Bible Writers not just ignorant "goat herders"

by applehippie 87 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Band on the Run

  St. Paul had an exemplary Jewish education for his times. He was a true scholar. Most of the scriptures were not written by the people they claim as authors. One or two generations separate the writer from the apostle. The usage of a famous name in Christianity was not a fraud. It was common practice to align yourself iwth an apostolic school. I expect many of the original readers knew the person who wrote the scripture. It makes sense that these writers would be knowledgeable in Hebrew and Greek.

  Fishermen and goat herders were typically illiterate. God used people who had writing skills. With today's much heralded research methods, only a fool would believe these scriptures were written by the author, long dead at the time.

  Most of the scriptures are well-written. There is a flow that goes beyond mere grammatical rules. Viewpoint bias is also present.
• 

  cofty

  The land of "Canaan" that the Isrealites settled was an excellent choice from an economic perspective.

  Not in the longer term it wasn't. It's the only bit of the Middle East with no oil.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  The mockery of the Bible writers isn't so much the best that critics can do - there is much better criticism that can be leveled against the Bible and its authors here on JWN and in libraries and websites around the world.
  
  We mock because it's fun and because it tweaks the self-righteous and gullible followers of an ancient book.

  As for how advanced they were, LMAO. They knew some things and imagined a LOT of things. They were primitive.
• 

  Larsinger58

  Another thing that is impressive to me is related to how the Bible says the stars and planets would be used for timekeeping. That has worked out incredibly well. It relates not only to local times, but also to specific dates linked to eclipses. When compared to the Bible's specific timeline, you get a lot of compatibility. Case in points:

  The KTU 1.78, sometimes called the oldest eclipse reference, dates a solar eclipse at Ugarit that rose in Taurus. It matches the eclipse of 1375 BCE, which in turn is linked to a palace fire in Ugarit that is dated to year 12 of Akhenaten. Based on those assignments, it means the 1st year of Akhenaten occurs in 1386 BCE per this eclipse reference. What is critical about this is that if it matches the Bible's timeline then you have a confirmation, but if it doesn't then it can be used to challenge the Bible's timeline. Akhenaten is the king who began to rule after the 10 plagues per the Bible, the previous pharaoh, Amenhotep III dying that year in the Red Sea. So how does the date of 1386 BCE compare with the Bible's timeline? We can now use 1947 to date all Biblical events. 1947 begins the final jubilee, the 70th jubilee of 49 years, which ends in 1996. That means 70 jubilees begin in 1435 BCE (49 x 70 = 3430; 3430 - 1996 = 1434 + 1 = 1435). The Exodus occurs 49 years after the "70 weeks" of jubilees begin and thus in 1386 BCE. (1435 - 49 = 1386 BCE). So per the Bible, or I should say, per this interpretation of the Bible the Biblical date for the Exodus is 1386 BCE, the same date you get for the Exodus based on 1947. So for those who follow the chronology this way, you get an amazing confirmation from astronomy for the Bible's historical timeline! VAT4956, this text as well matches the Bible timeline amazingly. The return from Babylon occurs exactly 19 jubilees after the Exodus. 19 jubilees is 931 years. (19 x 49 = 931) So 1386 - 931 = 455 BCE. Based on that, we can date the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar II 70 years earlier in 525 BCE. That means year 37 falls in 511 BCE. Within the VAT4956 are two references that match 511 BCE in a diary where all the other references match 568 BCE. That means the secular timeline had been changed by the time of the Seleucid Period and hat been converted from 511 BCE to 568 BCE, thus the VAT4956 confirms 568 BCE is the revised date and 511 BCE is the original date. That agrees with the Bible's timeline when 455 BCE dates the 1st of Cyrus. So when people criticize the Bible's history, a lot depends on how accurately they understand the Bible. The elect have holy spirit to understand the Bible more accurately tha others, so when they compare the Bible to secular historical references in astronomy, you get exact confirmation which in turn increases their faith, or I should say, confirms their faith in Bible history. The result is that they just shake their heads at critics who distort what the Bible says sometmies and then compare that to secular dates, making it look like the Bible's timeline doesn't work, when it actually does. Someone said a lot of ancient history is "revisionist", which is certainly true. But often a blind eye is turned to secular revisionism but often applied to the history of the Bible.
• 

  Band on the Run

  If I were writing a propaganda piece to perk up my home audience when a nation-state emerges, the foremother would be an empress, who dined with subordinate kings and queens. It is NOT factual.

  When these status things are mentioned, it is a signal that the author wants the character to have social standing. Abraham also owned land and material wealth. Yes, this great man came close to murdering his son. All history is biased. The most one can hope is to be aware of biases. Fools read it literally.

  Popular culture is chock full of Bible material today. The History channel runs a lot.

  Archaeologists cannot find any trace of King David or King Solomon. If these kings existed, there would be garbage from their period. Ruins would exist. They excavated way below that layer. Barring some magical happening, most of these Bible never existed. Another theory is that they are imports from surrounding religions, reworked and renamed for a Hebrew Bible.

  Read Noah's flood incident in Genesis and compare it with The Epic of Gilgamesh, which is the older work.

  One can still find good things in the Bible. A fundamentalist reading of the Bible tends to negate faith, not reinforce it. Many flee because they see lies in details. A more knowledgeable approach would let people retain some faith without believing in magic stories.
• 

  Vidiot

  Band on the Run - "A fundamentalist reading of the Bible tends to negate faith, not reinforce it.

  It does reinforce it in individuals already primed for fundamentalism.

  One problem is that fundamentalist leaders (and their followers) are overwhelmingly conservative, and even secular conservative ideology usually subscribes to a set-in-stone axiom that the vast majority of people are inherently bad and cannot be trusted to behave themselves (or more accurately, submit to authority) without the iron rod of religious discipline.

  As a result, liberal interpretation becomes an anethema, in part because it's liberal (and therefore opposed simply on principle), but even more so because it leaves too much to chance (and, arguably, trust).
• 

  darthweef

  I think the biggest problem with this whole thread is that the assumption of the intelligence or lack of intelligence of ancient people is being judged based a small group of people who may or may not have existed..

  I feel like 2000 years from now, if people judge our society by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort versus say Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins they are going to come to two VERY different viewpoints on the intelligence of our society.
• 

  steve2

  Let's all sing the praises of ancient peoples, one and all, writers and nonwriters, who were ritualistically untroubled by Divine acts of genocide carried out by obedient "chosen peoples". Untroubled, from "God" so must be right. Next.
• 

  Larsinger58

  GINGERBREAD: Not to burst your happy bubble - but, there is no physical, archeological evidence of a large group (it is claimed to be up to 2 million) of people every being present on the Sinai Peninsula. Moses leading a group of people out of Egyptian "captivity" may have happened. But they never wandered for 40 years in the wilderness.

  LARS: Not to burst your bubble, but sand doesn't maintain footprints very well. Ten million people crossing the Sahara Desert will leave no trace they had been there. If ten million people jump in the ocean to get baptized as Jehovah's witnesses, do you think we could examine the local sea water to determine that event happened? No.

  I hate to burst your bubble, but it is known that Native American Indians would travel single file to hide their numbers. The Israelites were embarking upon a military compaign into Canaan. What if they didn't want any spies knowing details of their actual size? If there was the least concern from a military point of view about hiding details of their numbers, then that right there would have been a reason to destroy any evidence that would give that away. Thus when we find a complete absence of archaeological remains from this time, it is only under the presumption that the Israelites themselves did not intentionally clean up after themselves and intentionally leave no trace they were ever there. That is, if there was a common cemetery at one time, they may have decided to dig it up and burn the bones or otherwise discard of the bones. Thus finding no gaves in Sinai could meen either they were not there OR that they deliberately removed evidence of their numbers and their presence. So total lack of archaeological evidence in Sinai is proof of more than one scenario.

  In the meantime, we can date the Exodus to 1386 BCE which begins the 1st of Akhenaten. So when we examine any evidence of the 10 plagues during his reign, we find it! That is, if the 10 plagues really happened, we'd expect some impact on the religious culture of the Egyptians. Well, the Egyptians suddenly became monotheists in 1386 BCE! That's a textbook response to the 10 plagues since Yahweh was a monotheistic god.

  So this is what gets me. Those who don't want to believe, run to all the areas where "there is no evidence" to make themselves feel good. But at the same time, they run for their lives from any critical evidence that confirms Bible History. So I'd ask: Where's the honesty? Where's the consistency?

  Bottom line is that those believers who actually do the hard research, get lots of confirmation of Bible history from archaeology. Those who are looking for contradictions find them and sometimes manufacture them, so they fall apart on close examination.
• 

  Larsinger58

  BAND ON THE RUN: Archaeologists cannot find any trace of King David or King Solomon. If these kings existed, there would be garbage from their period. Ruins would exist. They excavated way below that layer. Barring some magical happening, most of these Bible never existed. Another theory is that they are imports from surrounding religions, reworked and renamed for a Hebrew Bible.

  LARS: This is just not a true statement. Case in point, David conquered the Philistines. There is evidence of the end of the Philistine pottery period "well into the 10th Century BCE" found by archaeologists. That is, from 900-950 BCE. So why isn't that evidence for David? It is! So why are you saying there is "no evidence." Now some say there is no evidence because they use the Persian-revised timeline that dates Solomon's rule from 970-930 BCE and David from 1010-970 BCE. Now that dating, indeed, conflicts with David being responsible for the end of the Philistine pottery period which archaeologists think ended a little later. But that's based on the incorrect timeline and incorrect assignment of the Assyrian eponym eclipse now dated to 763 BCE. One theory is that this eclipse reference actually is to the 709 BCE eclipse. The only criteria for this solar eclipse is that it falls in month 3, Siminau. You can alternatively date month 3 in 763 BCE or 709 BCE; only if you date it in 763 BCE you have to begin the new year before the Spring equinox, which was exceptional. The more common dating reflects the third month beginning when the new moon occurs after the Spring equinox, which is the case of the 709 BCE eclipse. So the 709 BCE eclipse starts out with an edge of credibility in its favor vs. the 763 BCE. But being as that may be, when we use the 709 BCE eclipse to date the Assyrian Period, the rule of Solomon occurs from 910-870 BCE and David's rule from 950-910 BCE. That means, based upon archaeological dating, David would be the ruler responsible for the end of the Philistine pottery period which ends from 975-950 BCE. So there's your evidence for David!

  Same with Solomon. Solomon was allegedly rich and specifically built at Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer. There we find identical gates which many ascribe to Solomon. Also at Megiddo we find huge palaces using ashlar stones which is evidence of a centralized government. Israel Finkelstein says this period was worthy of Solomon showing a time of "full statehood", etc. So it is not as if the archaeologists went to Middle East region and found no great buildings worthy of Solomon! There IS evidence of a wealthy period of prosperity and building in the region. But archaeologists who are not chronologists, trust the secular timeline and use their dates for dating David and Solomon. In this case, they use the incorrect eclipse in 763 BCE to date Solomon from 970-910 BCE. The buildings at Megiddo are dated by archaeology a little later, that is, to the "early 9th century BCE" (900-867 BCE). But if you do as above and correct the Assyrian Period by assigning the solar eclipse to 709 BCE, Solomon's rule occurs from 910-870 BCE which means he would have been ruling when these buildings were built!

  So anyone saying "there is no archaeological evidence of David or Solomon" is just someone who is not informed. It's just a JOKE! There is plenty of archaeological evidence of David and Solomon, but you have to get the timeline right.

  The Bible's timeline can now be determined using 1947, the beginning of the 70th jubilee for the Jews. This date requires the Exodus to occur in 1386 BCE and Solomon's rule from 910-870 BCE. For some strange reason, that is EXACTLY the same dating you get when you use the 709 BCE Siminau solar eclipse to date the Assyrian Period instead of the incorrectly dated 763 BCE eclipse.

  So whether the Bible is true or not, is entirely subjective. If you use fabricated and incorrect timelines, then the Bible seems not to be credible. If you use the strict Bible timeline, then archaeology aligns with the Bible perfectly. So we end up with two groups of people. Those who think the Bible is not true because they don't know the Bible, and those who know the Bible is true, confirmed by archaeological evidence.