Quote:
Originally Posted by Astreja  The story of Noah is actually the story of Atrahasis from Babylonian mythology. |
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
I don't see how you've proved that the story of Noah is a rip from Atra-Hasis at all - you've simply shown me a link to a description of the Babylonian myth. You can state similarities, but I can also state vast differences in the account. I'm sure I could find the same similarities to an account of Isis and Abraham Lincoln; but to say they are the same is absurd.
To say that something is similar to Christianity does not in any way, shape or form disprove or invalidate Christian claims. Christians actually believe that an innate religious instinct is something given to all by God, so relating two separate religious beliefs that spring from the same pyschological source does not, in any way, invalidate (either!) account.
You're going to have to show me where actual textual borrowings occurred - not just state similarities - to provide a compelling and valid argument here.
Quote:
|
And Elohim is derived from the Canaanite chief god El.
|
How? I've read the arguments before, and that's a vast, broad claim you're making. Instead of throwing pages and pages of scholarly research (which I could just as easily throw back) let us reason together and focus in on specifics. Give me
your focus points, and we'll go from there.
Quote:
|
The Hebrew word almah, as presented in Isaiah 7:14, simply means "young, unmarried woman". It's dishonest to translate it strictly as "virgin", yet that's what happened in the Septuagint, where the word appeared as parthenos and spawned the myth of the Virgin Birth. (I, Myself, suspect the translators were attempting to butt in on Athena's territory by using a word commonly used as Her epithet.)
|
Woah, wait a minute here. There is no reason to not believe that
almah could be virgin, as much so as there is no reason to believe that it should be. There is no single word in Biblical Hebrew that unequivocally means "virgin". Some may try and state
betulah, which I'm sure you're thinking of, but there is
no reason to believe that
betulah always means virgin.
Betulah is translated as "maiden" rather than "virgin" 31 out of 50 times in the OT. Even in the cases where it is, it hints that it needs clarification - look to Genesis 24:16:
"The maiden (na'arah) was very beautiful, a virgin (betulah) whom no man had known."
There is no reason for the "whom no man had known" should
betulah always be rendered as "virgin."
Now, as for almah, I will agree that "virgin" in the strict literal sense of today's English cannot be fully proven as the right choice, but I don't think there's any contrary evidence against that. Furthermore,
almah is often used in the context of fertility and nubility, in the sense that the woman is fully mature sexually - ready, in essence, for childbearing. It is commonly used in the sense of a young woman before the birth of her first child.
Also, Matthew does not need nor require that the Hebraic "almah" nor the Greek "parqevno" be translated exactly as virgin to complete the doctrine he was establishing - note that the thrust of his quotation is more for the name Immanuel, the name meaning a hope for deliverance for Isaiah - specifically dealing with the aim of the prophecy: it was meant for the house of David. Hence, Mary's lineage. That was the prophecy that Matthew refers to.
Quote:
|
No geological record of a worldwide flood, but plenty of historical records from civilizations that carried on with business as usual right through the purported time of said flood.
|
This is simply false. I'll quote another article here:
"Oceanographers took core samples of sediments in the Gulf of Mexico that included fossils shells from one-celled plankton called foraminifera and made an interesting discovery. They discovered that at locations in the core samples that represent thousands of years ago, the salinity in the water was suddenly reduced based upon the shells locked-in permanent record of the conditions. This reduction in salinity could only be caused by a huge fresh water deluge.
There is much archaeological evidence confirming the Flood of Noah. There is a tablet in Babylon on which one of the Babylonian kings mentions his enjoyment in reading the writings of those who lived before the Flood. Another Babylonian tablet gives an interesting confirmation. Noah was the tenth generation from Adam according to the Bible, and this Babylonian tablet names the ten kings of Babylon who lived before the Flood. Another tablet names all the kings of Babylon, and after the first ten there are the words: “The Deluge came up. . .” "
Quote:
|
No solar eclipse or earthquake recorded in the vicinity of Jerusalem around the alleged time of the crucifixion of Jesus.
|
False.
I'll quote from Thallus (c 50-75ad), a historian mentioned by Eusebius and Julius Africanus (the quote comes from his History of the World), as well as referenced by Josephus:
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others a portent only to the eye. Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth--manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period. (XVIII.1)"
Note that Julius' quotation of this was to be a history/chronology, not an apologetic. He is objectively quoting the source of Thallus. You can also look up the records of Phlegon, if you like.
Quote:
|
No archeological evidence for Israelites wandering around for forty years on the Sinai Peninsula. I mean, come on, now. That many people, travelling in a small geographical area for such a long time, should've left a rather substantial number of artifacts in their wake.
|
Not necessarily - nomadic peoples generally do not leave around artifacts that last for thousands of years. To state an opposite claim would require some form of proof or evidence otherwise.
Quote:
|
And don't get Me started on the sheer absurdity of that many people getting lost in an area which one can cross on foot in a couple of weeks. A month, tops, allowing for women and children. I mean, how hard could it have been to send out scouting parties in several directions and report back with the location of suitable land for resettlement?
|
Lots of reasons - one, you are forgetting that this was a divine event - God could have easily confounded them. He did just part the Red Sea beforehand. But you'll probably reject to that claim, since it involves the supernatural - which you'll say I can't ever claim anything supernatural. I disagree completely, but that's another matter.
Two, your argument is a petitio principii fallacy - you're assuming it's impossible without showing evidence to the contrary. Just because you think it is absurd does not make it so; you need to show evidence why the Biblical text there is false, not why you think it's absurd.
Quote:
|
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you want me to think it reasonable that a dragon can sweep one-third of the stars out of the sky, first you have to show me a real live dragon. (A horking big dragon, with a tail about 15,000,000,000 light years long.) Until you do that, I am under no obligation to take Revelations seriously.
|
My mistake then, I was focusing on a part of your argument rather than the whole.
I do not take Revelation literally textually, nor do I expect everyone else to. I do believe that certain events will happen that come from Revelation, but not necessarily in the literal fashion as described. It is apocryphal literature, after all, which usually functions in poetic form and license. We should read it like such.
Quote:
|
Forcing a woman to marry the man who raped her is bad. (Deuteronomy 21:11-13 and 22:28-29).
|
Social context is important. In the society of the time, to not marry someone who has just raped you puts you in the following position: you are no longer regarded as marriageable, as well as losing all interdependent support. Most women of the time actually would prefer to married to the person in this social context. It is not a matter of comforting, nurturing love as it is in today's society. It was a merciful solution in ancient times.
I've left out the others because I think they are similar to the misconception of social context at the time, and use arguments of outrage fallacies.
Also, if you could leave objections to one or two in further posts, so we can shorten topics and replies, that would be great.
I don't know about anyone else here, but I often feel like were swimming around in the petri dish of something that is much greater than we are. I mean have you looked at space lately? It keeps getting bigger (gratuitous reference to big bang...). So to tie my post into the topic here, I think we were created, but I'm most interested in finding out why. I mean that is where all the religions differ and the thing that colors their culture the most. I think that the big bang says to me that there was a starting point. Now whether we evolved by accident since that starting point or not, what caused it? because if something did (intentionally/intelligence needing definition) start it, then I would consider that the act of creation. Then the whole debate ensues over whether we are an interesting by product of a larger more important expiriment, or whether we are central. Or maybe were just simply entertaining, like a complex ant farm or sea monkeys. Humans tend to think in a scale that suits our natural/physical view of the universe, but ask a piece of corral reef if it is an atheist or not. He would probably say he believes that there might be something to that primordial soup stuff. Ok Im done for a few.
Linear Mode
