Please someone answer me this;

[Zeke]

Since the time of Moses to now, not much has change in the Middle East geographically speaking. No violence volcanoes or ground changing earthquakes. From the Libya/Eygtian border to Red sea to Israel is about 750 miles. Average walking speed is 4 miles a day so about 175 hours non-stop. So let's slow that down to 1 mile a day = 4×175=700 hours. Let's rest 1 day for every mile (2 million plus people) that's 750 days + 700 hours. The Israelites did not travel in a straight line so let double the distant to 1,500 miles and travel 1/2 mile every 2 days, not even close to 40 years. I know there are some who think that I am being facetious but 40 years to walk 1,500 miles ? And leave no trace of passage?

Sent from my SM-J700P using Tapatalk

Why worry about it as a historic event or who wrote it, the dead read the dead letter literally, 2 Cor 3:6 missing its spiritually discerned messages wrote in allegorical stories Galatians 4:24, Psalms 78:2, that have little spiritual value as history to those reading it.

Luke 17:21, 1 Cor 3:16, 2 Cor 13:5, if your looking in the past or future your missing the mark Luke 17:20, your awareness, I AM is the Christ continually knocking on your door disregarded as foolishness by the intellect, and hidden from the sign seekers Matt 11:11, 23:13, God judges no man and doesn't require a literal blood sacrifice, a spiritual symbol where traditional eyes can't observe that conscience realm Psalms 40:6.

 

[chair]

Let me understand: Are you saying you have an equal grasp as your Rabbi?

You keep asking this, though I don't understand why. There is a Rabbi who I ask for guidance on Jewish legal issues. But I don't know if that is what you mean by "your Rabbi". In general, most Rabbis know teh Talmudic and Halachic literature better than me, and most ( not all!) assume that the Bible is inerrant.

Why does this concern you?

....That point was further to just indicate that I'm read/versed in many of the problematic passages.

That may be the case, but when it comes down to it, you've said very little about the actual verses, and quite a lot about how I am in general wrong.

Even today, it simply does not make sense that anybody would lie about captivity in Egypt. It doesn't bode well for the critic/skeptic. It makes no intelligent sense. What those guys SHOULD be saying is, 'we haven't found any evidence at this time' like the better scholars and archaeologist are saying.

Legends develop without anybody deliberately lying. I've seen this happen in my own lifetime.

Archaeologists will indeed say 'we haven't found any evidence at this time' - but they will also say that 'there couldn't have been millions in the Exodus. The Land of Israel couldn't and didn't support that many people back then.'

 

[chair]

Do you think that what the Apostle Peter wrote is Scripture?

Of course not. Have you been paying attention? I am not a Christian.

So, what do YOU think Paul meant by "oracles of God" (the greek literally means, "words of God")

Could be a number of things. The Ten Commandments, for example.

Why not?

Because the verse is in the NT, referring to the OT. The NT didn't exist yet.

 

[chair]

Sort of. I WAS in category 4 THEN shifted to 1 (opposite of you). I've become MORE certain the text is authoritative (first) and because of that, that it certainly must seen as infallible. When the scripture tells you to honor your father and mother, you probably (like me) knew your parents were fallible. However, I didn't understand their fallibility until I myself matured. Even in that, there is an 'expectation' from God that you 'follow' instruction, not correct it. It brings a WHOLE other difference to the way we read those scriptures 'if' one is reading them and readily keying in upon errors: In the same way it'd be wrong from me to itemize my parent's failures before you (not honoring), it'd be wrong for me to point out any problem in the text 'if there even were any.'

I'm not saying I have grown to ignore problem texts. Rather, I've learned to put them in what I believe is an appropriate and God-given God-demanded perspective. Now, after all that, I'm convinced that your former observation is the correct one: We simply aren't always told everything, it hardly necessitates 'mistake' though it does mean 'mystery' and I prefer it because it doesn't assert what is impossible to prove or disprove. It simply says "I don't know" and I believe it is the correct stance (and again, it comes from you as well thus imho, is the better if not best position). If you will, it is where 'we laymen' best fit as well. It keeps us from being audacious.


Er, it does, but we are handicapped proving the point with only the OT with you (why I pointed to Psalm 19). The Jews who wrote the New Testament books are much stronger on this point.


It may seem that way, but there are two problems 1) That authority of God and His prophets is a respect and not a 'correction' issue and 2) that the N.T. (which you'll have to forgive, I can't get away from) asserts much more.



Again, are you saying you are as learned as your Rabbi? I've been in church my whole life, so I've had about the English equivalent, but I'd never have said that I was anything but a layman. After attending seminary, the difference is pronounced (I learned a LOT).

I simply must ask if you are as educated and learned as your Rabbi.

After doing this more than 100 times? :nono: I don't think so. Now who is belittling who? As I said "YOU" came up with a better answer, even, than this. "Something missing/not told" is an incredibly better answer. How in the world could I be less honest than AGREEING with you on that notion??? :idunno:

Thanks for explaining your position. I don't find it particularly convincing, but I see where you are coming from. And reading this, I see why you keep asking me if I know as much as my Rabbi- you keep saying that because you realize (about yourself) that you were relatively ignorant until you went to Seminary. Perhaps- but that doesn't make the questions wrong, not does it make the standard answers correct.

Do you have any interest in discussing particulars? You seem to avoid that, and concentrate on explaining on how much you know and understand today- much more than some others do.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Since the time of Moses to now, not much has change in the Middle East geographically speaking. No violence volcanoes or ground changing earthquakes. From the Libya/Eygtian border to Red sea to Israel is about 750 miles. Average walking speed is 4 miles a day so about 175 hours non-stop. So let's slow that down to 1 mile a day = 4×175=700 hours. Let's rest 1 day for every mile (2 million plus people) that's 750 days + 700 hours. The Israelites did not travel in a straight line so let double the distant to 1,500 miles and travel 1/2 mile every 2 days, not even close to 40 years. I know there are some who think that I am being facetious but 40 years to walk 1,500 miles ? And leave no trace of passage?

40 years in the Bible refers to a generation.

As for the rest, as soon as you try to treat the Bible as some scientific precise reference you fall short. To understand what the human authors wanted to say, and what God wanted to reveal, you must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current.

 

[Lon]

You keep asking this, though I don't understand why. There is a Rabbi who I ask for guidance on Jewish legal issues. But I don't know if that is what you mean by "your Rabbi". In general, most Rabbis know teh Talmudic and Halachic literature better than me, and most ( not all!) assume that the Bible is inerrant.

Why does this concern you?

Rather, I thought it concerned you. Your consternation seems to be over any of my 'laymen' comments.
I'm simply saying that laymen vs. those who are academically inundated tend to be two different things. I had no idea how much I didn't know until I went to seminary. It is a lot of memory work, but then there tends to be a better grasp of the scriptural whole as well as a further understanding of differences over the texts. I agree with you that most of them find the Bible inerrant. :up:

That may be the case, but when it comes down to it, you've said very little about the actual verses, and quite a lot about how I am in general wrong.

You've already said 'missing' which is much better than "incorrect."

Legends develop without anybody deliberately lying. I've seen this happen in my own lifetime.

Again, no one generally makes up 'we were slaves.'

Archaeologists will indeed say 'we haven't found any evidence at this time' - but they will also say that 'there couldn't have been millions in the Exodus. The Land of Israel couldn't and didn't support that many people back then.'

And they really cannot say that either. They are guessing at such a point.

 

[Gary K]

Rather, I thought it concerned you. Your consternation seems to be over any of my 'laymen' comments.
I'm simply saying that laymen vs. those who are academically inundated tend to be two different things. I had no idea how much I didn't know until I went to seminary. It is a lot of memory work, but then there tends to be a better grasp of the scriptural whole as well as a further understanding of differences over the texts. I agree with you that most of them find the Bible inerrant. :up:


You've already said 'missing' which is much better than "incorrect."



Again, no one generally makes up 'we were slaves.'


And they really cannot say that either. They are guessing at such a point.

I agree. Archeologists have had to change their tune many times over what the Bible says is fact. Archeologists stated, very authoritatively, that Jericho never existed. Now they admit it did. That's just one instance of archeologists having to admit the Bible was more factual than they were and there are a lot of other examples of this also.

 

[Lon]

Do you have any interest in discussing particulars? You seem to avoid that, and concentrate on explaining on how much you know and understand today- much more than some others do.

If I say "hold up two fingers", then I say "hold up seven fingers"- how many do you hold up?

Good point: Two AND five. Now, if you were in a position where you only saw one hand, you'd be correct to say I held up two, it just is not the whole story at that point. It isn't a correction but an addition to our knowledge when we add the five.

How do you know that the Bible is "God's Word"? Can you answer that question?

One, because it calls itself His Word. Two, because the N.T. claims that men wrote as guided by God. Three because these men were reputable and all died for what would have amounted to a lie. Four, because it is internally consistent with that expectation. It is a well-formed book of instructions, stories, and directions. Five, because 'if' it isn't true, then if God exists, and has chosen to communicate with us, then we'd have to look for that book. As of today, I know of no such book but ours.

Read Exodus. From your OP, it seems like you haven't. It wasn't supposed to be a 40 year trip. The 40 years was a punishment. Most of the time was spent in encampments. And, while we're at it, the route wasn't direct, but looped around through what is modern day Jordan.

Yep.

As far as the rest, you've been doing summation (telling rather than showing). I could of course post the verses in question, but would you please do it first, and demonstrate the inconsistency? By the way, you are correct, you didn't say error, you said contradiction but if you would, can we amend that to 'apparent' contradiction? If so, we could forgo much discussion. -Lon

 

[chair]

Rather, I thought it concerned you. Your consternation seems to be over any of my 'laymen' comments.
I'm simply saying that laymen vs. those who are academically inundated tend to be two different things. I had no idea how much I didn't know until I went to seminary. It is a lot of memory work, but then there tends to be a better grasp of the scriptural whole as well as a further understanding of differences over the texts. I agree with you that most of them find the Bible inerrant. :up:

Here's a true story for you: A relative of mine was a serious amateur student of the Bible. I think he knows most of it (OT) by heart.
He decided to study archaeology, with the express goal of proving that the Bible is true and accurate. It took about one semester for him to realize it was a no-go. Archaeology doesn't fit the Bible. You can claim that this is because archaeologists are atheist Bible-haters- but they aren't. I've even spoken to devout Christian archaeologists who understand that the Bible is not inerrant.

You went and studied in a theological institute with a clear view of what the Bible is, and unsurprisingly, you found yourself agreeing with the school's viewpoint.

Again, no one generally makes up 'we were slaves.'

I never said that anybody did. Just the details, like the numbers involved, are unrealistic.

And they really cannot say that either. They are guessing at such a point.

No, they are not guessing. They know what cities were around back then, and how large those cities were. They know approximately how many villages there were. They know what kind of agriculture there was, and how many people it could support. This isn't wild guesswork, but reasonable fact-based estimates. There weren't millions of people living in Iron Age Israel.

 

[chair]

I agree. Archeologists have had to change their tune many times over what the Bible says is fact. Archeologists stated, very authoritatively, that Jericho never existed.

No, they didn't. They said it was unoccupied in the period associated with Joshua's conquest.

Now they admit it did.

No, they don't.

Do you have any proof, links or otherwise, of what archaeologists said about Jericho over the years?

And, by the way, archaeologists are allowed to change their minds as new facts are unearthed. It's called Science.

 

[chair]

As far as the rest, you've been doing summation (telling rather than showing). I could of course post the verses in question, but would you please do it first, and demonstrate the inconsistency? By the way, you are correct, you didn't say error, you said contradiction but if you would, can we amend that to 'apparent' contradiction? If so, we could forgo much discussion. -Lon

You've missed my earlier posts, in which I posted some specific verses. For example:

2 Samuel 24 New International Version (NIV)
David Enrolls the Fighting Men
24 Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”

2 So the king said to Joab and the army commanders[a] with him, “Go throughout the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beersheba and enroll the fighting men, so that I may know how many there are.”

1 Chronicles 21 New International Version (NIV)
David Counts the Fighting Men
21 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. 2 So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, “Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are.”

 

[chair]

Here's another

Here's another curious one: Who killed Goliath?

1 Samuel 17 50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

2 SAMUEL 21:19 And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

watch out for the translations in 2 Samuel. The KJV makes it out to be the brother of Goliath, but the Hebrew text doesn't say that. They got the idea from Chronicles, whose author was probbaly trying to reconcile the two different stories.
1 Chronicles 20:5
And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

There's something else odd about the story of Goliath in Samuel 1. But one step at a time.

 

[Lon]

Here's a true story for you: A relative of mine was a serious amateur student of the Bible. I think he knows most of it (OT) by heart.
He decided to study archaeology, with the express goal of proving that the Bible is true and accurate. It took about one semester for him to realize it was a no-go. Archaeology doesn't fit the Bible. You can claim that this is because archaeologists are atheist Bible-haters- but they aren't. I've even spoken to devout Christian archaeologists who understand that the Bible is not inerrant.

You went and studied in a theological institute with a clear view of what the Bible is, and unsurprisingly, you found yourself agreeing with the school's viewpoint.

A good many of my professors do interns in Israel, including archaeology :think:

I never said that anybody did. Just the details, like the numbers involved, are unrealistic.

For whatever reason. We'd have to have been there. Correcting them this far out, imho, isn't reasonable. Rather, we have to look at translation, archaeology, etc. to find meaning in apparent discrepancy. It is actually the hasty observation that 'the text is wrong' that is the lesser academic pursuit. There is much more patience and long-term scrutiny to 'I don't know yet, I'm still looking.'

No, they are not guessing. They know what cities were around back then, and how large those cities were.

It is an ongoing process. אֶלֶף means either 'family' or 'thousand,' correct? In my Hebrew studies, I've been taught and recognize that because Hebrew was not, at the time exacting but rather vague in that terms stood for several or many ideas, that often times our conflicts are rather in the translation than matching archaeology because we are then looking at wrong numbers. If that is/were true, then we collectively (Christians/Jews/anybody else reading along) have to consider whether we are translating as well. A lot of our translation is passed down to us, but I'll look again at any translation. It seems, when Eleph is used with family names, it usually means families and soldiers, about a thousand, or with animals, in context it is oxen, oxen-herds. This all if we have a proper concept of the term used and if context drives the meaning.

That, or we just haven't dug up enough dirt. It is a hard long process over decades, thus answers in archaeology are not 'now' but 'working on it.'

I don't know why your relative would have been discouraged. It has no immediate answers, but some of it has been going on over a century, and as I understand it (I have books) these findings do indeed corroborate Bible stories, so I'm a bit surprised.

They know approximately how many villages there were. They know what kind of agriculture there was, and how many people it could support. This isn't wild guesswork, but reasonable fact-based estimates. There weren't millions of people living in Iron Age Israel.

"Millions" was always an estimate based off the Biblical data. From my small introduction to Hebrew, I've not know it to be this exacting of a language. I know modern Hebrew is (and the vocabulary much larger). I'd appreciate your input, I've only a year in Hebrew and still have to use books for my translation work. -Lon

 

[Lon]

You've missed my earlier posts, in which I posted some specific verses. For example:

On this particular, "missing information" would be better than 'conflict' of data. The story of Job is both God allowing and Satan acting, for instance. Again, we are reading trying to 'understand' more than 'trying to prove wrong' any particular passage. Which is the better academic and spiritual pursuit? Which is better scientific inquiry even (it is more academic than seeking guidance, however)? For me, questions come to mind. Assuming an error? Think in the shoes of your author for a moment. One is trying to convey one thing, the other another. Is it probable that one made this kind of 'mistake?' I don't believe that's good scholarship nor conclusion. It simply is 'too easy' and allows one to quickly dismiss the text altogether, but that wasn't the purpose it was written. No, for some reason, in summation, Chronicles is focused on something different and imho, it is better to look for the intellectual and spiritual reason for having done so, for I'm convinced there is an actual reason the two differ, spiritually and intellectually. -Lon

 

[Lon]

Here's another

Here's another curious one: Who killed Goliath?

1 Samuel 17 50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

2 SAMUEL 21:19 And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

watch out for the translations in 2 Samuel. The KJV makes it out to be the brother of Goliath, but the Hebrew text doesn't say that. They got the idea from Chronicles, whose author was probbaly trying to reconcile the two different stories.
1 Chronicles 20:5
And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

There's something else odd about the story of Goliath in Samuel 1. But one step at a time.

You are the only 'chair' I know of. There are several "Lon's" I know of. Andre~ was a goliath (giant) by name, thus "Andre' the Giant." Simply knocking it down to 'Giant' isn't a problem, just causes confusion. I suspect the same here. Do I know? :nono: Some skeptics, if they aren't antagonistic to the text, will be okay with such an answer. One who has already made up his mind? Likely not. Often these questions rather reveal what is inside of us, in our hearts and/or thinking patterns, than what is probable with the text. In the end, I do defend, but only insomuch as it leaves the text, the text. I cannot do any better for posterity. It stands when you and I are long gone. Imho, the discussion of questions of it, rather than solution, are what might stand long after you and I are gone, as it always will with seeking minds of those who come after us.

I do believe that a name duplication likely the culprit for the confusion. I'd suggest it was clear in the author's mind, even if we miss it. I don't believe he made a mistake. It isn't excuse, at least, for saying that's what had to have happened. It is simply a confusion. Moreso, those who are looking for spiritual direction, seldom find time but to ponder these. I've too much on my plate trying to 'apply' the good I know, than spending inordinate amounts of time trying to figure out every mystery specifically because they are academic and not the purpose of these books. I applaud the effort, but not inordinately for me. I look for something quite different when reading them. -Lon

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, they didn't. They said it was unoccupied in the period associated with Joshua's conquest.
No, they don't.

Do you have any proof, links or otherwise, of what archaeologists said about Jericho over the years?

And, by the way, archaeologists are allowed to change their minds as new facts are unearthed. It's called Science.

http://kgov.com/jericho

It was unoccupied because according to the evidence, the Israelites had passed through centuries before.

 

[chair]

On this particular, "missing information" would be better than 'conflict' of data. The story of Job is both God allowing and Satan acting, for instance. Again, we are reading trying to 'understand' more than 'trying to prove wrong' any particular passage. Which is the better academic and spiritual pursuit? Which is better scientific inquiry even (it is more academic than seeking guidance, however)? For me, questions come to mind. Assuming an error? Think in the shoes of your author for a moment. One is trying to convey one thing, the other another. Is it probable that one made this kind of 'mistake?' I don't believe that's good scholarship nor conclusion. It simply is 'too easy' and allows one to quickly dismiss the text altogether, but that wasn't the purpose it was written. No, for some reason, in summation, Chronicles is focused on something different and imho, it is better to look for the intellectual and spiritual reason for having done so, for I'm convinced there is an actual reason the two differ, spiritually and intellectually. -Lon

Lon, there wasn't one author to the Bible. There is no reason to expect the different versions of stories to exactly match. The ones making a huge assumption are you and your teachers. You assume a perfect Bible, for theological reasons, then pretend to be intellectually honest and scientific about the data.

 

[chair]

You are the only 'chair' I know of. There are several "Lon's" I know of. Andre~ was a goliath (giant) by name, thus "Andre' the Giant." Simply knocking it down to 'Giant' isn't a problem, just causes confusion. I suspect the same here. Do I know? :nono: Some skeptics, if they aren't antagonistic to the text, will be okay with such an answer. One who has already made up his mind? Likely not. Often these questions rather reveal what is inside of us, in our hearts and/or thinking patterns, than what is probable with the text. In the end, I do defend, but only insomuch as it leaves the text, the text. I cannot do any better for posterity. It stands when you and I are long gone. Imho, the discussion of questions of it, rather than solution, are what might stand long after you and I are gone, as it always will with seeking minds of those who come after us.

I do believe that a name duplication likely the culprit for the confusion. I'd suggest it was clear in the author's mind, even if we miss it. I don't believe he made a mistake. It isn't excuse, at least, for saying that's what had to have happened. It is simply a confusion. Moreso, those who are looking for spiritual direction, seldom find time but to ponder these. I've too much on my plate trying to 'apply' the good I know, than spending inordinate amounts of time trying to figure out every mystery specifically because they are academic and not the purpose of these books. I applaud the effort, but not inordinately for me. I look for something quite different when reading them. -Lon

Whatever it takes to protect your dream of what the Bible is.

 

[chair]

... It is actually the hasty observation that 'the text is wrong' that is the lesser academic pursuit. There is much more patience and long-term scrutiny to 'I don't know yet, I'm still looking.'...

It is convenient to label other people's work as "hasty", but it is inaccurate and not a fair form of argument. The basic question is: do you treat the Bible differently than other ancient texts? If you do, you are doing so because of your religion, which is OK- but don't pretend that it is some kind of honest scientific evaluation of the facts, or "the greater academic pursuit" .

You've also made some claims about how you know the Bible is True:

One, because it calls itself His Word. Two, because the N.T. claims that men wrote as guided by God. Three because these men were reputable and all died for what would have amounted to a lie. Four, because it is internally consistent with that expectation. It is a well-formed book of instructions, stories, and directions. Five, because 'if' it isn't true, then if God exists, and has chosen to communicate with us, then we'd have to look for that book. As of today, I know of no such book but ours.

1-2 are circular arguments, based on the idea that the Bible claims is is True, there fore it is. 3 is also circular, as without the Bible you wouldn't know that these people were reputable or died for their beliefs. Dying for beliefs is common enough, and no proof of anything. 4, it isn't internally consistent, though you pretend that it is. Five, who said God must give out perfect books?

In the OT, there are sections that are reported to be God's actual words. "And God said to Moses...", or the 10 commandments. Most of the Bible (OT) doesn't make that claim. Did the NT writers actually say that the Bible is God's Word? Please provide a verse for that.

 

[Right Divider]

In the OT, there are sections that are reported to be God's actual words. "And God said to Moses...", or the 10 commandments. Most of the Bible (OT) doesn't make that claim. Did the NT writers actually say that the Bible is God's Word? Please provide a verse for that.

2Ti 3:15-17 KJV And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.​