Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito
The Bible is a bunch of different books. Calling it a storybook is no more accurate than calling it a history book. There are 66 (more if you include the deuterocanonical ones). The Book of Joshua isn't historically accurate. It contradicts the book of Judges constantly - both can't actually be correct if you read them closely, and the actual physical evidence much more closely resembles the story in Judges. The timing of the events don't match archaeological and anthropological data. That's not all radiocarbon dating, and there's no hypothetical flood here to use an excuse for lack of knowledge. Et-Tell (Biblical Ai) literally means "rubble," and the story in Joshua is an aetiological myth as to how that mound of rubble got to be there. No army conquered it in the second half of the second millenium BCE. It just didn't happen. Once that story (and pretty much every other one from the Old Testament) loses its historicity, then everything else should, too, if you believe the Bible to be one divinely inspired or inerrant book as most evangelical Christians do. If references to specific, particular historical events are shown to be fraudulent (and the scholarly consensus even among religious archaeologists is that they're generally not historically valid, at least until the 11th-10th century BCE and the actual establishment of the Davidic Kingdom), there's no rational reason to think that the metaphor-laden opening book has any historical truth to it.
If you, like me, see the entire thing as a giant copy-paste job from half a millennium's worth of politically-minded religious authorities*, there's no reason to use one passage to prove another and the entire scheme falls apart.
* By which I mean Genesis-Nehemiah. After that, it's poetry, prophecy and thoroughly allegorical stories like Job which I don't think anyone intended to be taken literally even if people do that now. And of course the New Testament is a completely different issue.
|
yes there are 66 books in the Protestant Bible, and 73 in the Catholic. There are gnostic texts and some "other" manuscripts that were not put in Alexandrian canon and even more left out when the Protestant Reformation left seven more out.
There are also some books we have no idea about, but are "missing" maybe and maybe just named something else or in Rome.
are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel?
are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah?
as it is written in the book of the law of Moses
Is not this written in the book of Jasher
The Chronicles may be first and second Chronicles. Book of the law may be Det.
Jasher though -- there are four different books out there, and they have no actual "older" text on these to verify the correct version -- if any of these are.
------------------------
I have no idea why the Protestant Reformation removed the Macabees, etc from the cannon.
-----------------------
There is also the book of Enoch -- which may or may not talk about the time before the flood -- which is also thought to possibly be when/where the book of Job actually came from as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I know a little history on the Book of Morman, and the Koran as well if you are interested.
----------------------------------------------------------------
With this said. I have not heard about the conflicts from Joshua and Judges, so please send me the passages, etc. so I can do some study. Also please send me the links where
Quote:
|
the story in Joshua is an aetiological myth as to how that mound of rubble got to be there. No army conquered it in the second half of the second millenium BCE. It just didn't happen. Once that story (and pretty much every other one from the Old Testament) loses its historicity, then everything else should, too,
|
I researched this one and if we make one assumption that Et-tell is the Biblical city of Ai -- then you are correct, and the bible is false. Because if it is incorrect anywhere then the whole thing can be found to be false.
Problem is -- what if Et-tell isn't Ai. Dr. Bryant Wood has proposed that Ai should instead be located at the site of Kirbet el-Maqatir arguing that the evidence for this site being Ai is stronger than at et-Tell.
You see they still don't really have any proof, but someone thought this, and others jumped in an believed, and then it just became fact --- much like most religion.
There are three main hyptotheses about how to explain the biblical story surrounding Ai in light of archaeological evidence.
*Note -- all of them are hypotheses - and none of them are actually provable. Saying something enough times may make many people support the idea -- it doesn't make it true or right.
Which leads me back to the point of "wait and see". So far I haven't seen anything that disproves the Protestant Reformation bible. Not finding Noahs ark doesn't mean it didn't exist. Finding a old city doesn't mean it was the one you were looking for.
I am also a skeptic enough to say that all things are not proven correct in the bible either. Too much of -- man's involvement. They may yet to all be proven correct, but much has not. Also, it is written in parable, which allows for much interpretation. Also much of it was passed down via story, and then written which allows for much problem. Also MAN tends to skew things to where it fits for himself - how else do you explain the "business" of church.
This still doesn't really change anything.
Everything starts with "is there a God"
-- if there isn't then logical actions are one way -- each man for himself as long as he is alive
-- if there is a God then
* We belong to him -- we are his creation
* He makes the rules and we should live by them
* There "could" be an afterlife
* There could be repercussions for not obeying him
Bottom line starts with this question.
Followed by what are his rules and why -- who is he -- and how do I avoid the repercussions.
*** Everyone will make this decision in life in one way or form.