Proof of the dating of the writing of the book of Joshua. The opinions of scholars who adhere to the Graf-Wellhausen documentary hypothesis do not count as proof, by the way. That hypothesis would itself need to be proven, which it has not been.
Conclusive archaeological evidence that irrefutably undermines the biblical account.
That'll do for starters...
As for the "back-scratching" comment: perhaps there will be an end to all this guff about me being isolated on this thread. This playground approach of "mob rule", which is presented as an argument to railroad me into accepting a point of view, is quite sickening.
If you are not part of that, then, on that condition, I retract the comment as it concerns you and anyone else who does not think in that manipulative way. But I certainly do not retract it when it concerns those who relate to me in that dishonest and deeply immature way.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Doc Tor -
You're churning out the same old arguments, to which I have already responded. Did you not see my earlier post?
They're arguments. But they're not good arguments. They're not defensible by logic or reason. As you go on to say, your defence is based entirely on theology, not archaeology or philosophy or science or literary criticism.
quote:
quote:
Again, I ask you: what evidence would you be prepared to accept that Joshua was not an accurate historical document?
Well, perhaps just some small hint by Jesus that the Old Testament was a load of bollocks. ("It is said... but I say" doesn't count, because that is just an outworking and application of the Law, not a rejection of the Law.)
An explanation, proven by reference to clear biblical evidence, that God's righteousness is manifested in Jesus through brazen deceit, given that (if you are right) he conned people into thinking that the Old Testament events were true, when God knew they were not.
Proof of the dating of the writing of the book of Joshua. The opinions of scholars who adhere to the Graf-Wellhausen documentary hypothesis do not count as proof, by the way. That hypothesis would itself need to be proven, which it has not been.
Conclusive archaeological evidence that irrefutably undermines the biblical account.
All you've done is say, "the Bible proves that the Bible is true, and any evidence presented to the contrary is unacceptable to me."
Also, your fauxpology sucks.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
(Sighs) ... Do you really live in binary-land, EE?
Either we believe that the Book of Joshua is an historically accurate account in a post-Enlightenment kind of way or else we are atheists.
Ergo, Gamaliel is an atheist ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Everything is completely black-and-white to you isn't it? I'm surprised you don't work for the highways department, as a zebra crossing ...
If anything is 'sickening' on this thread it isn't that people are apparently 'ganging up on you' but your complete and utter refusal to engage with reason, logic and rational debate.
You've not provided a single scrap of evidence or any textual, historical or literary reason why we should treat the Book of Joshua as an historical account in the 'literal' sense - in a post-Enlightenment kind of way.
The only 'evidence' you've provided are assertions that it has to be that way otherwise Jesus is made out to be a liar or that the Bible as a whole is entirely untrustworthy.
What was your degree in again? Binary and Dualistic Studies?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Doc Tor, who told me from the start that I didn't "understand the idea of story", because I affirmed the historical accuracy of the account in Joshua.
My impression was that he said it because you wouldn't allow the validity of it not being historical (his opinion), rather than because you affirmed the historical accuracy. But that's not much to do with me. You can fight it out with him.
ISTM that for you things in Scripture have to either be "true" as in historically accurate, or "story" as in an obvious fiction, like the parable of the Good Samaritan, and that you're uncomfortable with something being somewhere in between. I have no such scruples.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Throughout much of the Old Testament we are led to believe that God constantly referred to the historical event of the Exodus from Egypt to bring His people to repentance. <snip> It's like saying: "Look, why are you rebelling against me? I delivered you from Egypt - well... sort of...
Firstly, this assumes that when we read "thus saith the Lord" it literally means that every time. I'm not so sure. Is it necessary that everything in the Prophets is God's Words exactly as He spoke them, or is there room for interpretation there too?
Secondly, for this to be true: That God rescued His people from slavery in Egypt, took them through the desert, and into a new and fruitful land, it does not follow that every detail in the narratives in the Torah have to be fully accurate. The account of the destruction of Jericho doesn't have to have happened for the above to be true. This is what I was saying above. I'm comfortable with a mixture of history and fiction, and I'm not too bothered about defining the lines between the two. For me, it's simply not about an all or nothing "either the entire Bible is literally true, or none of it is" paradigm. There are endless shades between, and those shades vary throughout scripture. I appreciate you might want an answer to "well, which bits are historical, and which bits aren't?", and "well, how do you know that the Jesus stories aren't made up too then?" Those are tough questions with long answers, but the alternatives (it's all rubbish / it's all true) ultimately bring much bigger questions and problems.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
When the woman was caught in adultery, Jesus did not say "well, of course, the commandment to stone adulterers is a load of bollocks made up by a bunch of religious fundamentalist nutters." No. He invited those who were without sin to cast the first stone. In other words, Jesus put that judgment of the Old Testament in its proper context.
Well, I think he did a lot more than that, as has been discussed. He was quite happy to contradict and re-interpret. Same with the apostles. Their use of scripture to back up their arguments is laughable, but only if you approach them from a modernist / systematic perspective. I think the way they saw it was more that they reached into their histories and traditions, and found tools to use as they wished. They were quite happy to pick, choose, re-interpret, and even contradict.
As for Jesus being 'harsher' than the OT God, that's an interesting tangent, and one I find interesting, and willing to discuss, but not sure if this is the place for it.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But Jesus is not a liar. His righteousness does not involve giving false impressions.
Jesus was still a product of his times (Martin PC has said stuff about this). I don't know whether Jesus took the Jericho accounts literally or not. I don't think we can infer either way from scripture. I'm not sure if it struck him as particularly important. I don't think Jesus came to bring us Truth in terms of scientific fact, or the historical accuracy of the Torah, but to bring us Truth about God and ourselves. In the incarnation, God emptied himself, and that included his omniscience. For example, in Mark 2:26, Jesus appears to misremember who was High Priest when David ate the bread. If this was a mistake, or if there's another explanation, it does not bother me. Who Jesus was doesn't fall down because he got someone's name wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And as for the "mob rule" approach, I frankly could not care less whether it is me against a million other posters.
To be clear, I understand and respect this. My pointing out that you are a lone voice was not to railroad you into agreement. In many things I am a lone voice in my own church tradition. My point was simply that, when that is the case, we should be even more careful to consider our positions and opinions. I am naturally rebellious, and sometimes my disagreement with the majority is simply down to that. Other times, I think it's not. It's easy to bristle and cement-in when we're on our own, and lose our objectivity.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So I am not quite as idiotic as you seem to be making me out to be.
I don't think you are an idiot. In this thread I think you've had a tendency to read into what people have said things that weren't there, and once you've done so, it's very hard to get you to deviate from that. Also, it seems you're much more comfortable with defined either/or understandings than uncertainty or nuance. I also think that you're prone to fitting facts around your opinions, but we're all guilty of that at times. But then, this has been said before. Hey ho.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Again, I ask you: what evidence would you be prepared to accept that Joshua was not an accurate historical document?
Well, perhaps just some small hint by Jesus that the Old Testament was a load of bollocks.
This, I think, is the rub. It strongly suggests to me that your opinions are based much more on theological grounds than scientific or historical. (which is why I asked that question earlier). The destruction of Jericho happened centuries before Jesus. Whether Jesus believed it happened or not should have no bearing to a historian or archaeologist investigating it.
That's fine, but I think you'd do better to admit that for you at least, this is primarily a theological discussion, not a historical or scientific one. You know, that vested interest we were talking about earlier: that your theological viewpoint (towards Jesus) necessitates a literal, historical Old Testament. And to reject the latter would put the former into serious jeopardy. Of course, my suggestion would be to change your theology, and reject your current view of Jesus for a more nuanced one, but that's your prerogative.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Gam, you know those times that get all ad hominem, and you say you'll learn and change, and people doubt you, but you say it's different this time, then you go and do it again.
That's what just happened, that is.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yep. All that. I agree with Goperryrevs but that doesn't imply complicity or some kind of atheist conspiracy theory where we are all ganging up on EE, the stalwart defender of the truth ...
Goperryrevs is talking sense. You'll be suggesting that he's an atheist next ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, ok ... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
It's become a habit. EE has similar habits. He seems to have a tendency to interpret certain lines of argument as personal attacks, bullying or group-think bullying ...
Whereas I have a tendency to drift into ad hominem remarks and sarcasm which probably only reinforce that impression.
But seeing as he doesn't listen to the rest of you either, no matter how more moderate, balanced, cogently argued or eloquent you all are compared with me.
Two wrongs don't make a right of course, but EE's the one who has been flashing the atheist card at me. That counts as ad hominem in my book.
Which doesn't mean that I should respond in kind, of course.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
They're arguments. But they're not good arguments. They're not defensible by logic or reason. As you go on to say, your defence is based entirely on theology, not archaeology or philosophy or science or literary criticism.
Three assertions.
No logic or evidence in them at all. Therefore I dismiss them.
quote:
All you've done is say, "the Bible proves that the Bible is true, and any evidence presented to the contrary is unacceptable to me."
And all you have said is: "I have decided that I don't personally like a particular passage of the Old Testament and so I am going to pretend to be all intellectual and assert that there is no truth in it. Of course, I will package my non-arguments in language that appear to inject some kind of imaginary pseudo-truth into the Bible, so I can pretend to be a Christian, and then when anyone objects, I will keep asserting my position until that person cracks."
Trouble is, the person is never going to crack. All he will do is laugh.
quote:
Also, your fauxpology sucks.
Yeah, as if I'll lose sleep over it.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, clearly you won't. Just as you won't lose sleep about accusing your fellow Christians of not actually being Christians at all.
Sweet dreams, EE.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And all you have said is: "I have decided that I don't personally like a particular passage of the Old Testament and so I am going to pretend to be all intellectual and assert that there is no truth in it. Of course, I will package my non-arguments in language that appear to inject some kind of imaginary pseudo-truth into the Bible, so I can pretend to be a Christian, and then when anyone objects, I will keep asserting my position until that person cracks.".
You see, this is why people lose patience with you. You simply don't have the courage to say "I'm an inerrantist, and here I stand." You try to engage in arguments which are other than theological, and then retreat back to the theological when challenged. It's a deeply intellectually dishonest way of engaging with other people, especially as all you're left with at the end of the day is shouting "atheist" at anyone who doesn't agree with you - Gamaliel, and now me.
I'm sure you think it's in your purview to divide the sheep and the goats, but I'm assured by a higher authority - who we both presumably answer to - that it's not.
All I ask is that you don't try this out in real life, either your attempts at argument or judging the validity of other's salvation. That would be kind of embarrassing.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Well, clearly you won't. Just as you won't lose sleep about accusing your fellow Christians of not actually being Christians at all.
Sweet dreams, EE.
I am not going to lie to you Gamaliel. I do not regard you as a fellow Christian. Sorry, but I don't.
If you want to take that statement of honesty as an insult, then so be it.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
by Gamaliel
"... that's the day that Hell freezes over."
As 'Hell' is a name for the afterlife of the lost from Scandinavian mythology it is my understanding that it always was frozen over, that being a more relevant kind of hell so far north....
And please don't turn that into a major tangent; I'm not being entirely serious. I am more serious in suggesting that the theodicy which was the original purpose of this thread might be better served by taking a break from the current line of argument. On the face of it, the historical evidence isn't exactly in huge quantities and taking the Bible literally is a faith position in these circumstances, just agree that and move on. The dead and the reasons why a good God might have been involved in the conquest are hardly respected by the attitudes here.
The nature of this particular argument deserves better, even if it is a defunct equine....
And getting me to be that stuffy is a real indicator of how bad things have got!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
EE and Gamaliel - you've been warned multiple times about importing your personality conflict into threads outside the hell board. The matter is with the admins. I've been busy working all day and have checked in at 2 in the morning to see that this thread started to go wrong yesterday morning and has put on numbers of posts without a host stepping in. I'm therefore going to lock the thread until an admin can make their wishes known as it's very late at night for me to sift through this large pile of dung. I don't think a temporary closure will be much of a loss to anyone while a decision is made.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
[ 21. March 2014, 01:36: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Gamaliel, EtymologicalEvangelical,
We weary of your feud. One of you is an idiot, and the other is a fool. Take a couple weeks to reflect on whether you really want to be either. Because, if after you come back this dance happens again on multiple boards, the fish won’t even have to chew on your remains.
-RooK
Admin
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
OK, the thread is now open again. But with two provisos.
1. No continuation of specific lines of argument advanced by Gamaliel and EE as part of their feuding. They are not able to respond to specific critical comment. It will be fine to continue the general themes of the thread
2. Stay well clear of any Commandment 3 or Commandment 4 line crosses. We've had more than enough of that already. That applies also to comments about Gamaliel and EE in their absences.
Failure to observe these provisos will get any of you a reference to Admin.
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
[ 21. March 2014, 06:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I've heard a justification similar to that at the start of this thread for the genocide described in Joshua - that the tribes were subsistence Bronze Age farmers and couldn't possibly care for women and children from another tribe, so when taking over a country or city the only way to survive was by taking no prisoners and killing the original tribe. And that the aggressor tribe was doing God's will by surviving to spread the word of God's actions and were doing this by killing off those people who were following other gods, so blasphemous.
This sounds like justification of human expediency to me and I don't agree with it, but I do wonder where this idea comes from. Does anyone have any ideas?
I heard it from someone who has a lot to do with Kingdom Faith, along with a lot of other things that made me grind my teeth, but I was told it was in a book they were reading.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Curiosity, there is a general and possibly even valid argument that
First; we live in an era where we know lots of stuff the ancient Israelites didn't and couldn't as they tried to survive in a hostile world. In particular we know of the love of Jesus and the changed view of life that results.
On the one hand we have to be very careful how we judge people who lived without that knowledge; on the other we have to realise that to make our knowledge possible God may himself have had to make terrible choices about which he will not have been happy but where the alternative would have been just the exercise of his coercive power in a way that would ultimately have compromised the reality of the human moral choices.
This view goes along with a wider view that God deals with us through a 'real world' in which choices have real consequences and human learning sometimes has to be done the hard way. Whatever God does in this situation comes with the guarantee that he, the Judge of the whole universe, will ensure there is no ultimate injustice. I posted a version of this view on a thread a few weeks ago and I'm trying to find it to repost here. Bear with me on that....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
It doesn't explain killing all the animals as the cattle, sheep, and goats could be used by the Israelites.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
It doesn't explain killing all the animals as the cattle, sheep, and goats could be used by the Israelites.
We shall need another excuse.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Marco Liverani suggests that the point of Joshua, as a post-exilic document is to push the whole "we are a pure community, whose destiny is to remain separate from the people of the land" bit is to provide ideological legitimation to a policy among returned exiles not to interact with Caananites, Samaritans and so forth. Smiting the heathen livestock makes no kind of sense in a conquest narrative but makes every kind of sense if you are creating a rationale for having no dealings with anyone outside the charmed circle. It should be added that becoming Amish, avant la letter was never a very practical policy and was never followed.
If you like the Old Testament is a kind of dialectic between an understanding of Israel as an exclusive brethren and a universalist understanding of Israel as the means by which all the nations would be blessed. Obviously, the New Testament definitive comes down on the universalist side which isn't to say that we can caricature modern Judaism as the continuation of the theology of Joshua by other means!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If you like the Old Testament is a kind of dialectic between an understanding of Israel as an exclusive brethren and a universalist understanding of Israel as the means by which all the nations would be blessed.
I really like this. It puts a great context into Jesus' words about being the light of the world.
A lot of Jesus ministry was drawing the Jews back to their original calling. Their natural response had been to become proud and elitist due to their unique place as chosen people. Jesus called them to be outward looking and see their role in terms of ministry to the world. So things like the Sermon on the Mount weren't so much general principles to live by, but a manifesto for how a chosen people should respond to an occupying nation.
This too is the message of Jonah. It tackles the question "what do chosen people look like?" head on, and (for the Jews) in a pretty confrontational way.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Gildas;
quote:
It should be added that becoming Amish, avant la letter was never a very practical policy and was never followed.
I take it you mean that an Amish-style community in those days would simply not have survived?? as far as I know, modern Amish and other Anabaptists recognise that - but also recognise that since the NT a better way is available and should be followed. Amish are perhaps a bit too exclusive and have got a bit hide-bound by their traditions at times; but it is also fair comment that much of that is accounted for by isolation due to being persecuted.
I do not want to hijack this thread for an Anabaptist argument; I already did that without really meaning to in the Purgatory thread 'Father, Son and Holy Scriptures...' so if you want to discuss Anabaptism, go there...
is that OK, hosts?
Given the recent history of this thread I'm not going to quibble too much about whether Joshua is 'post-exilic'; for me, even if written down earlier, such an account would probably be in the genre 'saga' rather than modern-style history. But whatever we make of the history of the documents we still have to come to terms with the implications.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I think Gildas makes an excellent point and can see no reason why it should not be explored in this thread. It has moved to be more about biblical inerrancy, of course, but that was to be expected.
My own modest contribution is to observe that groups like the Amish, who have a conservative theology and conservative view of scripture, demonstrate a peaceable and forgiving outlook in their separateness. The Amish world view is about as far removed from ruthless conquest of foreign territory by force as you are likely to find.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
OK Barnabas; but I'd come onto this thread with an interest in the original 'theodicy' and slightly less the scriptural issues, and felt that while I wanted to comment and ask for clarity on Gildas' Amish remark, I don't want to go through a whole repeat of the Church and State argument we'd had in Purg.
Having said that I've comments on recent posts here where Anabaptist viewpoints seem relevant, if we can take them as viewpoints on the main topic rather than going off on a tangent about the Anabaptists, I'd be quite happy....
I'm not sure how long the other thread will now go, anyway. I've been wondering about starting a specific Church and State issues thread - watch this space, or something like that....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
originally by goperryrevs;
quote:
So things like the Sermon on the Mount weren't so much general principles to live by, but a manifesto for how a chosen people should respond to an occupying nation.
I think the Amish and the wider Anabaptist community would say that the Sermon does provide principles to live by, indeed principles which are reinforced elsewhere, e.g., in Romans 12 and in I Peter. But on the understanding that they are to be lived out under the New Covenant by Jesus' followers in the spirit of being a 'kingdom not of this world' or 'citizens of the kingdom of heaven in exile/diaspora on earth' rather than seeking a further conquest in worldly terms for Jesus. Similar to your idea of response to an occupying nation, but of wider application.
Yes, the Anabaptists demonstrate a peaceable and forgiving attitude (though also stern about unrepented sin); but it should be borne in mind that this is not based on a simplistically cosy or woolly God, but on an understanding that in the present age we are commissioned to leave vengeance to God.
As regards Scripture the Anabaptists were often accused of dualism because they so firmly understood that the NT made that kind of difference to Christian behaviour and the place of the Church in the world. Their 'Christendomite' opponents tended to see a different kind of continuity between the Testaments, with Jesus' kingdom in a more 'of this world' form and therefore imitating the OT model seen in Israel's wars and conquests.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My own modest contribution is to observe that groups like the Amish, who have a conservative theology and conservative view of scripture, demonstrate a peaceable and forgiving outlook in their separateness. The Amish world view is about as far removed from ruthless conquest of foreign territory by force as you are likely to find.
That's a very good point, Barnabas (and Steve), I was thinking more in terms of a radical separatedness from the other peoples of the land rather than any commonalities in terms of a theology of non-violence. Perhaps a better analogy (though still not an exact one) would be the Essenes.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
It doesn't explain killing all the animals as the cattle, sheep, and goats could be used by the Israelites.
It's worth pointing out that the word used for the massacre of the Canaanites is herem, which, whatever it does mean, certainly doesn't mean 'defensive warfare' or any of the other theodicies that have been proposed.
It apparently (not sure how much to trust Wiki here) has the sense of consecrating to God by means of total destruction. The 'plain reading', I think, is that the Israelite conquest of Canaan was for the glory of God, not for their own benefit (and those who did try to benefit from it were also killed). What one makes of that I don't know.
[ 22. March 2014, 05:33: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
The real issue is probably how we see the Traditional understanding that there is an attribute of God which we call "wrath". Now in human terms, wrath is associated in our minds with extreme anger. Whereas wrath in God is argued to be a consequence of His holiness and righteousness, not as in humans a response of the emotion of anger.
Personally, I cannot resolve any of this satisfactorily. What I can see is the clear Christian imperative against repaying evil with evil; rather it must be met with good. Nothing seems more central to NT teaching than that.
What that does for me is to consign concepts like herem to a past world. My best guess is that holiness and righteousness in God do, somehow, exist, alongside mercy, love and forgiveness, but it is imperative that we move completely over to repaying evil with good, leaving eternal resolution of these matters to God Himself. Seeing ourselves today as somehow active agents in processes akin to herem is a denial of our essential calling as Christians. That is an essential part of the New Covenant. Kingdom values are I think incompatible with any active participation by Christians in herem.
That is the best sense I can make of the overall picture from scripture and tradition. I think you can get to that, even if you have a very conservative view of the historicity of these ancient and troubling accounts of the activities of God and his chosen people.
[ 22. March 2014, 06:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'm suddenly struck by a similarity between the Flood account and the Israelite invasion of Canaan: that nothing was to be left alive.
In the Flood, the waters were to close over the whole earth, purifying it from evil - the only survivors were Noah and his family, and the animals in the Ark. In the invasion, the Canaanites were to be killed utterly and everything they owned - which was contrary to the usual mode of warfare, up to and including the present day (to quote Conan the Barbarian: "What's best in life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!").
It's unlikely that any Baal-worshipping goats could have convinced the Israelites over to the dark side, and livestock was wealth. The act of purification would have been symbolic - certainly it didn't make economic sense - but can we trace that symbolism back to the Flood?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
The Epic of Gilgamesh Chapter 5 is interesting in this context, since the theological view of the purpose for the flood and the blame attachable to it is completely different to the biblical account.
This understanding of purification from evil by utter destruction seems to be a theological characteristic of Jewish salvation history. In other cultures, Gods of those times were seen as powerful, requiring placating and propitiation, but that seems to been more about their believed greater-than-human abilities, than any relationship between divine holiness and human evil. Maybe I'm wrong about that?
I wonder if Gods were perceived as scary because of the 'nasty, brutish and short' experiences which were commonplace. I suppose the real difference was that in many other primitive religions, Gods were seen as capricious, needing obeisance and sacrifice to keep them sweet. A kind of explanation for the vagaries of human life. Whereas within Judaism, the capriciousness and evil behaviour was seen as an aspect of human behaviour, a rebellion against God. Which He had to deal with as a matter of honour? A different kind of explanation for the same vagaries?
As you know, I'm more inclined to accept an emergent understanding of God, illustrated by the different theologies to be found in the OT (and to some extent the NT as well). So that influences my thinking on points like this.
[ 22. March 2014, 10:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
