Historical facts and inaccuracies in the Bible

monosharp

I was watching this tv show on the history channel the other day and I found it very interesting.

So it was talking about Moses, specifically his escape from the Egyptians. So they looked in the Bible and then they looked at historical sources for ancient Egypt etc.

In the bible it says that god went before the Israelites at night as a flame and during the day as a cloud/smoke to direct them along.

What they found in the ancient Egyptians sources was that the Egyptians actually used a large flame at night to direct their troops and during the day they covered the fire producing smoke to direct their large armies.

So its quite easy to see that the Israelites used the knowledge they gained from the Egyptians here and that it wasn't anything supernatural.

Further on they showed how Moses tricked the Egyptians using the flame. The Egyptians thinking the flame was leading the Israelites and were waiting for dawn to strike them while in fact the Israelites had abandoned the flame and crossed the red sea under cover of night. The flame to their backs which blinded the Egyptians from seeing the Israelites moving out.

Also the timing of their escape over the 'sea' when the tide was out. In the morning the waters were coming in and the Egyptian chariots could not traverse the wet marshland.

I don't have a link to any of this, maybe someone else does and if they do I'd be greateful as I want to read more about this.

So this shows that what the bible says can sometimes point to a real historical incident. The Israelites escape from the Egyptians was put down to god in the bible when in fact it was Moses' understanding of the Egyptians and knowledge of the terrain which saved them.

Doesn't this show that God didn't go in front of them as a flame or smoke, god didn't part the waters to let them cross ? These can all be easily explained by human nature and knowledge.

How many more supernatural feats of god can be easily explained by natural means ?
Doesn't this show the bible to be inaccurate ?

Zombrex

If only there was a sub-forum .... :pac:

antiskeptic

monosharp wrote: »

So it was talking about Moses, specifically his escape from the Egyptians. So they looked in the Bible and then they looked at historical sources for ancient Egypt etc.

Although I didn't see the programme, your outline of it gives me a strong sense that it took the form of "faction". That is; a certain amount of fact is woven together with a raft of speculation to form a plausible unbelieving storyline (The DaVinci Code was a classic example of faction).

Which wouldn't at all be unusual for a secularist programmes slant on things biblical. As ever, I'd see this as part of a larger picture in which God permits the means whereby unbelief/belief can be intellectually and emotionally sustained.

You're fascinated by the programme as an unbeliever. As a believer, I'm shaking my head in wonder at the apparent cheerfulness with which the programme-makers ignore wholesale gaps in their thinking. For instance ( and assuming the jury is approaching this from an unbelieving/believing neutral position).

Option 1: The Israelites were led by Moses using the flame/smoke device that had become familiar to them through exposure to the Egyptians.

Option 2: The Israelites were led by God using the flame/smoke device that had become familiar to them through exposure to the Egyptians.


Could each jury member please give a rationale for choosing their preferred option.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could each jury member please give a rationale for choosing their preferred option.

One doesn't require that you invoke a supernatural deity to explain what happened?

PDN

I normally enjoy watching the History Channel, National Geographic etc.

What worries me is that on the one subject in which I'm knowledgable and academically qualified (biblical studies and theology) these channels present programmes that are woefully inaccurate and full of unsubstantiated assertions. That makes me wonder whether the programmes on other subjects, which I watch so avidly, are in fact equally poorly researched.

The tides in either the Red Sea or the Sabħat al Bardawīl lagoon (Sea of Reeds) is nowhere nearly large enough to drown the Egyptian army. A much more plausible natural explanation would be some form of tsunami, where the sea recedes at first, then produces an overwhelming flood.

Of course Moses would have had to have been a scientific genius on the level of Hawkings, Darwin, Galileo and Einstein all rolled into one in order to predict such an event so precisely.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The tides in either the Red Sea or the Sabħat al Bardawīl lagoon (Sea of Reeds) is nowhere nearly large enough to drown the Egyptian army. A much more plausible natural explanation would be some form of tsunami, where the sea recedes at first, then produces an overwhelming flood.

Actually if it is the program I'm thinking of they don't claim the entire army was drowned.

This is the thing, these programs don't take the entire story as literal fact, it is more a search for possible explanations for the origins of the story. They take into account that stories like these are traditionally embellished in the retelling.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Actually if it is the program I'm thinking of they don't claim the entire army was drowned.

This is the thing, these programs don't take the entire story as literal fact, it is more a search for possible explanations for the origins of the story. They take into account that stories like these are traditionally embellished in the retelling.

So, let's get this straight:

1. They assume at the outset that the Bible contains inaccuracies.
2. Then, based on that assumption, they suggest naturalistic explanations for events.
3. Then we have a thread here arguing that such explanations show that the Bible contains inaccuracies.

Can anyone say 'circular'?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So, let's get this straight:

1. They assume at the outset that the Bible contains inaccuracies.
2. Then, based on that assumption, they suggest naturalistic explanations for events.
3. Then we have a thread here arguing that such explanations show that the Bible contains inaccuracies.

Can anyone say 'circular'?

I agree but then 3 is more our problem than theirs.

These programs aren't designed to try and show Christian faith is flawed. They aren't starting from the position that Christian faith isn't flawed. They are history programs, brain farts of curiosity. They treat Biblical myths with the same wonder of say Atlantis or Troy. There is no more of an assumption that the Bible is literal history than say Homer or Plato is. The view is that these myths got started some how, lets explore and ponder what the origin of them might have been.

There is nothing here to disprove Christian faith, but equally from where these people are starting from you wouldn't be taking the Christian version as an historical starting point anyway. If anyone bases their Christian faith alone on the assumption that the Bible is literal history they have faith than these programs would never shake

Christian faith becomes some what irrelevant to these programs. On this forum is a different matter of course.

Manach

Wicknight wrote: »

They treat Biblical myths with the same wonder of say Atlantis or Troy. There is no more of an assumption that the Bible is literal history than say Homer or Plato is

Slightly off-topic, but AFAIK (based on a college course), Troy existed and Homer's Illiad had a reasonable degree of historical accuracy. Though I'd need to check my text-books for a more detailed background.

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

Slightly off-topic, but AFAIK (based on a college course), Troy existed and Homer's Illiad had a reasonable degree of historical accuracy. Though I'd need to check my text-books for a more detailed background.

I'm not sure many consider the Illiad that historically accurate, but probably discussion for another forum.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

I normally enjoy watching the History Channel, National Geographic etc.

What worries me is that on the one subject in which I'm knowledgable and academically qualified (biblical studies and theology) these channels present programmes that are woefully inaccurate and full of unsubstantiated assertions. That makes me wonder whether the programmes on other subjects, which I watch so avidly, are in fact equally poorly researched.

Something I found a few years back too. I take them with a pinch of salt now. I think Antiskeptcs term 'faction' is great for them. Similar to yourself, it was my biblical knowledge, (and I'm by no means a scholar) that showed me that the emperor had no clothes. Some of the stuff was just ludicrously stupid.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

So, let's get this straight:

1. They assume at the outset that the Bible contains inaccuracies.

The 'bible contains inaccuracies' part is my addition. They don't assume anything, they try and piece together an accurate picture of past events using the available evidence. I believe the way they put it was 'looking at the bible from a military historical perspective'. Looking at Moses as a military leader rather then just a religious figure.

2. Then, based on that assumption, they suggest naturalistic explanations for events.

They used all the available evidence available to them to try and put togeather an accurate picture of what happened. I don't know what their sources were or weren't but I'd imagine that there are other sources available then just the Old Testament.

3. Then we have a thread here arguing that such explanations show that the Bible contains inaccuracies.

Thats my assertion, but its secondry to my question on what people think of this. Dissecting old sources to try and get at the truth. The world has so many old traditions, old legends, old religions.

A similar example might be the following, I saw a different program a few weeks ago where archeologists discovered ancient remains of Egyptian priests. They analysed the remains and found that these guys lived rather unhealthy lives, eating a very rich diet and had health problems because of this. So why ?

The reason: People would offer rich expensive food to the gods, the priests would deliver this food to a temple/whatever. When the gods failed to collect the priests brought it home and ate it.

monosharp

JimiTime wrote: »

Something I found a few years back too. I take them with a pinch of salt now. I think Antiskeptcs term 'faction' is great for them. Similar to yourself, it was my biblical knowledge, (and I'm by no means a scholar) that showed me that the emperor had no clothes. Some of the stuff was just ludicrously stupid.

Like what for example ?

Some of the programs are of a much higher quality then others.

Manach

Leaping to the defence of the Greek Gods/Temple attendants, the feasts they held, I believe, were communial affairs with only the thigh-bone of the slaughter oxen held-over for the local deity.

smokingman

PDN wrote: »

So, let's get this straight:

1. They assume at the outset that the Bible contains inaccuracies.

Well, it does though. Case in point - when the resurection was first discovered, was it three women that discovered the tomb or five and why were the two giant angels only described in one gospel? There isn't one cohesive account of the event in any of the gospels that would make one believe it wasn't made up.

PDN

smokingman wrote: »

Well, it does though. Case in point - when the resurection was first discovered, was it three women that discovered the tomb or five and why were the two giant angels only described in one gospel? There isn't one cohesive account of the event in any of the gospels that would make one believe it wasn't made up.

Not so. If all the Gospels contained precisely the same details then that would be more of an indication that they were made up, because it would look as if they'd doctored their accounts.

One Gospel describes angels, but the others don't contradict it by stating that there were no angels. So there is no conflict.

If I say I saw three women outside the pub last night, and you said you saw five, then that is not a contradiction. There may have been five, or there may have been twenty. I noticed three of them and you noticed five of them.

Anyway, if you want to start a thread on the Resurrection accounts then feel free to do so. This one is to do with the Exodus and the History Channel's attempt to boost their ratings.

Zombrex

smokingman wrote: »

Well, it does though.

That isn't quite the point.

They assume the Bible contains inaccuracies because it is a book describing historical events. Its that simple. Historians always assume historical books contain inaccuracies because they most likely do. It is the default position.

The odds of the Bible not containing a single inaccurate statement while at the same time not being divinely inspired are ridiculously unlikely as to be not worth considering. Without the introduction of the supernatural elements the Bible is not a special book with regard to historical accuracy. This isn't a slight on the Bible, it is true of every book recounting historical events.

To get the Bible to the point of inerrant you have to introduce the supernatural element, which is not a particularly historical non-bias thing to do.

People always seem to think these types of programs are picking on the Bible, or trying to convert believers. They aren't (or don't seem to be) they are simply treating the Bible as any other religious historical text.

monosharp

wikipedia wrote:

The Hebrew term for the place of the crossing is "Yam Suph". Although this has traditionally been understood to refer to the salt water inlet located between Africa and the Arabian peninsula, known in English as the Red Sea, this is a mistranslation from the Greek Septuagint, and Hebrew suph never means "red" but rather "reeds." (While it is not relevant to the identification of the body of water, suph also puns on the Hebrew suphah ("storm") and soph ("end"), referring to the events of the Exodus).[6] Scholarly opinion generally posits that the Exodus story combines a number of traditions, one of them at the "Reed Sea" (Lake Timsah, with the Egyptians defeated when the wheels of their chariots become clogged) and another at the far deeper Red Sea, allowing the more dramatic image of the Israelites marching through on dry land with walls of water on either side.

So has the real history been forgotten/replaced with something more dramatic, something to make people more awestruck.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

One Gospel describes angels, but the others don't contradict it by stating that there were no angels. So there is no conflict.

So one guy saw some women and thought that would be more interesting to write about then seeing angels ? A rather strange choice wouldn't you say ?

Anyway, if you want to start a thread on the Resurrection accounts then feel free to do so. This one is to do with the Exodus and the History Channel's attempt to boost their ratings.

I love this attitude.

They could have made a program about any historical event anytime and be talking about any historical book. The same tv show does the same thing with the illiad, ancient greek and roman sources etc.

They do their job using the historical method, they are historians and they try and paint an accurate picture of events in a scientific way.

Yet how dare they touch your book and try to use their historical expertise to try and shade a little light on some historical events described in your book.

JimiTime

monosharp wrote: »

Like what for example ?

Some of the programs are of a much higher quality then others.

Like a 'Scholar' saying the bible was quite clearly inaccurate in saying that Babylon were 'Godless'. He expleained how babylon had 'many gods', and that worship of them was throughout every part of the Babylonian society.

I had to double take at this stupidity. It was like, 'Are you for real?'

On another occasion, and it was not quite so idiotic, was a programme to explain away any supernatural source of the plagues of Egypt. It sounded interesting, and I was interested to see how plausible this notion was.

Can't remember the exact detail, but it basically went along the lines of:

There was an earthquake which caused part of an island to fall into the sea, this caused a rise in sea level or something and made the Nile salty, which caused the fish to die etc. Some substance (can't remember exactly) made the Nile appear to be red, then all the frogs left the nile. All the flies came with the death from the nile, the animals died from the contaminated water. It just so happened that a locust swarm occured there too, and it was the time of an eclipse etc etc.

All in all, it was a big elaborate exercise in 'If', that was full of holes. So many of these programmes just stink of naturalist bias, without actually having any backup. Its like, 'well this, this and this sound plausible. Even if that, that, that, that, that and that don't'. It doesn't stop them patching something together though. 'Faction' is a rather perfect term for this type of 'Scholarship'.

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

So has the real history been forgotten/replaced with something more dramatic, something to make people more awestruck.

Thats one theory.

There are no records of Exodus in the Egyptian records, and they were pretty good with records. The closest they can get is Merenre II because his father, Pepi II, reigned for 60-94 years, as the Bible describes the father of the Pharaoh in Exodus.

But he is described in records as ruling for a year and then dying, possibily through an assassination.

In the time of Pepi II and Merenre II the Old Kingdom was in decline. The death of Merenre is it was linked to some kind of coup attempt could easily cause disruption that may have lead to a slave revolt.

There is also records of natural disasters from the time of the decline of the Old Kingdom (spanning about 100 years).

If these records were kept orally it is easy to see how the stories could have melded together into a shorter more interesting legend of the Hebrew flight from Egypt.

So I'm not sure many historians considered Exodus as described in the Bible as an historical fact. From a historical point of view the larger question is what inspired the stories in the first place. Most myths have some grounding in reality.

monosharp

JimiTime wrote: »

Like a 'Scholar' saying the bible was quite clearly inaccurate in saying that Babylon were 'Godless'. He expleained how babylon had 'many gods', and that worship of them was throughout every part of the Babylonian society.

... and whats wrong with that ?

Everything he said is true. The Babylonians did have many gods.

If the bible said they were 'godless' then it is clearly inaccurate. They had 'gods' whether or not these gods exist is not the point. Would the bible call the Romans godless ? or the Greeks ?

Babylonian religion;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/rbaa.htm <- THE RELIGION OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA BY THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D. Lecturer in Assyrian at University College, London.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Babylonian_and_Assyrian_Religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon

I had to double take at this stupidity. It was like, 'Are you for real?'

Please explain what is wrong with his statement ? Because from what you've described here there is nothing at all wrong with his statement.

On another occasion, and it was not quite so idiotic, was a programme to explain away any supernatural source of the plagues of Egypt. It sounded interesting, and I was interested to see how plausible this notion was.

The plaques of Egypt actually probably never happened.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

There was an earthquake which caused part of an island to fall into the sea, this caused a rise in sea level or something and made the Nile salty, which caused the fish to die etc. Some substance (can't remember exactly) made the Nile appear to be red, then all the frogs left the nile. All the flies came with the death from the nile, the animals died from the contaminated water. It just so happened that a locust swarm occured there too, and it was the time of an eclipse etc etc.

All in all, it was a big elaborate exercise in 'If', that was full of holes.

Not really, this is all based on known natural phenomena.

That earthquake was the Minoan/Thera eruption, which historians think happened in the mid to late 16th century BC.

And there were a number of total eclipses that would have moved over Egypt around that time

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/5MCSE.html

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

... and whats wrong with that ?

Godless is commonly used to describe pagans. It doesn't mean not following gods, it means without knowledge or understanding of God, ie this god.

The Romans for example are described as godless, not because they don't have gods but because they don't follow God.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

So one guy saw some women and thought that would be more interesting to write about then seeing angels ? A rather strange choice wouldn't you say ?

It would be strange if anyone had suggested anything remotely like that.

I had thought perhaps we could engage in a discussion without you resorting to your old tricks. Evidently not.

JimiTime

monosharp wrote: »

... and whats wrong with that ?

Everything he said is true. The Babylonians did have many gods.

If the bible said they were 'godless' then it is clearly inaccurate. They had 'gods' whether or not these gods exist is not the point. Would the bible call the Romans godless ? or the Greeks ?

Babylonian religion;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/rbaa.htm <- THE RELIGION OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA BY THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, LL.D. Lecturer in Assyrian at University College, London.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Babylonian_and_Assyrian_Religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon



Please explain what is wrong with his statement ? Because from what you've described here there is nothing at all wrong with his statement.

What WN said. I guess its not just the 'Scholar' who was clueless.

The plaques of Egypt actually probably never happened.

Thanks for that insight. An insight that is probably a good example of alot of these 'historic' programmes we are talking about.

monosharp

Wicknight wrote: »

Godless is commonly used to describe pagans. It doesn't mean not following gods, it means without knowledge or understanding of God, ie this god.

The Romans for example are described as godless, not because they don't have gods but because they don't follow God.

So basically any god thats not the christian god is not a 'god' and therefore anyone who is not a christian is 'godless' according to the bible/christians ?

So godless is basically 'not christian' ? Seems a bit strange, shouldn't the bible have said that the babylonians 'worshipped false gods' ?

JimiTime

monosharp wrote: »

So basically any god thats not the christian god is not a 'god' and therefore anyone who is not a christian is 'godless' according to the bible/christians ?

Well, errr, obviously.

So godless is basically 'not christian' ? Seems a bit strange, shouldn't the bible have said that the babylonians 'worshipped false gods' ?

Godless, is anyone 'without God'. Babylon had idols of gold, clay etc which they called gods. They weren't though, they were just works of men.

Even from a non-believer POV, its so flippin obvious the context of the Bible account. Its one thing that some internet poster doesn't get it, but for someone who is presenting their view as 'scholarary', its inexcusable.

monosharp

JimiTime wrote: »

What WN said. I guess its not just the 'Scholar' who was clueless.

Hang on a second, I'm not a christian. 'godless' to me immediately sounds like 'no gods'. How was I supposed to know you have your own meaning for the word ?

I even looked it up in a dictionary;

god·less (gdls)
adj.
1. Recognizing or worshiping no god.
2. Wicked, impious, or immoral.

I'd like to see what the original word the bible used was and how it was translated. Can you point out the relevant passage ?

Thanks for that insight. An insight that is probably a good example of alot of these 'historic' programmes we are talking abou

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt#Historicity

I'm not denying they happened, I have nothing to gain or lose either way. But I can't accept them as fact because history does not accept them as fact. One source for any historical event is simply not reliable, especially when its a religious text.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

It would be strange if anyone had suggested anything remotely like that.

I thought that in separate accounts, someone sees women, someone else sees angels at the same place around the same time ?

I had thought perhaps we could engage in a discussion without you resorting to your old tricks. Evidently not.

It would be quite pleasant to have a discussion where someone doesn't use their tricks or powers to unfairly gain advantage, why don't we try that ?

monosharp

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, errr, obviously.

How is it obvious ? The bible talks about 'false gods' all the time. Wouldn't it have made more sense to use this to refer to the babylonians ?

Godless, is anyone 'without God'. Babylon had idols of gold, clay etc which they called gods. They weren't though, they were just works of men.

According to my dictionary godless is anyone without a god. It doesn't have to be your god.

Even from a non-believer POV, its so flippin obvious the context of the Bible account. Its one thing that some internet poster doesn't get it, but for someone who is presenting their view as 'scholarary', its inexcusable.

Well can you show us the bible passage please ? It could help me understand the context.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

One doesn't require that you invoke a supernatural deity to explain what happened?

When a supernatural deity is as likely as not (to our neutral jury) I don't see how the swing occurs.

mdebets

I always find it funny when non-historians argue over historic texts and whether they contained real events or not, and thereby demonstrate that they don’t understand how to analyse ancient historic texts.

There are a few points to take into account when you analyse an ancient historic texts.

1) The people at that time didn’t have the understanding of history as we have it today. They were more likely more interested in the morals of the story, not an exact recount of the events.

2) All texts are written with a bias (however small it is). This plays in both ways. The Israelites might have exaggerated their positive actions as well as the negative actions of the Egyptians. The Egyptians on the other hand might have omitted this account in their records (or it might just not have been found)

3) It’s a known fact that the memory plays tricks on people and what you remember might not be what really happened. Therefore even a true account (according of the one who gives the account) might not really be true.

4) There was a long time between the time of the events, when the story was formed and when it was written down, so much time for changes (advertently or inadvertently).

So the question for the Exodus story is one the one hand was it originally intended as an historical account or just a story? And if it was a historical account, how true is it to the original events.
So I think there is no doubt that if it was intended as an historical account, that there are big differences to what actually happened.

One last point to take into account is the time when the final version (the one we know) was written down. This was shortly after the release from the Babylonian captivity, when the Israelites could return to their homeland, but where still under Persian rule. Spot any connections to the story of the Exodus?

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

How is it obvious ? The bible talks about 'false gods' all the time. Wouldn't it have made more sense to use this to refer to the babylonians ?

Godless to an Israelite was an obvious description. They knew the Babylonians worshiped other gods but they also knew that these gods were not real like the God of Israel, so calling these false God worshipers Godless is not a contradiction. Because to the Israelites they were God(of Israel)less. When reading a text you must put yourself into the frame of reference of the writer. Whether the Israelites were right or not, surely you can adjust your mind to their terminology in order to understand their descriptions? Godless to them meant that the Babylonians were without the God or Israel not wihtout gods per se.

monosharp wrote: »

According to my dictionary godless is anyone without a god. It doesn't have to be your god.

These stories were written down centuries before the English language existed let alone your version of the English dictionary, so come on, a little humility please. The world does not revolve around the language frame you just happened to be born into, you have to make adjustments in your frame of reference to get into the mindset of these people.

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

Godless to an Israelite was an obvious description.

Ok I can accept that to them thats what it means. But surely thats an inaccurate translation of the word to English then ?

wikipedia wrote:

Conceptions of God can vary widely, but the word God in English—and its counterparts in other languages, such as Latinate Deus, Greek Θεός, Slavic Bog, Sanskrit Ishvara, or Arabic Allah—are normally used for any and all conceptions. The same holds for Hebrew El, but in Judaism, God is also given a proper name, the tetragrammaton (usually reconstructed as Yahweh or YHWH), believed to be a mark of the religion's henotheistic origins.

Surely the original meaning should have been more similar to 'yahweh-less' ?

And this is the third time I've asked, but can someone point me to the relevant passage ? I want to look it up and see what the original greek/whatever said and how that word is translated.

In the English language god/gods can mean any number of deities. But as I just showed above, the Jews used an actual name for their deity and not an all encompassing term like 'god'.

They knew the Babylonians worshiped other gods but they also knew that these gods were not real like the God of Israel, so calling these false God worshipers Godless is not a contradiction.

Hey I'm not saying its a contradiction but it seems very odd considering the above. i.e > English 'god' vs Judaism 'Yahweh'.

I think the translation was poorly done if it says 'godless' in english because the meaning is not clear at all.

Because to the Israelites they were God(of Israel)less. When reading a text you must put yourself into the frame of reference of the writer.

Yes yes I understand all that but the writers had their own words for their 'god' against other 'gods'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Names_of_God

What I'm getting at is maybe the original writing was something like 'yahweh-less' and when it got translated they changed it to 'god-less'.

Whether the Israelites were right or not, surely you can adjust your mind to their terminology in order to understand their descriptions? Godless to them meant that the Babylonians were without the God or Israel not wihtout gods per se.

I understand that but their name for their god was not 'god'. They had a specific name for their god which meant no other god but their god. whereas the english word 'god' can mean anyone from Thor to the flying spaghetti monster.

These stories were written down centuries before the English language existed let alone your version of the English dictionary, so come on, a little humility please.

Thats my very point. My point is that the English translation of their writing must be wrong.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

When a supernatural deity is as likely as not (to our neutral jury) I don't see how the swing occurs.

Why is it as likely as not to a neutral jury?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Why is it as likely as not to a neutral jury?

Because that's the nature of neutrality.

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Ok I can accept that to them thats what it means. But surely thats an inaccurate translation of the word to English then ?



Surely the original meaning should have been more similar to 'yahweh-less' ?

And this is the third time I've asked, but can someone point me to the relevant passage ? I want to look it up and see what the original greek/whatever said and how that word is translated.

In the English language god/gods can mean any number of deities. But as I just showed above, the Jews used an actual name for their deity and not an all encompassing term like 'god'.



Hey I'm not saying its a contradiction but it seems very odd considering the above. i.e > English 'god' vs Judaism 'Yahweh'.

I think the translation was poorly done if it says 'godless' in english because the meaning is not clear at all.



Yes yes I understand all that but the writers had their own words for their 'god' against other 'gods'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Names_of_God

What I'm getting at is maybe the original writing was something like 'yahweh-less' and when it got translated they changed it to 'god-less'.



I understand that but their name for their god was not 'god'. They had a specific name for their god which meant no other god but their god. whereas the english word 'god' can mean anyone from Thor to the flying spaghetti monster.



Thats my very point. My point is that the English translation of their writing must be wrong.

The word God in English is a translation from the Hebrew word 'El' i.e. God. 'Elohim' is the plural form of 'El' i.e. Gods, That's the word used in the very first verse of the Bible: "In the beginning 'Elohim' (Gods) created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1v1.

El-shaddai is God Almighty, and God appeared unto Abraham et al by this name: "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty," Exodus 6:3

The name Yahweh also came from God Himself to Moses but it was not known to them until God Himself revealed it to them.

"...but by my name JEHOVAH (Yahweh) was I not known to them." Exodus 6:3

Yahweh, (YHVH - Jehovah) translated LORD (all upper case letters) in the English as apposed to Adoni (Lord - with lower case letters) has a pictorial meaning. Basically it is what God wants to be to His people. Picture squeezing a hose and letting the pressure build up behind it and then letting it loose. The Hebrews used this name with other adjectives to describe what God was like in their life's experience of Him. Even though over time they revered this name so much that they deduced that it was sinful to speak it. Silly really considering God Himself revealed it to them. Anyway this name could be used in conjunction with other phrases to outline specific names for God. E.G. He was their provider (Jehovah-jireh), He was their banner (Jehovah-nissi), He was their peace (Jehovah-shalom) and so on. God even revealed traits that He specifically wanted to be to His people by specifying it to them directly. "...I am the Lord that healeth you." Exodus 15:26 i.e. Jehovah-rapha for instance.


The word translated Godless in the English is usually Chaneph which means profane. And the word profane simply means not discerning the true nature of spiritual things. The writer to the Hebrews admonishes us not to be like that profane person Esau who sold his birthright for a mess of pottage (Hebrews 12:16). He did not discern the true value or nature of his birthright and sold it to his brother Jacob (later to be renamed Israel) for a measly bowl of stew.

So you see a lot gets lost in translation. If you take time to actually study these names in the original languages they reveal a wealth of descriptiveness which is simply not there in the English. So judging the Bible via the English translation will always lead to confusion. It is not a good translation for the most part, that's why the English Bible is always being re-translated into different English versions, due to the ambiguity of our English language. As a result of their reportive and emotive overtones English words tend to take on different meanings as times change. For instance, the word 'Let' used to mean to restrain, now it means to allow. I'm not sure how this happens but it does happen. In short English is not a very good set of spectacles to put on when setting out to judge the Bible.

Hope this helps clear up a few things.

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

So you see a lot gets lost in translation. If you take time to actually study these names in the original languages they reveal a wealth of descriptiveness which is simply not there in the English. So judging the Bible via the English translation will always lead to confusion.

Thank you for that but your simply reiterating my point.

I want to know what version of 'god' was originally used to call the Babylonians 'godless' in English.

They obviously weren't 'godless' in the English language sense, so I want to know what the original word was.

As a result of their reportive and emotive overtones English words tend to take on different meanings as times change. For instance, the word 'Let' used to mean to restrain, now it means to allow. I'm not sure how this happens but it does happen. In short English is not a very good set of spectacles to put on when setting out to judge the Bible.

Yes I understand all that, which is why I'm asking for the original word in the original passage. Doesn't anyone know it ?

I'd also like to ask if the Bible, or more specifically the old testament actually denies the existence of other gods. This is not related to the current topic but I'm just curious because in the commandments god says, "You shall have no other gods before me" which is either the 1st or 2nd commandment depending on what version of the bible your reading.

"You shall have no other gods before me" does not mean (in english) that there are no other gods, rather it seems to indicate the opposite, that there are other gods but you must not worship them before me.

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Thank you for that but your simply reiterating my point.

I want to know what version of 'god' was originally used to call the Babylonians 'godless' in English.

They obviously weren't 'godless' in the English language sense, so I want to know what the original word was.

Yes I understand all that, which is why I'm asking for the original word in the original passage. Doesn't anyone know it ?

I already explained the meaning of that word in my last post. The word translated Godless in the English is usually Chaneph which means profane, see above. What the English translates as godless is not specifically what it means in the original.

monosharp wrote: »

I'd also like to ask if the Bible, or more specifically the old testament actually denies the existence of other gods.

I explained this earlier too. The word Elohim translates to Gods. So right from the very first verse the Bible does not rule out the existence of other Gods, but the supreme God - The LORD of hosts if you will - is still top dog. LORD of hosts literally means LORD of the Gods of the hosts. The Bible has a very sophisticated Angelolgy. There are Archangels (Ruling Angels), Seraphs and Cherubim. The closest to the LORD of host are the Cherubim, who knows, maybe these are the Elohim of which the first verse of the Bible speaks. But there were also false Gods in the Old Testament. Baal for instance. There were priest of Baal who called on him during the time of Elijah to perform certain acts in order to show that he was more powerful than Elijah's God. He failed to show up.

monosharp wrote: »

This is not related to the current topic but I'm just curious because in the commandments god says, "You shall have no other gods before me" which is either the 1st or 2nd commandment depending on what version of the bible your reading.

"You shall have no other gods before me" does not mean (in english) that there are no other gods, rather it seems to indicate the opposite, that there are other gods but you must not worship them before me.

Either way they were to have no other gods besides Him. Compared to man Angels are pretty powerful beings and could easily be worshiped as Gods should they desire it but even they know that this is a no no because they are not to be worshiped, and if they're not to be worshiped as God then even more so pieces of wood.

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

I already explained the meaning of that word in my last post. The word translated Godless in the English is usually Chaneph which means profane, see above. What the English translates as godless is not specifically what it means in the original.

So the English translation is inaccurate.

I explained this earlier too. The word Elohim translates to Gods. So right from the very first verse the Bible does not rule out the existence of other Gods, but the supreme God - The LORD of hosts if you will - is still top dog.

Ok so Christians believe in the existence of other gods but their god is still 'number 1'.

But there were also false Gods in the Old Testament. Baal for instance. There were priest of Baal who called on him during the time of Elijah to perform certain acts in order to show that he was more powerful than Elijah's God. He failed to show up.

Hardly proof (to theists) of Baals non-existence is it ?

Either way they were to have no other gods besides Him. Compared to man Angels are pretty powerful beings and could easily be worshiped as Gods should they desire it but even they know that this is a no no because they are not to be worshiped, and if they're not to be worshiped as God then even more so pieces of wood.

Yes but its rather interesting if Christianity accepts the existence of other gods regardless of how powerful it views them in comparison to yahweh.

Pompey Magnus

Another interesting Biblical inaccuracy is from the story of David and Goliath, 1 Samuel 17 describes the weaponry and armour of Goliath, the problem is that what it describes is nothing like what a Philistine soldier of 1000 BC would wear but exactly what a Hellenic Hoplite of the 7th-5th Century would wear.

The Philistine soldiers did not wear bronze helmets but instead feather topped headdresses, unlike Goliath and Greek hoplites. They only carried one spear, unlike Goliath and Greek hoplites who carried two. They were lightly armoured, unlike Goliath and Greek hoplites who wore heavy bronze armour. They did not use greaves as leg armour, unlike Goliath and Greek hoplites who did.

Every single item Goliath is described as wearing is about 300+ years ahead of his time, it would be like someone presenting a historian with a document claimed to be contemporary to the events which says that during the French revolution the peasants used Apache helicoptors to attack the Bastille. Alarm bells would be ringing in the historians head and he would conclude that the document could not actually be contemporary with the event and instead must be much more recent. So too with Goliath, his description should set off alarm bells and should make us question whether the author really was describing a Philistine soldier of around 1000 BC or whether instead it was written between the 7th - 5th Century BC by someone very familiar with Greek hoplites but not at all familiar with the then lost Philistine soldier.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

So the English translation is inaccurate.

No, if you look up most dictionaries you will find that one definition of 'godless' is evil or wicked.

Cambridge Online Dictionary wrote:

godless adjective
Click to hear the UK pronunciation of this wordClick to hear the US pronunciation of this word/ˈgɒd.ləs//ˈgɑːd-/ adj
•
not having or believing in God or gods
a godless society
•
bad or evil

Therefore, in order to convey the idea of a wicked and profane society, the word 'godless' makes very good sense in a translation. The translators, who tend to be reasonable people, probably never imagined that anyone would be bone-headed enough to argue on TV, given the Babylonians multitude of idols and deities, that the word 'godless' should be taken any other way in the context.

Ok so Christians believe in the existence of other gods but their god is still 'number 1'.

I can see this is probably headed into meaningless semantics, but the word 'god' can be used to refer to anything that is worshipped (even saying that people have money as a 'god') or to refer to the one supreme being.

dictionary.com wrote:

God
   /gɒd/ Show Spelled[god] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.
( lowercase ) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.
( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.
Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.
( lowercase ) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.
( lowercase ) any deified person or object.
8.
( often lowercase ) Gods, Theater .
a.
the upper balcony in a theater.
b.
the spectators in this part of the balcony.

If you take 'God' as being the Creator etc, then Christians are obviously monotheists who bellieve in only one God.

However, we also believe there are other spiritual forces (ie anglels and demons) that are limited in their attributes and powers and are worshipped by some people.

It is usual therefore, in Christian theology, to speak of the one true God with a capital letter, and to speak of these lesser beings that are erroneously worshipped by some people with lower case letters as 'gods'.

Eric Clapton, despite his fans protestations to the contrary, is only a 'god' with a small g.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

No, if you look up most dictionaries you will find that one definition of 'godless' is evil or wicked.

Granted, but still you must admit that 'godless' infers 'no gods', not 'no yahweh' in English. I'm not saying the bible is wrong or inaccurate on this point, I'm suggesting that English versions of the bible should be more specific as it lends itself to misunderstanding.

Therefore, in order to convey the idea of a wicked and profane society, the word 'godless' makes very good sense in a translation.

No it does not. I understood before you said it that 'godless' can also mean wicked and profane but the first meaning to me (just as in the dictionary) is having no gods. I'm not saying its 'wrong' I'm saying its not clear.

The bible talks about 'false gods' in other places which only adds to the confusion here. Why were the babylonians 'godless' but others are 'false god' worshipers and others are 'pagans'.

The translators, who tend to be reasonable people, probably never imagined that anyone would be bone-headed enough to argue on TV, given the Babylonians multitude of idols and deities, that the word 'godless' should be taken any other way in the context.

So the average person reading the Bible who doesn't know about Babylonian culture/history automatically knows this ?

I can see this is probably headed into meaningless semantics, but the word 'god' can be used to refer to anything that is worshipped (even saying that people have money as a 'god') or to refer to the one supreme being.

Which only furthers my point that 'godless' is a poor choice of word for the translation.

I don't understand your argument here, it seems quite obvious that this is a poor choice of word given that a layman reading it would most likely consider 'godless' to be 'no gods'.

Its not proving your book wrong or in error, its simply saying that its not clear which it clearly isn't.

monosharp

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Another interesting Biblical inaccuracy is from the story of David and Goliath, 1 Samuel 17 describes the weaponry and armour of Goliath, the problem is that what it describes is nothing like what a Philistine soldier of 1000 BC would wear but exactly what a Hellenic Hoplite of the 7th-5th Century would wear.

Interesting, whats the Christian response to this ?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because that's the nature of neutrality.

The nature of neutrality doesn't say something is as equally likely to exist as not exist.

Say for augment sake a creator deity has to exist and there is a set of a million possible creator deities (give or take a few thousand :pac:), and God is one possible creator deity.

The odds of him existing if we start from a purely neutral position are a million to one. He is not as equally likely to exist as not exist, quite the opposite.

Then we get to the idea that there are probably a lot more than a million possible creator deities (an infinite amount perhaps if we start from a purely neutral position) and we haven't considered the idea that one may not exist at all.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Granted, but still you must admit that 'godless' infers 'no gods', not 'no yahweh' in English. I'm not saying the bible is wrong or inaccurate on this point, I'm suggesting that English versions of the bible should be more specific as it lends itself to misunderstanding.

No, I don't have to admit any such thing. We use language in similar ways all the time.

For example, in this forum we frequently talk of unbelievers as referring to those who don't believe the Gospel. Muslims do the same when they call others 'infidels'. Neither of these terms means that someone holds no beliefs whatsoever, or even no religious beliefs. They mean that someone does not believe what we see as the truth.

Similarly, a monotheist Jew would see pagans as being 'godless' because they lack knowledge of the one true God - even though they might worship a whole pantheon of deities.

No it does not. I understood before you said it that 'godless' can also mean wicked and profane but the first meaning to me (just as in the dictionary) is having no gods. I'm not saying its 'wrong' I'm saying its not clear.

Lots of words have multiple meanings. Its use in the Old Testament is very clear to any literate person reading it in context. Of course a sentence, or a single word, can be confusing if we lift it out of any book without reading the whole text.

So the average person reading the Bible who doesn't know about Babylonian culture/history automatically knows this ?

If the average person was actually reading the Bible (rather than arguing over a single word taken out of context) they would see it very clearly indeed.

However, let's remember that we're not talking about the average person. Before the thread disappeared into this semantical black hole we were talking about someone who was portrayed as an 'expert scholar' on a TV programme. And in that scenario their ignorance is breathtakingly inexcusable.

Which only furthers my point that 'godless' is a poor choice of word for the translation.

I don't understand your argument here, it seems quite obvious that this is a poor choice of word given that a layman reading it would most likely consider 'godless' to be 'no gods'.

Its not proving your book wrong or in error, its simply saying that its not clear which it clearly isn't.

No word is a good choice for translation if you take it out of context.

The translators render the text into English so that it can be read as a whole. When you do that the translation is very clear, and no literate person would see the word 'godless' as implying atheism or a lack of religion.

Ash.J.Williams

Another angle this could take is that exodus didn't happen, and all those great stories that the scribes recorded of mighty men leading them to the promised land were just stories to remind a scattered, nomadic, conqured people that they have an identity, they have a spiritual home, and they have a god.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Interesting, whats the Christian response to this ?

I don't think there's much to respond to tbh.

Our knowledge of what Philistine soldiers wore is pretty sketchy. The argument referred to above is based on one set of bas reliefs portraying Philistine soldiers in Medinet Habu in Egypt dating from the mid-12th Century.

However, any student of military history will tell you that very few armies throughout history wore standardised uniforms. It is quite likely that the Philistine army, like the Israelites, was a loose gathering of different tribes who each had their own traditions, weapons and metal workers.

(If you ever find yourself in Paris, try visiting the wonderful museum at Les Invalides. The incredible range of armour on display will demonstrate the varieties of weaponry and armour that can exist within one army one on one day - let alone among a race of people like the Philistines over several generations.)

Also remember that Goliath, with his distinctive size and as a 'champion' who was armed for one-to-one formalised combat, would probably dress differently from your average grunt in the ranks.

It would seem to me that there are no grounds whatsoever for arguing that Goliath could not have dressed as described in 1 Samuel 17 because we have a bas relief in Egypt from a different century depicting some captured Philistine soldiers with different details in their armour.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

For example, in this forum we frequently ...

This forum is not a religious text supposedly the word of the one true god and the most important literature in the world, now is it ?

Similarly, a monotheist Jew would see pagans as being 'godless' because they lack knowledge of the one true God - even though they might worship a whole pantheon of deities.

I'm not suggesting they didn't. I am saying that in the English language to a secular audience, its a poor choice of word.

Lots of words have multiple meanings. Its use in the Old Testament is very clear to any literate person reading it in context.

So (the 5th time i've asked here) can you please link me to the relevant passage ?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

This forum is not a religious text supposedly the word of the one true god and the most important literature in the world, now is it ?

Which is hugely irrelevant given I was demonstrating how we use language.

This thread is rapidly slipping down a semantical toilet. The flush cannot be far away.

I'm not suggesting they didn't. I am saying that in the English language to a secular audience, its a poor choice of word.

And I'm pointing out that the suitability of a word in a translation can only be judged when you read a book in its entirety.

So (the 5th time i've asked here) can you please link me to the relevant passage ?

How can I, since we are discussing a comment by a silly woman on a TV programme that Jimi saw? Without looking into her head I have no idea what passage she was referring to.