That's actually the point. You claimed they were "common," so what were you basing that on? We can't establish that they were uncommon just as you can't establish that they were common, but we can at least determine the second part of your claim, i.e. that they were legal. We've shown through at least three sources right off the tops of our heads (Ur-Nammu, Hammurabi and the Old Testament) that rape, theft and murder were indeed illegal prior to the establishment of Christianity.
Out of curiosity, were you home schooled?
Well the globalist mods are trying to ban me.
| Moderator's Warning: |
Read it again, there are exemptions, and the punishment against a slave by the upper caste is a slap on the wrist most of the time: ergo murder theft and rape is as legal as jaywalking.
Meh - if he comes on the internet and tries to present his bull**** as real - welcome to the internet - people will call you out on it. Now go off and annoy somebody else.
Matthew 1KJV)
"4 And Aram begat Aminadab"
According to I Chronicles 2:10 it was Ram that begat Aminadab, not Aram. The earliest extant Greek manuscripts have the Greek equivalent of the English "Aram" for Matthew 1:4. (so presumably the KJV is correctly translating Matthew's error). The NIV has changed "Aram" to "Ram" correcting Matthew's error. The LXX states that Aram begat Aminadab so it's likely that Matthew made his error by simply copying from the LXX as he apparently was not fluent in Hebrew and so could not check the original Hebrew language. Some Bible scholars do theorize that the LXX was changed in some places to conform to the Gospels and that this is one of those instances. In any case Matthew's apparent use of "Aram" does not agree with any known Hebrew text and in the absence of any evidence that the Hebrew use of "Ram" was the result of any change would be an error by Matthew.
Because what is described in the Bible is not a major flood, it is a world-wide flood. It describes all the mountains being covered, which cannot have happened unless the entire planet was underwater.
So do try again.
What part of to them it was the whole world are you not understanding? When they wrote it, the world was flooding.
It's true, Blackdog. Even taking into account possible scientific theories, such as meteor strikes that would cause massive tsunamies, or permanent flooding caused by melting glaciers from the end of the last ice ages, the flooding still affects coastal areas and not high terrains. Unless there are flood myths from cultures in high altitudes you know of that I don't?
Wait, let's take a step back because clearly you don't understand the point of this entire thing.
The Bible is the only source you have for information on your God. As such, it's been stated that the Bible is generally historically accurate.
However, the only two supernatural events in the Bible which are generally amenable to objective evaluation are the creation story and the flood story.
You admit that the creation story is a myth, now you're arguing that the flood story is a myth, why are we supposed to take any of the things in the Bible that cannot be tested and objectively verified as true if it gets every single case where we can test it wrong?
I happen to agree with you, neither one happened as described or even close thereto, hence why shouldn't we just toss out the Bible as a worthwhile source of information on anything supernatural, including the existence of God?
II thought you understood that's what we were doing.
Starting in 1929, Dr. John Garstang, excavated the ruins of ancient Jericho. His discoveries corresponded remarkably with the Biblical account. Jericho, he found, had a double wall, with houses built across the two walls. This explains how Rahab's house could have been built upon a wall. He learned that the wall was destroyed by some kind of violent convulsion such as that described in the Bible, and that when the wall feel that it fell outward, down the hillside, or as the Bible says, it fell down flat. Had the wall been destroyed by the battering rams of an enemy army, the walls would have fallen inward instead of outward. Furthermore, the city had been burned. Once again, the spade of archaeology has established the accuracy of the Bible. - The Historical Accuracy of the Bible
You obviously don't understand how archeology works. Finding a place named Jericho mentioned in a book is not proof of "many many bible facts" being true. It's proof that a place named Jericho existed. Now allow if you will a bit of common sense. Let's say 5,000 years from now a city named London is found and they find all the remains of the city mentioned in Harry Potter. Including a train station. Does that make the "claims" of Harry Potter true? No. It means that there really is a place called London. Which is not contested by anyone.
Nobody contests that there is place named Egypt. We contest that Hebrews came out of it and spent 40 years in a desert then split open entire seas to cross to where they lived. Welcome to logic 101. How may we help you?
I refuse to respond to the willfully ignorant anymore.
I understand the point perfectly.
This is not true at all. Many MANY facts in the Bible have been proven to be historically accurate. Such as (this is an example, so please don't get caught up in it.)
Yes, you are right, there are some portions of the Bible that contain many historical facts, mostly because they are just reporting history. Most of the last books in the Old Testament are just records of Hebrew life and do contain a lot of actual facts. No one disputes that However, that doesn't, in any way, prove that any of the supernatural events or stories actually happened.
My sister told me a long time ago that horror author Dean Koontz, in one of his books, mentioned the street I grew up on in one of his books. That is a demonstrable historic accuracy, that street really does exist. However, that doesn't prove that any of the horrible things that he wrote about in that book were real. Likewise, Stephen King writes about a lot of real places in New England, that doesn't mean anything supernatural he records are real.
Starting in 1929, Dr. John Garstang, excavated the ruins of ancient Jericho. His discoveries corresponded remarkably with the Biblical account. Jericho, he found, had a double wall, with houses built across the two walls. This explains how Rahab's house could have been built upon a wall. He learned that the wall was destroyed by some kind of violent convulsion such as that described in the Bible, and that when the wall feel that it fell outward, down the hillside, or as the Bible says, it fell down flat. Had the wall been destroyed by the battering rams of an enemy army, the walls would have fallen inward instead of outward. Furthermore, the city had been burned. Once again, the spade of archaeology has established the accuracy of the Bible. - The Historical Accuracy of the Bible
You do need to realize the sad state of Biblical archaeology through the first half of the 20th century. In many cases, you had archaeologists going out into the field in the Middle East, finding a site, and instead of actually figuring out what the site was, they turned to the Bible as a guide book and declared that they had found whatever happened to be closest to it. Even Biblical Archaeology Review has come out and said people need to take these claims with a grain of salt, many of the supposed discoveries have not been independently verified as being actual Biblical sites, they were just assumed to be.
No one here is talking about any mythology, we are talking historical fact in most of the Old and New Testament.
I've been talking about mythology, you're just ignoring that discussion.
I am not certain if you are just missing something or if I am not being clear? I did not say it was a myth, I don't think it was at all. I said the author of the creation epic was writing it figuratively, I did not say anything about it being mythology.
There's nothing figurative in the language of Genesis, it is written descriptively, in chronological order. On this day, this happened. Just don't try to compare the two creation stories, they just don't match up.
5000 years ago the people did not have the language to explain the things they were seeing about creation. They say it was through dreams which means it was up to them to try to explain what they were seeing. So open space as we understand it becomes "formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep" which from that long ago makes perfect sense from their perspective. If you are a serious student of history, this understanding is the most important to interpret anything that old with any kind of accuracy. Just ask any anthropologist, or anthropology major.
They didn't see anything about creation, they were supposedly recounting a story told to them by revelation from God. You're suggesting we ought to take any of these stories seriously when they simply do not match up with what we observe and understand about reality and ultimately, they're just ridiculous to scientifically-literate eyes.
The problem is you refuse to see it from the historical perspective of someone with no understanding of the world as we know it, or had the language to explain it in our modern terms. Hence a "global flood" as in their whole world, not the literal world.
No, I'm reading the story as it is actually written, I'm not editing out the silly parts. Now while I will absolutely agree with you that the actual flood upon which the Noachian myth is based was likely a conglomeration of local floods (and I can go into detail on the dating of those floods if you want), the story as written, the giant ark (which was unseaworthy), holding all the animals (which wouldn't fit), for 40 days and 40 nights (which is absurd), landing on Mt. Ararat (the flood waters wouldn't reach that high), is ridiculous.
Further, if you want to go the route that primitive people were ignorant of nature, which I will certainly agree with, and simply phrased their myths in terms of what they knew, I'll agree with you and suggest that God is simply an example of the same thing happening. Just as we know the worldwide flood never happened, there's no reason to think God is real.
Meaning you refuse to respond to those who have beat you at your own game. Don't worry, you're painfully transparent.
Yes, you are right, there are some portions of the Bible that contain many historical facts, mostly because they are just reporting history. Most of the last books in the Old Testament are just records of Hebrew life and do contain a lot of actual facts. No one disputes that However, that doesn't, in any way, prove that any of the supernatural events or stories actually happened.
My sister told me a long time ago that horror author Dean Koontz, in one of his books, mentioned the street I grew up on in one of his books. That is a demonstrable historic accuracy, that street really does exist. However, that doesn't prove that any of the horrible things that he wrote about in that book were real. Likewise, Stephen King writes about a lot of real places in New England, that doesn't mean anything supernatural he records are real.
You do need to realize the sad state of Biblical archaeology through the first half of the 20th century. In many cases, you had archaeologists going out into the field in the Middle East, finding a site, and instead of actually figuring out what the site was, they turned to the Bible as a guide book and declared that they had found whatever happened to be closest to it. Even Biblical Archaeology Review has come out and said people need to take these claims with a grain of salt, many of the supposed discoveries have not been independently verified as being actual Biblical sites, they were just assumed to be.
I've been talking about mythology, you're just ignoring that discussion.
There's nothing figurative in the language of Genesis, it is written descriptively, in chronological order. On this day, this happened. Just don't try to compare the two creation stories, they just don't match up.
They didn't see anything about creation, they were supposedly recounting a story told to them by revelation from God.
You're suggesting we ought to take any of these stories seriously when they simply do not match up with what we observe and understand about reality and ultimately, they're just ridiculous to scientifically-literate eyes.
No, I'm reading the story as it is actually written, I'm not editing out the silly parts. Now while I will absolutely agree with you that the actual flood upon which the Noachian myth is based was likely a conglomeration of local floods (and I can go into detail on the dating of those floods if you want), the story as written, the giant ark (which was unseaworthy), holding all the animals (which wouldn't fit), for 40 days and 40 nights (which is absurd), landing on Mt. Ararat (the flood waters wouldn't reach that high), is ridiculous.
Further, if you want to go the route that primitive people were ignorant of nature, which I will certainly agree with, and simply phrased their myths in terms of what they knew, I'll agree with you and suggest that God is simply an example of the same thing happening. Just as we know the worldwide flood never happened, there's no reason to think God is real.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?