1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Political Philosophy discussion

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Caveman 2 Cosmos' started by pepper2000, Oct 26, 2018.

  1. raxo2222

    raxo2222 Time Traveller

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    7,420
    Location:
    Poland
    I see you can't agree on reality fan fiction :mwaha::devil::sarcasm:

    Jokes aside I found some evolution of religions.
    Spoiler :


     
    Blazenclaw likes this.
  2. tmv

    tmv Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,276
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    It is perhaps curious that all these claims seem to come from the epistles, which by their very nature are certainly not the word of God. That doesn't invalidate them, of course, but they are still of human origin, and them asserting a certain quality to the "rest" of the Bible is a "segmentation fault". Since I consider these authors as "trustworthy, but not inerrant", I certainly believe that they wrote according to their own best understanding, but in the end their judgment is a human one. Sorry if I confused anyone, but I meant a claim coming from the source that is supposed to be inerrant, not to "prove" itself (that would be begging the question), but so that we are clear that some "overly excited" people didn't put something in this text that it was never supposed to be.
     
  3. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    27,251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    It occurs to me that I'm not exactly sure how you're defining 'inerrant'. I figured you were meaning 'taking the text completely literally and as infallible'.
     
  4. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    27,251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Close...
    upload_2019-12-30_12-14-0.png
    Obviously this model is still evolving as we come to understand more and more.
     
    Blazenclaw and raxo2222 like this.
  5. Somebody613

    Somebody613 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2019
    Messages:
    424
    Gender:
    Male
    I really don't want to offend you (for more than one reason), but you're still clinging to the wrong APPROACH here.
    Namely, that "Moses invented the Torah STORY (or something comparable happened timeline-wise)".
    Which is, simply said, FALSE.
    When you are able to drop the "wrong order of information" fallacy, you will realize how all of your theories are nothing but grasping at straws in the dark.
    Again, I'm sorry for sounding offensive - that's totally not my goal here.
    But I won't switch to a clearly wrong flow of mind just to appease you or anyone, sorry.
     
  6. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    27,251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Thankfully I'm almost impossible to offend. And I'm not trying to offend you either.

    That said, what is written in the first books of the Bible is completely unverifiable WHO wrote them and exactly when. I'm certainly not claiming that Moses invented anything here - perhaps he told his side of the Exodus tale rather directly and it's not too unlikely that he may have worked with Jehovah on Genesis or something along those lines. However, they were clearly either a recreation of previous explanations that had been cycling around the old world for centuries beforehand or just another version. Those previous explanations don't disagree with what is stated in the Bible either. In fact, they agree with them almost to the letter, making it very likely that they were more 'original' tellings and what we have in Genesis is the best recapturing of that information as was possible at the time. There are even new understandings to be had as to what some of the terms used in Genesis actually mean, such as 'the waters of the deep' correlating to the Absu in the Sumerian.

    Regardless, the point here is that the Sumerian writings were public material as early as writing was a thing as they did officially 'invent' writing to begin with, or at least it is the first written language we have found. It has to be at least a little intriguing that they tell the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden almost point blank correlating with the Biblical version, with a few very key differences that study of the pantheon of the Sumerians strongly suggests that there's a bit more to the tale than what we are told in the Bible alone. And again, I'm pointing out that the Bible's telling does not maintain any internal consistency without understanding it from the Sumerian telling as well.

    For example, according to the Biblical tale, Adam was the FIRST human being, yet it goes on to admit that the wives of his children were not their own sisters, so from what 'human' stock did they find wives to marry?

    The Bible also admits to multiple Gods point blank, but differs in calling Jehovah the Lord God (interestingly enough also Enlil's title and where used correlates exactly to how Enlil played into the Garden of Eden story in the Sumerian version of Genesis). Regardless of whether the Sumerian version is somehow a tale told AFTER Genesis was written, it still is the Bible itself that confirms that there were multiple gods in the beginning, the Elohim. Though you can TRY to say that this was just the quirk of the language using plural form to denote higher authority, the Sumerian correlation makes it obvious that's not what was originally intended - that there were in fact multiple gods being referred to here.

    The earliest writings of Genesis in any archaeological recognition known are nowhere near as old as these Sumerian tablets and came about AFTER the Exodus revolution of the Hebrew people, and clearly, at that point, Enlil wanted very much to be known as the only valid God. I find it interesting to note as well that even in Exodus, when Moses competed against the priests of the Egyptian gods to show his God's superiority, it didn't say they had no divine power nor potency... in fact claiming them to truly turn their sticks into snakes and so on, and the proof that Jehovah was the 'one' was just that he was more powerful. Ok, so he was more powerful. Not exactly proof that he was the only one, in fact much the opposite. If they could do these magics and just not as strong, they were still worshiping something that had some real power. Jehovah's argument to wipe out the Canaanites was something similar... he hated them and the Baals because they were obtaining power from sacrificing their children to these deities, something he found detestable (even though he was the creator of all things, he seemed to dislike much of what he must have created.)

    Anyhow, I would wonder how, if anyone wants to say they believe the Bible, particularly those first books, would NOT want to at least investigate those stories written in the first written language we know of where such tales are so strongly correlating to that origin story we are clearly more familiar with. How closed must a mind be to automatically consider any other telling a flawed source? What would motivate anyone to have such a fixed mindset on the subject, believing it impossible that another angle on the same tale could possibly provide one with deeper insight?
     
  7. Somebody613

    Somebody613 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2019
    Messages:
    424
    Gender:
    Male
    The fact that you BELIEVE all of this, while I KNOW you being wrong here.
    You still ignored the point that the Torah did NOT invent Genesis (Adam) at the time of Exodus (Moses) - whereas your entire timeline depends on stating it DID.
    As in, you still keep comparing the age of the Sumerian WRITING and the age of the Torah WRITING - whereas the actual comparison should be between the EVENTS that both of them depict, and not the BOOKS that simply note down those events after the fact at some later time.
    For an example, if an old guy writes down his memoirs of pre-WW2 and does it in the 1980s - would his BOOK of memoirs be OLDER than WW2?
    Answer: No, the BOOK would still be written in the 1980s, but its CONTENTS would be pre-WW2, and hence way older than the BOOK itself.
    The exact same PATTERN applies in the Torah story case as well - the BOOK (as textual depiction) is much younger than its actual CONTENTS (as actual events).
    So your comparison is simply off-target altogether.
    But let's stop here, really.
    We will both just repeat our points of view over and over again without achieving ANYTHING.
    So let's NOT.
     
  8. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    27,251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Well, the events are the same ones being spoken of. This means both writings correlate and support each other. Pretty fascinating if you believe either one to know that another party is saying much the same thing.

    So I'm not saying the events took place in any different timeline, only that the stories as written share them a little differently. But not much. The events, nevertheless, are basically told in accordance with a timeline that agrees between both, or at least they do not challenge each other on that matter.

    Genesis itself claims there were multiple gods that created everything and that the Adam that was in the Garden of Eden was created by the Lord God, but also inadvertently admits there were Human beings that predated this Adam and his family. Therefore, the Bible itself claims that there were originally multiple gods. It then goes to say not to worship any of them BUT Jehovah. This is a way of stating they exist, is it not? Sumerian confirms that AND adds names to who those additional Elohim gods actually were, in case there was any debate as to whether the term Elohim was a plural to denote a higher rank for a singular being.

    However, we are not talking about writings that, in either case, come from anyone who was there to see those origins, unless of course we are assuming it was written by the hand of God himself, which even if it was doesn't mean there might not be some... politics behind certain omissions of detail. And in fact, in understanding the Sumerian side of the story, those politics become painfully obvious what they were. So since we find the telling in Genesis was penned some hundreds, potentially more than a thousand or two thousand years after the writings we find in Sumeria that give more detail to the story, one can assume that the Sumerian was the more accurate telling in the first place. Whether it was or not is not really the point, only that there is information to correlate with what was stated in Genesis that gives more detail to what was stated there. You could rely only on the words of Genesis and come to the same basic conclusions. It's just not as apparent until you get further accounts of what took place. Why would we not assume, however, that the earliest writings on the subject would be the most accurate? Doesn't information tend to degrade over time with many different and new tellings? What would make you think that a more recent account is more accurate than an older one?

    Your points do not challenge anything I'm saying. You're trying to invalidate my claims without looking into them yourself and saying that they are just outright incorrect without even giving them consideration. Sad... I was hoping that someone who knew your religion well enough to claim you adhere to its practice might be able to engage in this discussion enough to provide me with some insight. But you are only telling me that one is supposed to simply discount any relation of the events outside of that given by Genesis - and you aren't even giving any reason why one is supposed to do so.
     
  9. Somebody613

    Somebody613 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2019
    Messages:
    424
    Gender:
    Male
    1. I don't see you asking any questions, as opposed to repeatedly stating your own views. I can do that as well, ya know.
    2. You aren't the first person to wallow in this particular fallacy in regards to "Polytheistic Genesis". So you aren't impressing me either.
    3. I know my stuff. You don't (I don't see you quoting and then debunking any actually *Jewish* commentaries, do I now). Again, no surprise.
    4. You stubbornly deny the possibility that the Sumerian version is basically a fanfiction of the actual events of Genesis, and a crudely distorted one at that.
    5. The same as (3), you show clear ignorance of the *Jewish* explanation behind stuff like "why God's Name sounds plural". At least you are yet to mention it at all.
    6. So I don't see it worthwhile to continue speaking to myself (as do you). We have better stuff to do, don't we?
     
  10. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    27,251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I'm not stating views, I'm stating observations and adding some conclusions to consider. I don't feel we can assume either is 'true' on face value since there's really no evidence to say either really is.
    I'm curious why you assume it to be fallacy when what I said is exactly what it states itself?
    I'm not trying to debunk anyone here. Just saying there's more to the story than what organized religions want to teach, clearly.
    I'm not sure why one would assume that any more than concluding that Genesis could just be a fanfiction of the Sumerian. The reality is that since the Sumerian is much earlier (MUCH earlier) in the writing, one should assume that the earlier telling is closer to the actual events and thus more accurate. You can't write fan fiction on a subject that hasn't yet been written about. Sure, it's possible, but again, the argument isn't purely coming from the existence of the Sumerian side of the story, only strongly supported by it.

    What would make a person think that one is more fan fiction than another though? If you want to discount one, why not discount both?

    I've read all the arguments (I could find) and none of them are based on anything but some presumptions about the linguistics involved in the original writing. IF the original authors of Genesis meant what they said absolutely to mean that there were multiple gods, they would've used exactly the same wording, so I'm not sure how showing the 'potential' that it could've meant a singular reference is any more likely than that they meant it exactly as they wrote it, which, if you see the PREVIOUSLY existing writings on the subject, clarity becomes pretty obvious that they meant exactly what they said rather than being artistic in their way of honoring God with a plurality.

    Furthermore, from a purely anthropological viewpoint, it's obvious that people that predate the rise of Judaism were almost entirely polytheistic in their outlook, including the people that became the Hebrews after freeing themselves from Egypt.

    Do you have anything you'd like to share that may give some support or dialogue detailing the arguments you're basing your outlook on? If you 'know your stuff', I'd be interested to read some of that stuff you rely on for guidance. Reading the core texts alone gives me a very different outlook on the story than the one that is projected by organized religions that rely on that Biblical basis.

    One of the more interesting arguments to discount that Genesis states the Elohim as plural is the Catholic excuse... that it was referring to the Holy Trinity. However, I like to say to that, if the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost all say, let us make him in our image, don't all three have differing 'images'? Particularly the concept of the 'holy ghost'?

    I'd have approached this argument with you but clearly I'm not speaking to a Catholic. So from your perspective, the explanation that in Aramaic, God would've been referred to in plural is really only supporting the premise that Jehovah himself was doing all he could to alter the narrative during the new rise of his people.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2019
  11. Somebody613

    Somebody613 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2019
    Messages:
    424
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm getting tired of repeating that 2+2 DOES NOT equal 5...
    Or of trying to explain what I've learned over the last 20 years - in the span of 20 pages (let alone 20 sentences).
    If you can manage to narrow it down to specific questions or statements (say, making a list of them, sized 10 for starters) - I could address those points separately.
    But as of now, I simply see that you are unwilling to budge from your world view, even though you know you DON'T know much about the actual *Jewish* views on it.
    So, it's up to you, really.
     
  12. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    27,251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I'm able to consider other views. Usually moreso when my point is being received as well.

    I'm not sure how many points we're talking about here but let's start with this:
    Why would you assume Genesis to be more reliable a resource than the Sumerian version of the same story that was found more recently yet having been written nearly 2k years prior to Genesis? Is there any good reason to think the earliest telling is not the most accurate? What is the Jewish argument for this at this time?

    The main thing I can even propose might be the outlook on that is that they are more familiar with the Genesis story as it was delivered originally and that the Sumerian challenges this and is therefore assumed to be automatically incorrect. Because accepting that evidence exists to change your worldview would be... emotionally difficult to handle. Particularly when you think yourself to be chosen by God and this may be evidence to show that this God that chose you may not be quite as ultimately divine as he claims (though interestingly not discounted as an entity, which to me is even more intriguing.)

    That said, if you can give me some of the more interesting logical reasons to hold on to Genesis as being the more 'core' and reliable version and that the Sumerian version is just 'fan fiction' then I would love to read those arguments.
     
  13. Somebody613

    Somebody613 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2019
    Messages:
    424
    Gender:
    Male
    1. You are consistently ignoring the point that "a book can be much younger than its depicted content". In fact, YOU are the one who needs to provide any logical backup as to how the Sumerian version beats *Adam* (and not just *Moses*) in age. Especially since it DOESN'T (if we go with the Jewish calendar, which now is at the year 5780). Unless you go with "Moses invented Adam", but then you can't say that "Sumerians are also depicting Adam". It's "either/or" in this case. Either Adam is a product of Moses (but then your attempt to connect Adam to earlier Sumerians falls apart) - or Adam CAN be the origin of Sumerians just as well, making it MY point.
    2. You are outright going into insults here, despite doing EXACTLY the thing you accuse others of. Namely of "emotionally unwilling to edit one's world view based on new information". This is anything but MATURE, period. The fact you ELABORATE... doesn't help you one bit.
    3. I fail to see how "divine" and "entity" are in a contradiction to each other. This is also far from being the first time I bump into people with an agenda of "reducing" God to whatever lesser status THEY want Him to have. It never gets any less ANNOYING to me, of course. And my correct reaction always boils down to: "Well, I also don't believe in the non-God that you tell me that you don't believe. It's not God, after all."
    4. How about YOU (because you claim having knowledge of it) showing me where the Sumerian version depicts *Adam* - and how that CAN'T be a COPY of Genesis? Because if it CAN - then YOU prove to me that it ISN'T. Merely using emotions WON'T suffice.
    Let's see.
     
  14. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    27,251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    The language that Genesis was written in wasn't even existent until a thousand or two years after Sumerian Cuneiform. Yes the calendar is older, and interestingly, correlates again with the origins of the Sumerian calendars. Again, Hebrews ARE Sumerians and the Bible itself makes this claim by explaining that the covenant was made with Abraham in the city of Ur in Sumeria.

    I'm not saying Moses invented Adam. I'm not sure how that's even part of this.
    OH... wait... ok, let me clarify here.

    In Sumerian texts, the A.DAM (yes literally stated as such phonetically in their cuneiform) was the creation of the Annunaki (meaning those who from heaven to earth come, correlating with the Biblical Elohim in their parallel to Genesis). There were numerous ones made but it wasn't until quite a few thousand years later that the Lord God, Enlil, decided he was fully onboard with wanting to support the project to the point that he wanted one as well. The timeline matches perfectly to the Adam of the Bible being made at that time (this is by following the begats in the Bible and correlating that roughly to when the Sumerian parallel talks about Enlil's Adam being placed in something along the lines of the 'Garden of Eden'.)

    So yes, the Adam of the Bible, the preternatural man, was explained in the Sumerian version, but in the Sumerian version, many more A.DAMs had been made thousands and thousands of years earlier and there was therefore a thriving human population at the time of the Genesis Adam's creation.

    It makes sense that the Sumerians are filling in a missing detail of the Bible here. If there weren't Human beings already, then who would his sons have mated with? Who were the 'others' the Bible refers to Cain as having taken a wife from among?

    I'm not meaning to be offensive. I understand that people can emotionally hold on to their paradigms. If it offends one to be accused of it then perhaps that offense is the feeling of the nerve of truth being struck. To shatter a paradigm, one must have that nerve hit hard and yes, it can make a person angry - I get that. I always try to temper my thoughts with the understanding that I am just a human and don't really know shi*. At the same time I would expect everyone to realize this. So to me, the most compelling arguments are all that are a guide. If I'm engaging someone in discussion, I'm giving them an opportunity to give me some compelling arguments. If I hit that nerve, its in hopes that it may inspire you to get to the core, the heart of why you believe as you do... you may respond by saying something that makes sense to me.

    I am not saying that 'divine' and 'entity' ARE in contradiction. However, I'm not convinced either way about exactly how truly Divine Jehovah may be, but I do feel that Jehovah seems oddly interested in guiding the politics of the ancient world for a being that created and loves everything. He seems incredibly biased about things he could control if he wished. Moses was even able to convince him not to kill off all of the Hebrews... what truly divine entity would be concerned with the argument that if he does that, nobody would worship him? What honestly divine being could be talked out of his decided upon course of action by a mere mortal? I'm not arguing that he ISN'T truly the Divine One, just that the evidence given by the Bible doesn't seem to me to well support that assertion, even when it's trying it's hardest to sell that idea and even if you're willing to believe that we are somehow significant in the big picture of the universe enough to think that God would pay such close attention and directly intervene in the politics of human beings.

    I haven't argued with emotion in the least here. I'm smiling the whole way through this, completely amused. That said, I agree completely that it has become time to at least share the original Sumerian account of Genesis:
    http://www.markfoster.net/rn/texts/the_atra_hasis.pdf
    This is just one link to the tale... I'd suggest looking for perhaps a better one. It goes through much of the material covered in Genesis and it's hard right now to find one like this that comes from the Sumerian account rather than the later Babylonian one that rewrites a number of the roles in the tale as being fulfilled by the god Marduk, already showing how culturally it was becoming popular to blend the roles of many gods in tales down to just one or a few.

    How can these inscriptions not be copies of Genesis? Because Genesis, as a writing, was done in early Hebrew, which was vastly predated by these Mesopotamian languages.
     
    Blazenclaw likes this.
  15. Somebody613

    Somebody613 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2019
    Messages:
    424
    Gender:
    Male
    0. *SIGH* Also, different numbering again, sorry.

    1. So you STILL fail to separate "Torah the BOOK" (written down by Moses, indeed) and "Torah the STORY" (starting from Adam, NOT from Moses), I see. Like, seriously, don't you see how THAT is the origin of 99% of all your ASSUMPTIONS in the first place? You keep saying "it was WRITTEN (aka Moses) in Hebrew much later, etc." - which is exactly NOT what I'm telling you to FOCUS ON (aka Adam). Yes, you did show me SOMETHING that makes a correlation between the two versions, and I'll get there soon. But you still keep blurting out "points" based SOLELY on "Torah the BOOK", which is the WRONG approach in this discussion.

    2. Sumerians were just as much the descendants of Adam as are Jews (and everyone else, lol). So your "timeline of WRITING the BOOKS" accomplishes NOTHING in regards to the books' CONTENTS (aka STORIES). This is AGAIN point (1) raring its ugly head, because you can't stop focusing on the BOOKS instead of the STORIES within those.

    3. You deliberately ignored a super important point I had made. Namely, the fact you IGNORE (or more probably are IGNORANT of) the*Jewish* explanations of the Torah STORY. One such glaringly obvious case is "Cain's wife" and "other humans". Here's my ***CHALLENGE***:
    You must quote-link me at least one *Jewish* (as in, Orthodox Judaism) explanation to the above "problem(s)". Failing to do so will disqualify ALL of your points on this matter. I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out that YOU are the one throwing around ASSUMPTIONS that are easily debunked by centuries-old *Jewish* commentaries.
    And NO, I won't bother doing it for you (this time), because my entire point is to show how YOU are the one grasping at straws in the dark. Literally.

    4. You are also failing to accept (or debunk) my point about "not belief, but knowledge", as is apparent from the way you speak of "hitting a nerve" - an expression CLEARLY referring to BELIEF, not to KNOWLEDGE. This is yet one more point I won't BUDGE, nor see any REASON to do so in the first place. For one, I bet you don't even know WHY I'm using the word "KNOWLEDGE" to refer to my position regarding Judaism - as opposed to you and everyone else seeing it as mere "BELIEF". But I will give you proverbial points, IF you can at least explain THAT point.

    5. One short-but-complex answer: Free Choice and Free Will (I'm unsure of the difference in English between those, though). Whatever "reasons" you see as to giving you the "option" of "demoting" God from being GOD - is nothing but a TEST on whether you will ACCEPT God or REJECT God. And this test WORKS, indeed.

    6. I might be using a slightly incorrect WORD here (and everywhere). By "emotion", I mean exactly the approach you yourself wrote about in your last post - something alongside a feeling that can be "hit on a nerve", whether in RESPONSE or in ADVANCE. It's not necessarily a bad thing per se, but it's the direct antithesis of "scientific approach at facts". Note that I said "approach", not "method" - it's the way you THINK, not the way you JUDGE info. Essentially, it's even more BASIC as a BASIS, lol.

    7. While I thank you for the source, my point was more focused on "prove how that can't be a result of an earlier source of STORY, which was WRITTEN down actually even later". In other words, it's not about whether there is an Adam in the Sumerian texts, but how that Adam CAN'T be the one from the Torah STORY (not the BOOK). Again, you somehow reject the concept of "the STORY existing separately from the BOOK it is written into" - but that's beyond crucial in our case. The Adam DEPICTED in the Torah BOOK (by Moses) is still as old as the REAL Adam that LIVED 5780 years ago - way PRIOR to both BOOKS at once. So my ***CHALLENGE*** to you is for you to show how THAT Adam (the REAL one) must be the one NOT from the Torah STORY. Because if he IS the same one - then your BOOK TIMELINE is USELESS in the context of judging the STORY TIMELINE. I can only ask you to TRY understanding this separation of FOCUSES, please.

    8. Just to point out: Here we go again - "Hebrew WRITINGS are younger than Mesopotamian WRITINGS". Except that is IRRELEVANT. PERIOD.

    Let's see.
     
  16. tmv

    tmv Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,276
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    What are the epistles? The epistles were originally letters written by someone (most often Paul) to a community in a city or region (Romans, Galatians, Corinthians, etc.). Now they are included in the Bible. So what does inerrancy mean here? Does it mean that the original letters are faithfully transferred, or does it mean that the original letters (which are certainly of human origin - this is made abundantly clear within these epistles themselves) were already inerrant? I think the latter idea cannot be considered true by anyone. In my opinion the epistles simply have to be excluded from any inerrancy discussion, or else this discussion is immediately over (result: no inerrancy). The epistles are unique in this, because no other part of the Bible has this explicit claim of human authorship (although both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts come close with them having a given addressee). The term 'inerrant' itself is not the problem - the structure of the Scripture (with some parts certainly having been authored by humans) is.
     
  17. Blazenclaw

    Blazenclaw Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    99
    Just a little point here; quickly skimming back over this thread, I don't actually think you have provided any outside sources - just told us about them.

    The major difference I see is that you "KNOW" things, as you've often said, but one major point I think I see Thunderbird coming from is that we try not to take things for granted. For instance, the 'timeline of writing the books' isn't so much about which came first, but rather it's about the accuracy by which the stories contained within them may be verified (I think?). The stories aren't, for a lack of better phrase, 'taken as gospel'.

    So in a way, you're absolutely right; many people are 'grasping for straws in the dark' (though not literally) because that's just how reality works when you don't take things for granted or assume to be true. Harkening back to the evolution discussion, it's something I thought of the other day. One difficulty you (and others) might have with it and theories like it, is precisely that science cannot say unequivocally "THIS IS TRUE, LET IT BE SO" with perfect certainty* as stories or religion can. That's simply how it works. Any explanation science gives has a near unending stream of asterisks following it, whereas religion typically truncates somewhere with 'because XYZ said so', which you just have to take on faith.

    * There are in theory things that are perfectly true, typically more in direct mathematics:
    e^(i * pi) + 1 = 0
    Euler's identity is one of the most maddeningly beautiful equations in all of mathematics which seems to make no godamn sense when read, but is a result of how the complex plane is set up and interacts with the reals and has direct applications all over the place. Personally, I think that if there is some deity, its beauty is in the creation of mathematics and the laws governing this universe as a whole; nothing to do with flawed humans.
     
    raxo2222 likes this.
  18. Somebody613

    Somebody613 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2019
    Messages:
    424
    Gender:
    Male
    I won't deny that I maybe should have taken a more QUOTING approach to this discussion.
    But so SHOULD have done T-Bird as well, lol.
    If anything, he keeps stating stuff exactly in the "I KNOW" undertone that you "accuse" me of - which is why I ended up challenging him with "prove it" on everything.
    As of why I somehow refrain from actually quoting my sources, it's probably because I saw his position as annoyingly ignorant from post one (or two).
    So I focused more on extracting proofs out of him, as opposed to providing my own counters in an elaborate way.
    Not exactly a great approach, but I find "visibly proving him being ignorant of the Jewish views" to be a priority over "proving anything about my own views".
    In fact, I don't even want to prove that *I am right*, as much as I want to prove that *he is wrong*, namely ignorant of any Jewish explanations in the first place.
    Ya know, when two science schools of view clash - it's not enough to explain YOUR view, but it's first needed to show that you understand your OPPONENT'S view.
    As in, to show HOW you debunk something, you first need to show WHAT you are debunking in the first place.
    "Know your enemy" even (or even MORE so) in discussion, lol.

    And as of Judaism in particular, here's the article that quite nicely sums up pretty much anything I could say on the topic of "KNOWING -vs- BELIEVING":
    Did God Speak at Sinai?
    I'm open to any on-topic feedback to that, of curse.
     
  19. Thunderbrd

    Thunderbrd C2C War Dog

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    27,251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    You asked me to share how the one relating was predating the other. I was answering your question. As I said before, they both focus on the same story itself really, just told from different degrees of information. Generally, the closer to an event one is, the more informed the one relating it. If I was to write about the Revolutionary war today, I would be doing so on the basis of whatever research I could find, which would never be as accurate as the research I could have done on the subject 200 years ago. That would even be true of writing about events that took place in the Renaissance. What I'm writing today on a subject a thousand years ago would be based on what was written hundreds of years ago. And if I'm lucky, maybe I'm relating events from the perspective of having been exposed to the details as recorded by someone who actually experienced them. Unless you are proposing that Jehovah had a hand in explaining those events directly as having been a participant in those events, then sure, that would be about as close the source as you could get while writing the Genesis narrative, however, one must also admit, it would be a narrative of extreme bias and political intent, and to think that certain details were altered or covered up, hopefully forgotten to time, is not above the nature of possibility here, particularly when you understand the earlier writings and the insights they give on who Jehovah likely is - a god among many trying to play off as if there aren't any others. (potentially, or at least that's how it begins to look given the rest of the picture)

    That too is a bit interesting. It's possible that the 'flood' really only flooded the known world, which at the time was Mesopotamia. There are some potential points of evidence to scientifically show that the flood was global and it may have been. But the archaeological records, while potentially supporting the tale as a whole, certainly add that it's almost impossible to envision that all of humanity then reseeded from this one survival story. There would have to have been others. Interestingly, the Cherokee people, for example, explain how in the beginning, to them, the world was all water and they were adrift on canoes until the great turtle rose up beneath them, the great turtle being understood to be the American continent. My point is that numerous points of evidence worldwide show that there were more survivors than just this family. However, the Bible and Sumerian records agree at least that for the people of the Mesopotamian region, they were recovering survivor(s) of the arc.

    What this means is that what is important to Genesis is not that we are following the story of all Humanity, but that we are following the story of the Family Enlil/Jehovah designated for ultimate Kingship - HIS people, which was separate from the rest of the creation of Mankind, which in Sumerian writings is attributed as the creation of Enki, Enlil's brother, who also approached the Adam in Eden as a serpent and so we have the Serpent in the Garden of Eden tale and so on.

    I suppose this is taking things way off the path of what we're discussing but it's pertinent I feel.

    I'm actually curious about some of this. I would love to know who Orthodox Jews claim the 'others' are. Since I don't know and don't know a source to consider, I'm not sure why you wouldn't be happy to offer such a source if you know of any. Not sure why you'd ask me to find information on a subject you are familiar with and I'm not... that's a little odd.

    You can't debunk this exactly. Nor can I accept it. Nothing is knowledge as nothing is really knowable, only suspectable. If you ever think you KNOW something, that's just ego attachment to a conclusion. And to think that is extremely arrogant. I might present things as if I know something but in all reality, I'm just as blind as everyone else. I'm just relating the landscape so far as I've felt it out. I believe I KNOW some things, yes, but I also recognize that to be BELIEF. Like everyone, I have to have faith in certain conclusions or I couldn't operate or function.

    However, it helps me understand your perspective... you assume what you know to be true and unquestionable, regardless of the evidence or lack thereof for or against it. That's just very strong faith I suppose. I can't say whether that's well founded or not. But I CAN say that it's the exact mental trap that all cults use to convert followers.

    They will tell you not to question the conclusions they give you because to do so shows a lack of faith and the test of your moral character and value is how much faith you can maintain regardless of the logic of the evidence you may be shown to shake that faith. Pause there for a moment and consider how that one thought can lock in anyone into any presented belief and moreover do it for a worldview that isn't even all that well put together and highly questionable. I know Mormons who tell me that in their faith, confusion and recognition of not understanding how their faith makes sense, questioning it at all, is always generated purely by the efforts of Satan. No offense to Mormons... maybe they are right. Maybe. But it's interesting how useful that thought is to instill in followers of a religion to lock out the possibility of having an open enough mind to disassemble the lie.

    You have billions of people all believing so strongly that they 'know' something without being able to actually verify it for themselves but believe it because they've been taught to measure their worth and character based on how blindly they accept that knowledge. Hmph. And you wonder why people say that religions are the invention of the powerful to control the stupid? I think every person who turns to religion does so because they feel there's more to the world than what they see and they are in search of answers, but to swallow the whole thing, bait, hook, line and sinker, is... well... perhaps easily done but not advisable. It's simple sociological tricks and psychological manipulations that con artists have mastered throughout centuries that takes an effort to understand spirituality and turns it into a 'religion' that traps people into thinking they KNOW what they most certainly do not KNOW but simply have faith in.

    I'm sorry if my words offend... it's just the way I see it. I'm looking at this whole thing as if the Bible and Sumerian and more ancient texts and tales all are just evidence in the search for what really happened at the dawn of humanity. I don't think that mere evolution accounts for it all, though I think it's part of the answer. I feel that the Sumerian answer is almost perfect to resolve nearly all conflicting pieces of evidence. It explains why we have a 'missing link' in the evolutionary chain, why the Bible claims everything it does, what the politics were surrounding the move from Polytheism to Monotheism, why there would've been such a reason for the gods to promote such a move, how all the religions of the world and ancient tales somewhat correlate on various points. It answers, potentially, to a lot of mysteries yet left to answer. Obviously, it then presents many of its own, and there appears to be forces at work busily trying to redefine or cover up the story or change it, so we're clearly dealing with the truth being a challenge to those holding an ongoing grip of power over our society.

    But hey, hold on to that 'knowledge' you feel you have and don't question anything. Keep being a good little Human sheep and maybe nothing bad will have to happen. Again, this is not being said directly to you, and certainly not to offend, but to explain how I feel about making the assumption that you KNOW what you think you KNOW with such certainty. We could very easily be walking into a trap for our entire species here, another way to keep us in line. Even in Genesis, the worst thing that could happen, according to the Lord God, was that Man could potentially eat of the fruit of the tree of life (DNA) and become as 'WE', immortal. Correlating with nearly all world religions and tales, we are not supposed to be 'in the know' and when we became too powerful (tower of babel) our society was destroyed and scattered for it. Clearly, 'God' is as concerned about Humans rising up and being a threat, as much as Zeus was, according to the Greek versions of these stories, after he himself rose up to depose his own originator species, the Titans. You asked why I doubt the honest 'Divinity' of Jehovah? That's certainly one point - Why would he have any reason to fear us if he was truly divine?

    As Rax is often found stating, Magic is just Technology we don't yet understand. Jehovah being able to wield such powers does not prove he's anything more than a representative of a more advanced technological species.

    I think I sorta addressed everything you said after ruminating on it some.

    EDIT: I did look into that link and it's somewhat along the lines of why I do believe that what happened in Exodus is somewhat believable, at least in the events themselves. The mass belief does give some evidence for it. Wondering what you might be able to present for Genesis itself though.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2019
    Blazenclaw likes this.
  20. raxo2222

    raxo2222 Time Traveller

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    7,420
    Location:
    Poland
    Minor nitpick: There is not enough ice to flood entire world.
    There is not enough ice to rise sea level even by measly 500 meters.

    Instead Black Sea was once almost completely drained, and then it flooded.
    Those who lived here and survived carried stories about the flood.

    This supposedly happened during great migration of humans.
    Their known world was flooded.
     

Share This Page