"But That's The Old Testament"

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Anonymous
 
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 08:53 am
Acheick wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
(Note to self: Do not debate WalkerJ.)


hahaha - he's a smart cookie alright. Razz


Laughing that's all I meant Walker J. (no offense intended)
 
Acheick
 
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 09:01 am
Thorwald and Walker
The answer is here, J/K - Torah friend has answered you again:

Quote:
However, as a non-believer, I view all of this from a very different perspective. For me, science has all the answers I will ever need (so far, at least); there is no need for the super- or supra-natural. The wonders of Nature and our physical universe provide ample "creations" for me to cherish and preserve.


Your appreciation of Nature's wonderousness resonates with me.

Although, trying to be more precise, I don't cherish the wonders because they are wonderous. Rather, I cherish the wonderousness itself, both as a reminder of the existence of the First Cause and as a source of insight regarding the First Cause.

As Einstein said, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."



Quote:
Fair enough. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, as I am not a Torah expert. If this is truly the case, it is an astonishing feat. I remain sceptical, as that is my nature. I will quickly add, however, that it does not need a supernatural explanation; determination is a sufficient effect.


Yes, the Torah transcription process has resulted in astonishingly accurate reproductions. However, I do NOT attribute this accuracy to a supernatural explanation. Just the opposite, as I explained that Torah transcription is done by human scribes.

************************************************************

Quote:
Some of your brothers in the faith have argued that [Torah transcription errors] are still part of God's design (all things being, as it were, under his control), but I see you disagree with them.


Simply put, both opinions are within the boundaries of Torah Judaism. Neither is heresy. However, this simple answer obscures the complexity behind the opinions themselves. Indeed, while both opinions may appear to you as contradictory, they may appear to a Torah Jew as harmonious.

For example, the existence of God's ultimate control does not contradict His giving free will and scribal fallibility to humans (both of which can contribute to Torah transcription errors). By definition, the fact that it is God Who "gives" these attributes demonstrates it is within God's "control" to give.

As easily as "giving," God can also "withhold" or "take away." The fact that God does one of these actions (in one particular moment of time) and not one of the other two actions (in the same moment) is a manifestation of His ultimate and final control.

By the way, all these opinions are within the boundaries of Torah Judasim:
(1) the opinion that God is an impersonal God Who (at least today) does not directly involve Himself in any human events (Einstein's opinion);
(2) the opinion that God sometimes does and sometimes doesn't directly involve Himself in human events (Maimonide's opinion); and
(3) the opinion that God always directly involves himself in all human events (Chasidus).

Likewise, all these opinions are within the boundaries of Torah Judaism:
(1) the opinion that free will is an illusion because God knows what we will have chosen;
(2) the opinion that free will is an illusion because our actions are nonetheless predetermined by other factors such as personality and psychological predisposition; and
(3) the opinion that free will exists and that God's knowledge of our future choice doesn't negate our free will and that we can overcome the predetermination posed by our personality/psychological predispositions.

I could go on, listing diverging opinions that all fall within the boundaries of Torah Judaism, but you probably get the idea now. There is plenty of room for individualistic thought and debate within the framework of Torah Judaism.



Quote:
I merely thought it would be helpful to you if I pointed out the discrepancies in your arguments. Apparently, you prefer to attribute these to misunderstandings.


I recognize (as opposed to prefer) the existence of genuine misunderstanding.

I prefer (yes, I prefer) to simply move on, to avoid our primary dialogue bogging down in illusory disagreements based on mistaken perception.

Also, I am thankfully not burdened with the compulsion to prove for you there was a misunderstanding and not a "discrepancy in my argument." I am satisfied to just move on.



Quote:
I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for believing (or rather "knowing", as you put it) that the Torah is God's voice verbatim as opposed to, shall we say, a collection of nomads' superstitions?


I'd be glad to answer. Thanks for your patience in the meantime.
 
WalkerJ 1
 
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 09:14 pm
Re: Thorwald and Walker
Quote:
Simply put, both opinions are within the boundaries of Torah Judaism. Neither is heresy. However, this simple answer obscures the complexity behind the opinions themselves. Indeed, while both opinions may appear to you as contradictory, they may appear to a Torah Jew as harmonious.

For example, the existence of God's ultimate control does not contradict His giving free will and scribal fallibility to humans (both of which can contribute to Torah transcription errors). By definition, the fact that it is God Who "gives" these attributes demonstrates it is within God's "control" to give.

As easily as "giving," God can also "withhold" or "take away." The fact that God does one of these actions (in one particular moment of time) and not one of the other two actions (in the same moment) is a manifestation of His ultimate and final control.

By the way, all these opinions are within the boundaries of Torah Judasim:
(1) the opinion that God is an impersonal God Who (at least today) does not directly involve Himself in any human events (Einstein's opinion);
(2) the opinion that God sometimes does and sometimes doesn't directly involve Himself in human events (Maimonide's opinion); and
(3) the opinion that God always directly involves himself in all human events (Chasidus).

Likewise, all these opinions are within the boundaries of Torah Judaism:
(1) the opinion that free will is an illusion because God knows what we will have chosen;
(2) the opinion that free will is an illusion because our actions are nonetheless predetermined by other factors such as personality and psychological predisposition; and
(3) the opinion that free will exists and that God's knowledge of our future choice doesn't negate our free will and that we can overcome the predetermination posed by our personality/psychological predispositions.

I could go on, listing diverging opinions that all fall within the boundaries of Torah Judaism, but you probably get the idea now. There is plenty of room for individualistic thought and debate within the framework of Torah Judaism.

This is a good example of what I was talking about earlier. Once a person has accepted certain concepts as a reality, it allows them the freedom to extrapolate within that framework. In your reality God exists and, therefore, it seems plausible to you that God is able to do and be all of these things. For you, that issue has been "locked down", so to speak, and is no longer debatable.

In my reality, the existance of God has not been established as anything other than a concept, thus it strikes me as illogical to base real-world arguments on such an abstract.

Quote:
I recognize (as opposed to prefer) the existence of genuine misunderstanding.

I prefer (yes, I prefer) to simply move on, to avoid our primary dialogue bogging down in illusory disagreements based on mistaken perception.

Then, by all means, move on. I, on the other hand, prefer to scrutinize my sentiments to see if there is any chance of my reaction being a reflex as opposed to deliberate and well thought out. Else, how should I expect to maintain an open mind on the subject?

Quote:
I'd be glad to answer. Thanks for your patience in the meantime.

No problem. Take your time.
 
Acheick
 
Reply Wed 8 Nov, 2006 04:26 pm
Torah follower responds (Boy, she has persistence!):

Quote:
"I, on the other hand, prefer to scrutinize my sentiments to see if there is any chance of my reaction being a reflex as opposed to deliberate and well thought out."


You assume that I don't scrutinize my words to sift reflex from deliberation. Well, you assume wrongly. Also (and in anticipation of your claim that I "implied" such a thing), nothing I've written implies that I don't self-scrutinize. The opposite is true, as I have explicitly told you about both my personal background and about how I consciously use intellect instead of emotion to arrive at conclusions regarding God and Torah.

So, I am glad that we both self-scrutinize. Good. Smile



Quote:
"In your reality God exists and, therefore, it seems plausible to you that God is able to do and be all of these things. For you, that issue has been "locked down", so to speak, and is no longer debatable."


Your conclusion (that I am incapable or unwilling to debate the existence of God) is logically faulty. Having arrived at one conclusion now doesn't preclude arriving at a new conclusion later. For example, based on deliberation of all available evidence, I have concluded that God exists. Nonetheless, if I'm presented with new evidence - or new analysis of old evidence - then my conclusion can change.

Don't mistake confidence in a conclusion with a closed mind.


Quote:

"In my reality, the existance of God has not been established as anything other than a concept, thus it strikes me as illogical to base real-world arguments on such an abstract."


Okay, it's good that I paused where I did, in my last response. Before I continue with an explanation why I conclude the Torah was given by God, I should explain why I conclude that God exists. Let's be careful and keep the horse before the cart.

Thank you for patience between posts.
 
WalkerJ 1
 
Reply Wed 8 Nov, 2006 10:54 pm
Quote:
You assume that I don't scrutinize my words to sift reflex from deliberation. Well, you assume wrongly.

The only thing I assumed was that you wanted to "move on" (you also stated as much), and were suggesting I do the same. My comparison of myself to you was based solely on that. If you'd like to continue debating semantics on this one, I have no objection.

Quote:
Your conclusion (that I am incapable or unwilling to debate the existence of God) is logically faulty.

"Incapable" and "unwilling" wouldn't be my first choice in words, else I might have said as much. "Reluctant" might be a better word for it. What I'm saying, is that all of your arguments are based on the fact that God exists. Based on the tone of your arguments here, I deduce that you see no merit to re-evaluating your position on God's existence until presented with newer evidence (which I might add is hardly unlikely to surface anytime soon).

Let me see if I can explain the comment in my previous post a little better.

If you're more of a visual person, picture a line of a fixed length connecting two points. If point A is fixed or only moves slightly, the possible positions for point B are limited. If, however, neither point is fixed, the positions of both points are limitless.

I realize my analogy is overly simplistic, but I feel it might help you understand where I'm coming from.

The way I see it, a person with an open mind could, for instance, debate God's non-existence or the invalidity of the Torah with as much enthusiasm as when that person debates in their favor.
Quote:
Okay, it's good that I paused where I did, in my last response. Before I continue with an explanation why I conclude the Torah was given by God, I should explain why I conclude that God exists. Let's be careful and keep the horse before the cart.

I fail to see the need to establish a hierarchical order in this matter. It is, for instance logically possible that the concept of God was created or at least nurtured by books such as the Torah. From my perspective, you are merely saying, "Let's keep the cart before the cart."

That said, if you feel it is necessary for me to understand your reasons for keeping "Point A" in a relatively fixed position, then I'm all ears. Smile
 
Acheick
 
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 02:54 pm
Lobbing the ball back and forth...
Torah follower responds:

Quote:
"Based on the tone of your arguments here, I deduce that you see no merit to re-evaluating your position on God's existence until presented with newer evidence (which I might add is hardly unlikely to surface anytime soon)."


Based on my "tone?" Once again, you have wrongly assumed a particular conclusion regarding my position.

First, your old evidence may be new evidence for me (which, I might add, may indeed surface as you may indeed know something I don't; I am eager for that possibility).

Second, you omitted the key component of ANALYSIS of evidence. I explicitly stated that my conclusion regarding God's existence can change based on new evidence or new ANALYSIS of old evidence.




Quote:
"The way I see it, a person with an open mind could, for instance, debate God's non-existence or the invalidity of the Torah with as much enthusiasm as when that person debates in their favor"


The way I see it, that is the definition of "playing devil's advocate." Yes, given a personal goal of debate for the sake of debate, I am willing and capable of enthusiastically playing devil's advocate and arguing both sides of an argument.

In this particular conversation, however, that is NOT my personal goal.

MY PERSONAL goal in this conversation is to personally test and re-evaluate my conclusion (that God exists) through the exchange of evidence - and the exchange of analysis of evidence - with someone who disagrees with my conclusion. The way I see it, THIS is the definition of a person with an open mind.

Certainly let me know if you are unwilling to do this, and I'll stop wasting both our time. In any event, thank you for the dialogue up to this point.
 
WalkerJ 1
 
Reply Thu 9 Nov, 2006 07:39 pm
Re: Lobbing the ball back and forth...
Quote:
Based on my "tone?" Once again, you have wrongly assumed a particular conclusion regarding my position.

Yes, "tone". Posts on web forums are poor indicators of the emotions behind what is being written, so I can only go by the words you use.

Perhaps you need to stop assuming that I am assuming. I hardly know anything about you other than that you are female and follow the Jewish religion. It would be unwise for me to assume anything beyond that.

Quote:
First, your old evidence may be new evidence for me (which, I might add, may indeed surface as you may indeed know something I don't; I am eager for that possibility).

Fair enough.

Quote:
Second, you omitted the key component of ANALYSIS of evidence. I explicitly stated that my conclusion regarding God's existence can change based on new evidence or new ANALYSIS of old evidence.

And I intentionally omitted it, because analysis is relative. The same piece of evidence may be examined by two separate parties and both may arrive at disparate conclusions.

Quote:
The way I see it, that is the definition of "playing devil's advocate." Yes, given a personal goal of debate for the sake of debate, I am willing and capable of enthusiastically playing devil's advocate and arguing both sides of an argument.

MY PERSONAL goal in this conversation is to personally test and re-evaluate my conclusion (that God exists) through the exchange of evidence - and the exchange of analysis of evidence - with someone who disagrees with my conclusion. The way I see it, THIS is the definition of a person with an open mind.

In this particular conversation, however, that is NOT my personal goal.
[/b]

I figured as much, but thanks for clarifying.

My goal in this debate is to be, as you define it, the "devil's advocate". I hold no conclusions dear and am about as willing to challenge my own arguments as anyone else's.

I was under the impression you felt the same way (and that may quite possibly be the only thing I assumed about you). If you are looking for someone who "disagrees with [your] conclusion", you may be debating the wrong person here.

The fact that I am debating an issue does not and should not mean that I disagree or agree with it, but merely that I am debating it.

This may, perhaps, be why my Rabbi friends couldn't figure me out. I expressed great interest in their religion and debated with them into the wee hours of the morning, but they could never put a finger on what angle I was coming from.

Just out of curiosity, what is your term for a person who holds nothing sacred and is willing to question and debate for and against everything. I consider myself as having an open mind, but based on your definition of the term, I don't fall into that category.

Quote:
Certainly let me know if you are unwilling to do this, and I'll stop wasting both our time. In any event, thank you for the dialogue up to this point.[/i]

No, not at all. I'm quite enjoying gaining a new perspective on this matter. The fact that I'm taking time out of a very busy schedule to correspond with you, a complete stranger, on this matter, should be a good indicator of my level of interest in this.
 
Acheick
 
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 09:18 pm
Here you go, Walker - can't wait for your answer Smile

===============================================
Quote:
Second, you omitted the key component of ANALYSIS of evidence. I explicitly stated that my conclusion regarding God's existence can change based on new evidence or new ANALYSIS of old evidence.

Quote:
"And I intentionally omitted it, because analysis is relative. The same piece of evidence may be examined by two separate parties and both may arrive at disparate conclusions. "
======================================================

OF COURSE analysis is relative, whereby two separate parties may arrive at disparate conclusions. That is precisely why I seek people who disagree with my conclusion; so that I might learn HOW they arrived at a disparate conclusion (i.e., their analysis) and potentially uncover a flaw in my own analysis. That is the point.

Your willingness to exchange ANALYSIS is a necessity, if I am to attain my own personal goal in this dialogue.



Quote:
"My goal in this debate is to be, as you define it, the 'devil's advocate'."


Are you willing to take one particular position and consistantly argue from within that paradigm? (If yes, then my goal may still be compatible with yours.)


Quote:
"Just out of curiosity, what is your term for a person who holds nothing sacred and is willing to question and debate for and against everything."


I don't have a singular term in mind for what you describe. Your description is too broad.
 
WalkerJ 1
 
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 12:57 am
Quote:
OF COURSE analysis is relative, whereby two separate parties may arrive at disparate conclusions. That is precisely why I seek people who disagree with my conclusion; so that I might learn HOW they arrived at a disparate conclusion (i.e., their analysis) and potentially uncover a flaw in my own analysis. That is the point.

Your willingness to exchange ANALYSIS is a necessity, if I am to attain my own personal goal in this dialogue.

I have no objection to that. But let's keep in mind that we are discussing religion here and not science. Analysis in science uses rules of logic vastly different than analysis in religious matters--the latter lending itself far easier to emotional bias and personal perspective.

Quote:
Are you willing to take one particular position and consistantly argue from within that paradigm? (If yes, then my goal may still be compatible with yours.)

Sure. So then, for the sake of this argument, I will take the position that the Torah is the product of human authors who were inspired by nothing other than their personal agendas and influenced by nothing other than their environment and human nature.

I will argue that the inconsistencies and inaccuracies contained in their writings support the hypotheses of human rather than divine authorship.

I will argue that because there is no independent support of many of the events described in the Torah, that these portions cannot be relied upon for historical accuracy, and therefore could not be divinely inspired.

I will compare the history of the Jewish religion and holy books with those of other religions in order to establish patterns in their evolutions.

I will argue that because divine authorship cannot be proven, no religion based on the texts can rightly be referred to as anything other than a faith and therefore cannot be analyzed using scientific logic.

Quote:
I don't have a singular term in mind for what you describe. Your description is too broad.

...as it should be. Smile
 
Thorwald 1
 
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 01:22 am
Well put, WalkerJ!
 
Acheick
 
Reply Mon 13 Nov, 2006 07:03 pm
The response (I have some questions of my own which I will post soon also)


===============================================
Quote:
"Analysis in science uses rules of logic vastly different than analysis in religious matters"

===============================================

Not for me.



===============================================
Quote:
"for the sake of this argument, I will take the position that the Torah is the product of human authors who were inspired by nothing other than their personal agendas and influenced by nothing other than their environment and human nature.

"I will argue that the inconsistencies and inaccuracies contained in their writings support the hypotheses of human rather than divine authorship.

"I will argue that because there is no independent support of many of the events described in the Torah, that these portions cannot be relied upon for historical accuracy, and therefore could not be divinely inspired.

"I will compare the history of the Jewish religion and holy books with those of other religions in order to establish patterns in their evolutions.

"I will argue that because divine authorship cannot be proven, no religion based on the texts can rightly be referred to as anything other than a faith and therefore cannot be analyzed using scientific logic."
===============================================

Good. Let's begin. Please provide an example of "inconsistency" or "inaccuracy" in the Torah.
 
evanman
 
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 02:00 pm
Quote:
no religion based on the texts can rightly be referred to as anything other than a faith and therefore cannot be analyzed using scientific logic."


Well, both Torah belivers and Believers in Jesus origins are founded in historical happenings, the writings came about as the result of what people witnessed.

Written testimony stands up in any court of law!
 
Acheick
 
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 02:39 pm
Forgive me, Walker, if I'm not understanding. But what I keep getting from you is that religion is an unkown made up completely of imaginations, while science is a fact. I don't think so. Science may be made up of facts a preponderance of the time, but a lot of the time it is based on theory and presumptions, waiting to be proved or disproved. Unfortunately, just because science or some scientific study suggests it, it becomes fact. That is annoying to me. One day eggs are bad for you, the next day they are good for you. Go figure. Even evolution. The earth is 20 billion years old. How do they know? Carbon data tells them. How does carbon data know? Scientists told them. I know I'm not reciting it correctly, but you catch my drift.
 
Cookie 2
 
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 05:39 pm
I think this debate could go on endlessly, a lot depends on what you chose to believe. It's impossible to prove to nonbelievers that God exists, just as it's impossible to prove to people with faith like yours that science should have the credibility many people believe it should have. it's all about what you CHOSE to believe and if you don't believe it's credible because you have chosen to believe something else, neither side will ever be convinced even if facts are staring them in the face. wouldn't you say? because science and religion are something like oil and vinager Razz
 
WalkerJ 1
 
Reply Tue 14 Nov, 2006 11:55 pm
Acheick wrote:
Forgive me, Walker, if I'm not understanding. But what I keep getting from you is that religion is an unkown made up completely of imaginations, while science is a fact. I don't think so.

No. I'm merely saying that science deals with subject matter that is either tangible or follows the rules of cause and effect. Its governing laws dictate that an experiment on such matter will produce identical results under equally identical conditions.

Not so in religion where the laws of cause and effect are arbitrary. Experiments performed on religious concepts cannot be expected to produce the same result every time. There are no tangible parts that may be examined and singularly defined. Correct answers become a matter of personal preference.

If you're looking at religion from the perspective of a single one of its many flavors, the arbitrariness of it all is not as apparent as when you take all religions into account (both contemporary and ancient).

In short, the argument I am making, is that religion is an abstract. It is not even so much as a hypothesis. Therefore, it cannot be analyzed using the scientific methods. Until the concept of God and its effects become tangible or predictable in some way, it is a futile venture to try to define it scientifically or even hypothesize about it.

Until such a time (I remain hopeful) I am content to accept only the existence of the arbitrarily defined concept of God. However, I cannot justify accepting the existence of a divine being merely because of my preference for one of those definitions.

Acheick wrote:
Science may be made up of facts a preponderance of the time, but a lot of the time it is based on theory and presumptions, waiting to be proved or disproved.

Are you sure you're using the term 'theory' correctly? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)
 
WalkerJ 1
 
Reply Wed 15 Nov, 2006 01:58 am
Quote:
Good. Let's begin. Please provide an example of "inconsistency" or "inaccuracy" in the Torah.

I will provide three, beginning, as would seem natural, with Genesis. Unfortunately, I do not read Hebrew, so all texts used will be from the Christian KJV or NIV translations.

==========================================

NOTE: This was written late last night. Upon reading it over this morning, I discovered that I'd pasted in the wrong verses for 1a. I've corrected it now.

1a. Man is created after the animals:
Quote:
Genesis 1:25-26
25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1b. Man is created before the animals:
Quote:
Genesis 2:18-19
18. And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Argument: Even if this inconsistency is due to the compilation of two written accounts, the chronological orders cannot both be right. One is inaccurate. A superhuman being must be above committing such an error.


2a. Noah is told (twice) to take one pair of every kind of animal, bird and insect:
Quote:
Genesis 6:19-20
19. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

2b. Noah is told to take seven (also translated in other versions as 'seven pairs') of all clean animals and birds
Quote:
Genesis 7:2-3
2. Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Argument: A divine being would have no inerrant reason to contradict him/herself in a matter regarding the life and death of all of his/her creations.

As a side note: It seems anachronistic that Noah would have a knowledge of clean versus unclean animals when the distinction was first made when God spoke to Moses and Aaron in Leviticus 11.


3. God makes a covenant (a formal agreement) with Abraham, promising to give him "all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession" if he and all male descendants will be circumcised.
Quote:
Genesis 17: 9-11
And God said to Abraham, "...This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you."

Argument: The ritual of circumcision predates Abraham's time (supposedly @1950 BCE) by at least a full millennium. A divine being would have been aware that Abraham's religious (idol worshiping) counterparts, the Egyptians, were already mutilating their males in this manner and that the practice of this ritual would not make Abraham's lineage any more special than the Egyptians. A human author, on the other hand, could be excused for such an erroneous assumption.

==========================================

I believe I can easily come up with rebuttals for all three--not all of which would involve mental acrobatics--but I trust your explanation of the above ostensible discrepancies will include more of the scientific logic you claim can be used in these matters (and, I should add, I am limited to using given my selected argumental approach) and less exegesis.
 
evanman
 
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 05:54 pm
Here we have the classic error that most critic's fall into when bringing up what appear to be discrepancies.

You are dealing with several different narratives concerning the same subjects.

Genesis Chapter 1 is a preamble. Chapter 3 is getting into the nitty-gritty of the details.

The animals were created from the ground, and they were brought before Adam, and they were created before Adam.

Quote:
It seems anachronistic that Noah would have a knowledge of clean versus unclean animals when the distinction was first made when God spoke to Moses and Aaron in Leviticus 11.


Not anacronistic at all. If we study the Bible narrative men new what was in accordance with God's laws even before they were codified by Moses. For instance--one of my favourite passages to quote to TF about "Law of Love". When Potiphar's wife offered herself to Joseph he declined because he knew it to be a sin. Just as the one to whom Abraham was going to allow to think Sarah was simply his sister knew, and also the one who nearly tried to seduce Jacob's wife, these all knew even though there was no written commandment.

It is possible to know right from wrong without the written Law.

You will also notice that Noah was to take seven pairs of every "clean" animal. Reason being was that after the flood people would no longer be vegetarians but meat eaters. They were given extra of these creatures, the Kosher ones, so as to have a good supply. Also we do not know how much the animals multiplied in the ark during the year they spent afloat.

Quote:
The ritual of circumcision predates Abraham's time (supposedly @1950 BCE

Abraham was not born in 1950 B.C.E he was born 1950 years after the year of Adam's creation. This predates Egyptian civilisation.
 
WalkerJ 1
 
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 07:43 pm
evanman wrote:
Here we have the classic error that most critic's fall into when bringing up what appear to be discrepancies.

The animals were created from the ground, and they were brought before Adam, and they were created before Adam.
You're probably going by the NIV translation, which is notorious for its deliberate mistranslations. In the NIV, Genesis 2:18 is translated as "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field". The "had" was inserted in order to remove the appearance of a discrepancy. It is not present nor implied in the Hebrew text (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm).

Genesis 2:18-22 is clearly sequential. Adam is lonely (18 ) so God creates the animals and brings them to Adam (19). When Adam doesn't find a suitable partner (20), God creates the woman (22).

Genesis 1:25-26 is also clearly sequential (as is all of Chapter 1).

Both sequences cannot be right. My argument remains valid.

evanman wrote:
It is possible to know right from wrong without the written Law.
Since when is eating rabbit meat in the same category as adultery?

evanman wrote:
You will also notice that Noah was to take seven pairs of every "clean" animal. Reason being was that after the flood people would no longer be vegetarians but meat eaters.
evanman, if you'd like to participate in this debate, please refrain from presenting your opinions as arguments, unless you can back them up with references. Acheick's friend wants to use scientific logic in this debate, and I'm doing my best to oblige. Kindly try to do the same.

In any case, it appears you've missed my point about the contradiction. Regardless, if you want me to take you seriously, you're going to have to back that up with independent references.

I challenge you to find independent proof that mankind was vegetarian before Noah's lifetime.

evanman wrote:
Abraham was not born in 1950 B.C.E he was born 1950 years after the year of Adam's creation.
The fact that he was born approximately halfway between The Jewish year 0 and 0 BCE does tend to be confusing. Either way (1950 BCE or 1950 years from Adam's creation), it's more or less accurate. Scholars place his birth between 2166 BCE and 1637 BCE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham#Dating_and_historicity
http://www.abiblestudy.com/part2.html
http://www.jewishamerica.com/ja/timeline/birthabr.cfm

I said "@1950 BCE", because that year is roughly halfway between 2166 BCE and 1637 BCE.

I take it you're attempting to argue that God invented circumcision and Abraham was the first to practice it? If so, then why not just say so? Trying to pick apart the dates is not going to lend much to this debate.

evanman wrote:
This predates Egyptian civilisation.
Really? Then how do you explain this story: Genesis 12:11-20
 
Cookie 2
 
Reply Fri 17 Nov, 2006 06:13 pm
WalkerJ wrote:
As a side note: It seems anachronistic that Noah would have a knowledge of clean versus unclean animals when the distinction was first made when God spoke to Moses and Aaron in Leviticus 11.


Right on. Heh. Razz I used to wonder about this when i was in the family. I asked my teachers and they told me i need to wrap it in a bundle of faith and trust the Lord. heh.
 
m 2
 
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2006 02:44 am
Off topic, but...
evanman wrote:
For instance--one of my favourite passages to quote to TF about "Law of Love". When Potiphar's wife offered herself to Joseph he declined because he knew it to be a sin.

Unfortunately this wouldn't work, as they believe they are no longer under the law. As long as it's done in love, it can't be wrong (is what they say).
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/28/2024 at 11:46:44