Biblical Flaws and Your Thoughts

Originally posted by Jenyar
The Jews have rationally maintained the OT as their history for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...
You now speak for all the Jews? Would that include Friedman and Finkelstein and Halpern and Mazar and ...?

Originally posted by Jenyar
Their accuracy or historicity will not convince you of their content, so you might as well stop pretending it would.
Click to expand...
I am deeply interested in Syro-Palestinian history and archaeology. I am also deeply interested in Judaic studies. Perhaps you could quote me "pretending". While looking for the quote, however, why not answer the questions asked?

[edited to add the following - CA]

Some of you may find Eyewitness Testimony by Baruch Halpern (presumably one of Jenyar's Jews) of interest.
 
Last edited:
No, we are working with the theological interpretations of certain events, and the establishing of relationship with a God who isn't based in nature itself or events but rather seen as presiding over them. Scholars, whether Jewish or not, would hold different opinions of the significance of such a "biased" history. At some stage there must come a divergence between "religion" and "history" - people will always debate exactly where either starts to "leave the ground". They both require different modes of reasoning, but reasoning nontheless.

As such, the history in question will remain conjecture based on evidence - whether contemporary or ancient - and so does the religion. I can assume just by looking at your name that whatever evidence you might find, or find lacking, about the historical content in the Bible, none of it will lead you to conclude as they did, that God was involved. Their historical context or accuracy will never be enough to convince you that the God they testify to exists, will it? One accuracy will not be enough to satisfy your scepticism, and just one inaccuracy will be enough to discredit the Bible entirely.
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
No, we are working with the theological interpretations of certain events, ...
Click to expand...
No, we are dealing with theological assertions about certain purported events, and to side-step this fact is simply dishonest. If, for example, Syro-Palestinian archaeology shows an organic development of Israel out of West Semitic culture, as counterposed to the Exodus/Covenant/Conquest scenario, this speaks volumes about the theological content of the Torah and raises new questions about the intentions of its authors.
 
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
No, we are dealing with theological assertions about certain purported events, and to side-step this fact is simply dishonest. If, for example, Syro-Palestinian archaeology shows an organic development of Israel out of West Semitic culture, as counterposed to the Exodus/Covenant/Conquest scenario, this speaks volumes about the theological content of the Torah and raises new questions about the intentions of its authors.
Click to expand...
But the Bible itself maintains such an organic development, in the form of genealogies. The very term "semitic" means "descendents of Shem", son of Noah. (Wikipedia). The exodus did not create the nation of Israel, but it might have united them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top