He doesn't need to put words in your mouth, you've already been majorly busted by Consequent Atheist for cutting and pasting someone else's material from the Yahoo message boards. Which is equivalent to lying and manipulation, but now you'll tell us it was just oversight on your part, right?
What's his name? Immanuel or Jesus?
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
He doesn't need to put words in your mouth, you've already been majorly busted by Consequent Atheist for cutting and pasting someone else's material from the Yahoo message boards. Which is equivalent to lying and manipulation, but now you'll tell us it was just oversight on your part, right?
Of course, the one time only, the sun was in my eyes, my dog ate my homework, I deleted it inadvertently excuse. How silly of me to expect any honesty from a person who has a proven track record of obfuscation and dishonesty.
Thank God.
You're not or you would've blabbed incessantly about it by now.
He or she has way more class in their pinkie toe than you'll ever have.
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
you are too funny, the "Old Testament" is Jewish history, what do you think it is? the history of China?
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
Re: What's in a name?
Luckily, I don't have to take your marching orders, you are the only 'xian' I know, an x-Christian. dying breed? wishful thinking
Actually, it's ancient mythology which has been corrupted by priestly perversions. There was no Abraham or Moses, no mass captivity in, nor exodus out of, Egypt. These are all allegorical stories that have their parallels in other, older mythologies. Much of the original meaning has been lost because of the Literalists, which has created a great deal of unnecessary havoc in the world.
Looking back at this thread's posts, I came upon a revelation: We're supposed to be discussing the whole Jesus or Immanuel thing. It is really my fault that we originally got off topic(Moral of the story: never try to answer a statement that hasn't been stated yet) . I know most of you couldn't care less about this, but I just wanted to throw that out.
"What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Is it what you call it, or is it what it is?
Seriously, if you look at Hebrew names they all have meanings, and not just arbitrary meanings either. This is especially true for prophecy, because the name is part of the prophecy.
Prophecies frequently have two fulfillments, the immediate one, which prompts it, and then a greater, future implication. The immediate application usually informs the greater fulfillment. There would have been a child born who was called Immanuel (God with us), but Jesus was Immanuel - called thus by his disciples (Matt. 1:23).
Last edited:
Here is a response in a letter from the Smithsonian Institute:
‘ … On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.
‘These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say … that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.’
- the Smithsonian's statement on the Bible
As I'm sure you know - different people will report the same history differently. That does not mean something never happened. It's also impossible to infer whether an event happened from archaeological data - even if every place and name mentioned can be proved to exist (and there are many instances where a place or name in the Bible was thought to be mythological that have subsequently been found).
‘ … On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.
‘These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say … that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.’
- the Smithsonian's statement on the Bible
As I'm sure you know - different people will report the same history differently. That does not mean something never happened. It's also impossible to infer whether an event happened from archaeological data - even if every place and name mentioned can be proved to exist (and there are many instances where a place or name in the Bible was thought to be mythological that have subsequently been found).
Where did the author of that page state that the above quotes were taken from a letter from the Smithsonian Institute? Here was the opening paragraph on that page:
"The Smithsonian's department of Anthropology has received numerous inquiries in recent years regarding the historicity of the Bible in general, and the Biblical account of Noah's flood in particular. The following statement has been prepared to answer these questions..."
It may very well be a true statement that the Smithsonian's Department of Anthropology has received numerous inquiries in recent years regarding the historicity of the bible. It is also obviously true that the statement that followed was prepared for the purpose of answering those questions, but by whom was it prepared, and where is it published (aside from that webpage)? I noticed there was no link to an original Smithsonian document, so I have to assume this is just more of the usual smoke and mirrors from the Christian sector.
My feeling is that you'll dissmiss them anyway.
Unfortunately it seems you have to write to them for the statements (they have one about the book of Mormon as well):
"Write to the National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC 20560) or the National Geographic Society (Washington, DC 20036) and ask for their statements on the Bible."
Here is the quote I have from National Geographic, if you are interested:
The National Geographic Society states:
But archaeologists do indeed find the Bible a valuable reference tool, and have used it many times for geographic relationships, old names, and relative chronologies. On the enclosed list, you will find many articles concerning discoveries verifying events discussed in the Bible [more than thirty articles are listed].
In the meantime I'll continue to look for credited online versions, for your benefit.
I agree wholeheartedly, but the issue is that MW brought up was that it was against prophecy to call Jesus "Jesus." This is flawed simply because the usage of Immanuel is a characterization in Hebrew, just as the names mentioned in Isaiah 9:6 are characterizations.
Nehushta,
So pretty much all of the OT is mythical. Are you including David, Solomon, the temple, the captivity, etc. in this statement?