I don’t think anyone is arguing that fact with you. They/I just don’t think your distinction has much practical importance.
I’m not that familiar with your particular beliefs. However, what I have gathered from the context of this discussion, is that while you may claim your analogy is not a condemnation of anyone who wishes to disbelieve what is in the bible, you do worship a god who was pretty explicit about condemning people for their disbelief.
Voyager:
Ad at no time did I ever say anything of the sort. I have been describing F & S’s position given the conclusion that their research has brought them to, not implying that their research was embarked on with an anti-religious bias or agenda.
Be that as it may, one who wishes to gird himself in the banner of science, objectivity and empiricism, needs to keep himself open to evidence that may challenge his present conceptions. I’m not saying F & S are any less human in this regard than any other scientist…heck, Einstein went to his grave not believing in quantum mechanics…but I have every right to criticize their attitude toward a major new archaeological find as overly dismissive.
badchad:
It seemed to me that some were, and it seems to me that much of the “proof that certain Biblical narratives are false” that is presented in The Bible Unearthed is of that nature.
Yes, my religion considers non-believers to be mistaken, or sinners (depending on personal circumstances and details of their non-belief). However, I have demonstrated time and again on this message board that I am capable of debating logic, even as applied to religious subjects, in its own context separate from my personal religious views. And in that context, I do not condemn those who choose to disbelieve supernatural Bible stories and who feel no need to ever address them, but I will argue that those trying to disprove them by removing the supernatural elements and then disproving a natural-rational version of the story have not achieved their aim.
I haven’t read the “The Bible Unearthed” however it seems from the context that they are writing more against biblical liberalism, making the argument that much is untrue in the bible even if we assume away the miracles. In that point I think you are correct that many of the miraculous stories survive untouched. However, assuming away the miraculous is a reasonable thing to do.
With regards to proof that certain biblical narratives are false, given the possibility of miracles, I would just point at the many and various contradictions throughout the bible, which includes the OT. One might be able to claim that god miracled away all the water that flooded the earth but it is much more difficult to say that King Ahaziah was at the same time 22 and 42 when he began to reign.
Out of curiosity, what do you think happens to us mistaken sinners?
badchad:
If that is indeed what they are disproving, then they have some good points.
I agree, and I believe I said this elsewhere. I have no problem with the position that stories of supernatural occurrences cannot be believed.
That’s a horse of a different color. Traditional Jewish interpretation (As recorded in the Talmud, Midrash, and later commentaries) almost always clarifies what is meant in such contradictory cases, and often, the apparent contradictions (such as the Genesis 1 - Genesis 2 creation stories) are only present due to translation issues, or careless reading on the part of the “skeptics gotcha gang”. I don’t remember for certain (I can look it up later), but I think the Ahaziah thing was that he took over as regent at 22 (his father was somehow incapacitated), but only officially considered king twenty years later, at 42.
Hard to say. Judaism’s understanding of the afterlife is extremely variable. It’s possible that the whole heaven-hell thing is a simple reward-punishment setup, in which case, G-d judges every individual based on his circumstances in life…most non-observant Jews, for example, were born and raised never knowing what we Orthodox consider to be true Jewish belief, so they certainly wouldn’t be punished for such lack of belief. On the other hand, some say that the whole heaven-hell thing is a description of what souls feel when, stripped of the physical body, they are exposed to the raw presence of G-d…those who spent their physical lives striving to be close to G-d feel it as pleasant, and those who spent their physical lives in a less virtuous manner feel it as painful. In such a context, I can’t imagine that any non-believer’s soul, no matter how blameless for his non-belief is properly capable of relating to G-d after death…it’s just a consequence, not a punishment. In that case, though, perhaps those which are considered blameless are sent back for further processing (so to speak), while those who had the opportunity for genuine belief but actively rejected it might be condemned to eternity in that unpleasant state (because that’s what they chose in life). (Bearing in mind that in today’s extremely mundane world, it’s possible that even active atheists might not be judged so harshly. You never know what G-d might consider to be a mitigating factor.)
You shouldn’t believe them, either.
I don’t doubt that Jewish apologists always try to clear up contradictory cases. The question is whether they do so adequately. I’m quite familiar with Christian post hoc rationalizations of contradictions, and I really have my doubts that Jewish versions regarding the exact same contradictions are any better. I imagine the Christians mostly copied from the Jews. “Translational issues” only admits error, and I would describe reading by the skeptics as careful rather than careless.
But it doesn’t say anything about when Ahaziah was a regent or when he was king. It says he began to reign at 22, and again when he was 42.
*Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. 2 Kings 8:26
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. 2 Chronicles 22:2*
I’ll buy a translational error, but it’s an error none the less.
I’ve never debated with a Jew as most I know admit they are atheist or have little belief in the afterlife, but sounds more Christian than Jewish. From what I gather from the Torah, god’s covenant was for a good life for his chosen people here on earth, with slavery and smitings for all idolaters. Based on that, it seems the following article has considerable merit:
unreservedly? no way
badchad:
Thanks for the advice, but I’ll decide for myself whether or not to accept the testimony of my ancestors.
Adequacy is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly they reconcile the contradictions; if they didn’t do at least that, they’d be pretty piss-poor apologetics.
With all due respect, I wouldn’t. I’ve seen plenty of “Bible contradiction” lists that 80% could be answered by an Orthodox Jewish Yeshiva third-grader.
I could be wrong about this specific instance; I do not have my set of Tanakh handy (I am spending the summer in a bungalow 100 miles away from my real home), and I am not a Rabbi that I have so many Torah minutiae committed to memory. All I can say with certainty for now is that there are many discrepancies in various numbers between Kings and Chronicles, and there are explanations for all of them. The two books were written by different people with different purposes and different perspectives; what seems to be a clear contradiction might be because one was trying to speak historically and one was trying to make a moral point of a different nature. I realize that to you this sounds like it’s just post-hoc apologetics, and possibly weak ones at that, but any book, if not framed in the context it was meant, can take on the wrong meaning.
Then you gather extremely wrong. G-d’s covenant is for the Israelites to have a good life within their own land if they obey G-d, and to have a miserable one in exile if they don’t (but allowing for eventual return if they repent), and this applies to the nation as a collective entity, not merely to individuals. It does not relate to non-Jews at all, for good or for ill, except for those sinful nations which had lived within the land of Canaan prior to the Exodus from Egypt, and for the nation of Amalek, which had the gall to attack the Israelites shortly after their departure from Egypt. And finally, while the promises detailed in the Bible concern circumstances in this world, there is plenty of evidence in Scripture that Judaism does believe in an afterlife of some sort.
You can decide whatever you want, but just because your ancestors believed something ridiculous does not mean that you should. What if your ancestors all jumped off a bridge?
I’ve read a lot of apologetics. Generally the guys say whatever they can think of, that sounds even remotely plausible, and then stands proud saying “no contradiction here.” Never mind that the contradiction is still their, their apologetics is nothing more than post hoc rationalization, and if you follow them along whatever line they go they often open up new holes. Basically, they only convince fundamentalists, guys like you, and only because of your will to believe. I see no difference between you and Christians in this.
I’ll be more than happy to list some more for you to answer. If a third grader can do it, you should find it easy. Just say when.
I’ll bet.
42 vs. 22 does not seem to make much difference regarding historic and moral points. Also, if the guy making the moral point, gets his historic facts wrong, that’s an error.
Collectively, then it seems the Jews have not been pleasing their god very well.
I find your god quite prejudiced then. While were at it, why should we assume those living in Canaan were sinful. Also, why was your god hardening the hearts of the enemies to rise up against the Jews, so he could later kill them? Doesn’t that sound horrendous to you?
You know this is kind of fun. Most Christians I debate go out of their way to distance themselves from the OT atrocities, but by your stance, you’re married to them.
I find it funny that your god never mentioned this to Moses. I can think of a few verses that might allude to this, as well as some that conflict. As a Jew, what specifics are you referring to?
badchad:
Then obviously, I wouldn’t have ever been born. Yet here I and millions of other Jews are, as a thriving (albeit small) and distinct religious-social identity on the strengths of those beliefs instead of the silly hypothetical you just put forward.
But that’s not true. Post-hoc it may be, but the contradiction stands reconciled. You can decide to not accept the apologetic, but that’s your problem, no longer a contradiction in text.
Hell no. Not that I can’t answer most of them, but I know how long the lists are, and even if I spend the time answering every single one, you’ll still consider it post-hoc, inadequate rationalizations. I’ll save my strength for someone with genuine interest rather than snark.
Again, I repeat, I don’t have the answer to that one at my fingertips. But what I meant about the moral point (in the general sense) is that certain numbers might not seem to measure from the starting point you naturally expect, because they are trying to say that x years passed since (certain event occurred, relevant to the point the writer is trying to make) rather than x years passed since (what it sounds like the Bible is talking about, if read as simple history).
Sadly, that would appear to be true.
Because your statement about Jewish world-view said it’s what “you gathered from the Torah.” The Torah said the Canaanites were sinful…and that, in ways that (except for homosexuality) we moderns would find abhorrent as well.
That was only Pharaoh. And G-d only forced the hardening of his heart after Pharaoh had hardened it himself numerous times, too many for him to be allowed a chance of redemption.
Heck, he never mentioned it to anyone. In Biblical times, it was sort of a given that the soul lived on after death, and it didn’t need to be mentioned any more than gravity did.
The clearest one is I Samuel chapter 28, where the witch of Endor summons Samuel’s soul at King Saul’s request. As I just said, it’s not like G-d “mentioned” this to anyone…it was just a fact of life that people knew the souls were out there in the afterlife.
This might’ve been mentioned already, but has anybody here been reading Slate’s Blogging the Bible by David Plotz? It seems like it would companion piece to this thread. (BTW, Plotz is currently near the end of the Book of Numbers.)
It’s called a joke, cmkeller.
I don’t know if I would say you Jews are thriving. Mormons are thriving, as are Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and even the non-religious.
If you want to base the reasonability of beliefs based on procreation or popularity, or some similar idea, I think you could do a lot better. Better yet, just accept that your beliefs are as irrational for you to hold, as they would be for anyone else to hold.
No it doesn’t. A text can say two contradictory things as the bible often does. People can later try to make wild excuses after the fact, but that does not mean the contradiction wasn’t there and isn’t still there. If I wrote that I got my first drivers license at 16 and then later wrote that I got my first drivers license at 18, you could call me on a contradiction. I could then make the excuse that I got my license at 16 but did not have a car until I was 18. The latter may be true but it still wouldn’t change the fact that getting my first drivers license at 16 contradicts that I got it at 18, and it does not change the fact that what I wrote about getting my license at 18 was, in deed, an error.
Yeah, that’s what I thought you were going to say.
What?
Can we agree that the Jews also acted in ways we moderns would find abhorrent, or do you support their actions, in killing every man, woman, and suckling child that they came across in towns they wished to conquer? What particularly do you think the Canaanites did that could be worse?
First, even if it was only Pharaoh, that would not make it ok would it? Or do you think it is ok?
Second, why should god not allow Pharaoh a chance for redemption? Is not god’s necessity to harden Pharaoh’s heart proof that Pharaoh had softened it on his own?
Third, why is your god killing innocent first born children, for the actions that he forces Pharaoh to make?
Fourth, last, and more importantly, you are wrong, it wasn’t only Pharaoh. Your god made a habit of forcing mans actions and then killing them their wives, and children for it:
*“But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand… And the Lord our God delivered him before us: and we smote him, and his sons and all his people. And we took his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones…” Deuteronomy 2:30-34
“Joshua made war a long time with all their kings. There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the in habitants of Gibeon: all other they took battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly…” Joshua 11: 18-20*
Out of curiosity cmkeller, can you come up with a better example for evil personified than this god you worship?
I don’t think that example is a very clear with regards to an afterlife. I don’t see anything that implies that Samuel was summoned from heaven any more than that he was just summoned back to life from the grave. Regardless Samuel did not make where he came from sound very inviting, for when he told Saul he would be there with him the next day, Saul was very afraid. Ecclesiastes specifically indicates no afterlife and Job puts it in much doubt as well. I just don’t see where you can take this afterlife as a given based on OT scripture.