The Inquisition Redux

Gary Mac

Well-known member
you have no idea what i am doing much less what i had for breakfast.
Sure I do -- you have stated clearly what you know. And the only way I can know what you had for breakfast if you tell me. just as you have about your beliefs.
 

El Cid

Member
People often change their minds on further reflection and research... that hardly makes them inept. The contradiction does not come within the gospel, which is clear enough on its chronology in placing the ascension on the evening of the resurrection day, but when one compares this with the second volume (Acts). This was written at some point later (months? years?) than the gospel and the author has clearly changed his view on when this event took place. There are a number of continuities and discontinuities between the gospel and Acts, on which consult Mikeal C. Parsons and Richard I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Fortress Press, 1993).

Kind regards,
Jonathan
That he would make a 40 day error stretches belief. IMO that is much more farfetched than my explanation.
 

El Cid

Member
So I can ask you to forgive me of my sin instead of Christ and they will be forgiven and I will go to heaven?.
Go to heaven? The kingdom of God is not a pace you go to and observe, it is within you. Luke 17:20-21. And yes if you have an issue with me and find a fault in me, I do forgive you. My mind is pure for it is of Love.
I am not referring to the kingdom of God. Heaven and the kingdom of God are not exactly the same thing. There is overlap of course. The kingdom of God is the invisible church. Of which, the members of will go to heaven when they die. No, I am talking about if I sin, not if I have an issue with you. Do you believe there is such a thing as sin?
El Cid said:
I am not talking about spiritual death, I am talking about physical death. You can raise people physically from the dead?
I really haven't tried, have you? But I can say in 1966 I died from the result of an automobile accident and brought back to life if that counts.
No, I havent tried because I know that I cant because only God can do that. How do you know you were dead and how long were you dead? And who or what brought you back to life?
El Cid said:
I am talking about you not Him. Since you and Him are one, you can be in more than one place at a time?
God is Love He in me and I in Him are one, He can be in you as well.
His Holy Spirit is in me. But I cannot be in more than one place at a time because I am just a human.
El Cid said:
As Jesus said, where two or three are gathered in my name I am there.
Bingo
El Cid said:
So where two or three are gathered in the name of Gary Mac you are there?
Sure, just as the Spirit of Jesus is there, we have the same One.
No, I am not talking about the spirit of Jesus, I am talking about your spirit. Will it be there?
El Cid said:
Christ rose Himself from physical death, are you going to do that when you die?
Christ rose Himself from physical death? Christ is not physical at all, Christ is Gods Spirit in man, Christ is Gods anointing in man. If Christ is not risen in you then He is in a dead state of religion for you.
If Christ is not physical then how could he die, eat, and bleed, touch others, have scars, get hungry, have to sleep, and etc? Unless you deny He did all these things. How could people see Him if he is not physical?
I was raised from that death by Gods SPirit who gives life to our SPirit. This physical body is going to return to dust no matter what you think.
Yes, this body will return to dust, but God will give us new bodies on Judgement day.

gm: You really do not know the the kingdom of God is SPirit and is in man do you? You dont have a clue who Christ is. All that you can see of Christ is a man LOL. Christ is not a man Christ is the man who has Gods SPirit to be anointed of Him, Christ in you is not Jesus in you LOL, Christ in you is Gods SPirit in you just as He was in Jesus.

Man -- whoever you are listening to as teacher you really should consider the way of Jesus to be in the Father yourself

el cid: No, Christ is a man but He is also God the Son. Jesus and Christ are the same person as the Bible plainly teaches. You seem to reject certain parts of the Bible. Why?
El Cid said:
No mature Christian makes demands of Christ, He makes demands of them. Yes, our resurrected bodies will be like His.
You means a you are doing making demands on Him?
I dont make demands of Christ.
El Cid said:
True and it is only fully accomplished in the next world. I notice you didnt answer my question, why not?
Next world? The kingdom of God doesnt come with observation, it is within you, the temple of God.
See above about the kingdom of God and heaven, they are not exactly the same thing.
El Cid said:
He only became like God in that he found out how bad evil can be and unfortunately from that point on, he began to partake of it.
He only became like God when God Himself came to him by His SPirit and revealed Himself in him.
He never became like God in any literal sense.
El Cid said:
Adam chose carnality and not spirituality. That is why they got thrown out of the Garden.
Oh no, Adam came out of the carnality and laws in Eden and became like God to know this difference. Jesus did the same thing in Matt 3:16, he came out of the laws of the temples and became like God as well. SO did Abraham, Moses, 120 and me. He will do the same in you to if you will let Him instead of dictate your beliefs for Him.

Jesus referred to this change as born again. See Matt 3;16, this is when he made the change.
Adam may have been born again later but initially he turned against God. Abraham and Moses became believers, ie became born again. I have been born again too. Have you?
El Cid said:
No, He called the Temple His Fathers house, so He definitely knew the Father before He was 12 years old.
He knew the laws of the temple and called it Gods house just as Catholic do, Mormons do, Muslims do, Baptists do, COCs do, AOGs do, Nondenoms do, and that list goes on and on. But if you will note after Matt 3:16 that temple he once taught in are the very ones who had him crucified for blaspheme and corrupting that house for law because he became that temple of God himself just as we all do who are born of God, born again and not of those housed for law.
No, he called it His Fathers house, no Jews called the Temple that during the First Century. Only Jesus Christ did at that time because He was the first born among the children of God under the New Covenant.
You really do not know what God is all about do you?
I know about most of what He has revealed to us in His word. I dont know everything about Him as I am just a finite human being.
El Cid said:
I notice you didnt answer my question. Are you a Mormon?
Mormon? I dont have a clue what a Mormon believes, or a Catholic, or a Baptists, or any other sect believes and really do not care what they believe. My life is secured in the Father just as Jesus life was. He in me and I in Him are one. See Jesus prayer to His God for me to be in John 17, and to be ye therefore perfect even as my Father in heaven is perfect as Jesus commanded of me. It worked for me, if it doesnt work for you that is your problem with Jesus -- not mine.
Mormons believe that they are gods and that in the next world each man will have their own planet to rule over like the original Father God and populate it, each man is just like Christ and in fact is a brother of Christ. And Jesus has his own planet as well and rules over it. You seem to believe something similar. Though not exactly.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
I am not referring to the kingdom of God. Heaven and the kingdom of God are not exactly the same thing. There is overlap of course. The kingdom of God is the invisible church. Of which, the members of will go to heaven when they die.
Actually the kingdom of God doesnt come with observation, it is within you. Heaven or hell is the state of ones being and you live in one or the other. God is a God of the living, not the dead. And His church is exactly like Him just as Jesus was like Him.
No, I am talking about if I sin, not if I have an issue with you. Do you believe there is such a thing as sin?
Absolutely, sin is to be separated from God and beware of anything that would separate you from Him to be like Him and have His same mind and walk in it as He walks in it and perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect.
No, I havent tried because I know that I cant because only God can do that. How do you know you were dead and how long were you dead? And who or what brought you back to life?
All I know is what the doctors told me at St Josephs Hospital. And all I know is what I experienced during that time.
His Holy Spirit is in me. But I cannot be in more than one place at a time because I am just a human.
No man can, only SPirit can. Same Spirit who was in Christ Jesus is in all who has the same One.
No, I am not talking about the spirit of Jesus, I am talking about your spirit. Will it be there?
His Spirit is my Spirit. Spirit is our mind, it is who we are not what we are.
If Christ is not physical then how could he die, eat, and bleed, touch others, have scars, get hungry, have to sleep, and etc? Unless you deny He did all these things. How could people see Him if he is not physical?
Christ was the disposition of Jesus, anointed of God. You really do not know who Christ is to be anointed of God yourself do you. Jesus the man was tortured and died but Gods SPirit goes on and on to anoint man to have His same SPirit of Love, for God is Love.
Yes, this body will return to dust, but God will give us new bodies on Judgement day.
Today is judgment day, you are being judged this moment in who you are or are not like Him with He in you and you in Him as one, John 17.
gm: You really do not know the the kingdom of God is SPirit and is in man do you? You dont have a clue who Christ is. All that you can see of Christ is a man LOL. Christ is not a man Christ is the man who has Gods SPirit to be anointed of Him, Christ in you is not Jesus in you LOL, Christ in you is Gods SPirit in you just as He was in Jesus.
The truth.
el cid: No, Christ is a man but He is also God the Son. Jesus and Christ are the same person as the Bible plainly teaches. You seem to reject certain parts of the Bible. Why?
No Christ is man anointed of God. You cant know God at all without it. Not even Jesus knew God until God came to Him by His SPirit and opend all of His heaven to that man, anointed Jesus by His SPirit. See Matt 3:16, but I do not expect you will believe Matt 3:16 that God actually did come to Jesus and reveal Himself in him.
I dont make demands of Christ.
You just did.
See above about the kingdom of God and heaven, they are not exactly the same thing.
The kingdom of God is where He lives, it is His heaven, His abode, the residence of God and man is the temple of Him whether you believe Him or not. Man is the place God resides, he is a god of the living, not the dead. The grave is not going to reveal God, if you cant see Him now what makes you think you will when you are dead? It is to late to know Him by then.
He never became like God in any literal sense.

Adam may have been born again later but initially he turned against God. Abraham and Moses became believers, ie became born again. I have been born again too. Have you?
So was Jesus in Matt 3:16. He receieve from God just as these did. And yes -- so have I received the very same from God as these did, especially Jesus. He was my brother we have the same Father who is God.
No, he called it His Fathers house, no Jews called the Temple that during the First Century. Only Jesus Christ did at that time because He was the first born among the children of God under the New Covenant.
Oh no Adam was the first to live in the new covenant and become like God by His SPirit, Jesus didnt come along for another 4000 years. Abraham lived in the new covenant, Moses did the same. The new covenant wasnt established by Jesus, he was only witness for what it is to come out from the laws man establishes for their gods and became like Him in SPirit just as Adam, Abraham, Moses, and 120 did and all today who God is come to and born of His Spirit.
I know about most of what He has revealed to us in His word. I dont know everything about Him as I am just a finite human being.
If one has the same mind of God then you would know all about Him and who He is and His ways for man.
Mormons believe that they are gods and that in the next world each man will have their own planet to rule over like the original Father God and populate it, each man is just like Christ and in fact is a brother of Christ. And Jesus has his own planet as well and rules over it. You seem to believe something similar. Though not exactly.
I cant speak for Mormon, or Catholic or Baptists, or Muslims or any other belief system. But I can speak for the same God who was in Christ Jesus for He is in me the very same. He in me and I in Him are one, see Jesus prayer to our God for me to be in John 17. . And when, or if, you ever do see Him as He is, ye shall be like Him as well. 1 John 3.

Your judgment of me is from the same state of mind that Jesus was judged from in his trials and tribulations. You have a religious belief instead of having from God that what Jesus had from Him and came as witness for what it is to be in the Father yourself as he was in the Father himself.
 

El Cid

Member
In Genesis 7:11 "that day" refers to "the six hundredth year of Noahs life, on the 17th day of the second month". That is day that the passage is referring to when the flood waters came. It is not referring to one day when all the animals entered the ark.
Except that it does claim the humans and animals all entered the ark that very day as verses 13 and 14 make clear.
Yes, they refer to the day at the end of the seven days.
El Cid said:
Much of the evidence says otherwise. For example, Deuteronomy is written in the form of the Hittite Suzerainty Treaties of the 14th and 13th centuries BC. How could someone from the 8th century know how to do this?
No, Deuteronomy actually has some word-for-word parallels with neo-Assyrian treaties, examples ranging in dates from the ninth through seventh centuries BCE... see the summary provided by Sparks and further pertinent bibliography (441-43).
Not according to Dr. Kenneth A. Kitchen one of the most respected middle eastern scholars in the world. He says what I stated above.
El Cid said:
There is evidence that they originated after the Kingdom split after the death of Solomon.
No there isn't, nor have or could you cite anything credible in defense of such a proposition.
The Bible seems to imply it.
El Cid said:
The overall evidence points to single author with the knowledge and experience of Moses.
Evidence for this tradition is sorely lacking and the feeble examples you've provided have done nothing whatsoever to convince me of the viability of your position. I've been studying Hebrew since the late 90s and, to the best of my knowledge, I'm the most erudite Hebraist currently posting on this forum... I've translated the entire Pentateuch from scratch and there is enormous variation to be found in vocabulary, spelling, how and when direct objects are marked, turns of phrase, sentence complexity, use of word play and syntax --- multiple authors is obvious to anyone similarly immersed in the language and no serious scholar I'm aware of disputes this.
Those could just as easily be explained by Moses using multiple sources and multiple scribes who recorded His dictation plus combined with his own writing. In addition, the Pentateuch is written from a non-Palestinian point of view, to an audience more familiar with Egypt and Sinai than the land of Canaan, as seen in Genesis 13:10 and 33:18. Also, no part of the OT uses more Egyptian loanwords. Like abrek in Genesis 41:43. And there are many other evidences for Mosaic authorship.
El Cid said:
Hebrew written and oral transmission has been shown to be very accurate with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scroll of Isaiah is almost identical to a copy of Isaiah around 900 AD, that is a period of at least 1100 years.
I've dealt with your selective appeal to the DSS elsewhere.
Nevertheless, the scroll of Isaiah shows a remarkable preservation of basically an identical text over a period of 1100 years.
El Cid said:
You are right I misunderstood what you were saying.
Perhaps you should pause to consider what else you are misunderstanding...
I have and cant think of any others, though sometimes you do have a tendency to communicate in a rather obscurant way, that can cause misunderstanding.
 

El Cid

Member
Christians consider it phenomenon that needs to explained...
With this you raise inerrancy to the level of an essential doctrine of the Christian faith, which is ridiculous.
No, it is not an essential doctrine, but rejecting it opens a serious can of worms for someones Christian faith.
El Cid said:
and we need to determine if there is evidence that the events occurred.
That's a completely different discussion... one we aren't having, even if you are confused and think we are.
Well if the text records something in a historical narrative fashion, then it the events did not occur, that also opens a serious can of worms for someones Christian faith.
El Cid said:
If the meal started late Thursday night and continued till Friday morning then it did occur on day of the crucifixion.
I have no interest in such sophistry... you know full well I'm not splitting hairs over a meal rolling over into the early hours of Friday morning, but a meal that those who bring Jesus to Pilate anticipate eating later in the day and are therefore careful not to defile themselves --- this would be a full day later than the Passover Jesus shares with his disciples in the other three gospels the evening before the crucifixion.
See my post where I provided two reasonable scenarios.
El Cid said:
Actually you are right, he probably did know about John in its oral form. And may have known the apostle John personally and interviewed him.
You also know full well I reject the idea that entire gospels were circulating in oral form and I certainly don't think the author of Luke interviewed one of Jesus' disciples... your attempt to subtly align my position with these ideas of yours is unacceptable and rejected.
Large sections could have been circulating. And since they both belonged to the early church in Palestine at the same time, they very well probably did meet and he very well may have been one of Lukes sources.
El Cid said:
First we must remember it had to have been written before Acts. Some things in Acts point to an early date. Acts doesnt mention the Neronian persecution or the deaths of Paul or James which occurred around 62 AD. No event later than 62 is mentioned. It is mentioned that Agabus' prophecy was fulfilled but not Jesus' prophecy about the Fall of Jerusalem. And there are other things that point to the early date but I dont have huge problem with a date in the 80s but I think most of the evidence points to the 60s. 140 AD seems far too late however.
An author can end his or her historical narrative wherever s/he wishes and Luke ends with Paul proclaiming the gospel unhindered in Rome for rhetorical reasons, to edify and encourage his readers to do likewise... he drops a number of hints about Paul's death in the speech placed in his hero's mouth in chapter 20. Whether you think 140 CE is "far too late" is irrelevant to the fact established by the source I cited previously that you have no author prior to about this date that cites from the Lukan writings.
Why doesnt he mention the Neroinian persecution? And especially the death of James given that even a non Christian, Josephus mentioned James' death. Why would he leave such a significant death out? And why would he not mention Christ's prophecy about the Fall of Jerusalem being fulfilled, this would confirm His divine prophetic status. It makes no sense that he would not mention these major events in the early Church. These strongly point to a pre-62 AD date.
 

El Cid

Member
First, your analogy is useless because the claim you appeal to is memorization of a written text, not the oral circulation of entire narratives never before committed to writing.
The techniques for memorization are similar and the Hebrews were probably the best at it.
Second, such claims -- at least in terms of being verbatim accurate to the source text -- have been proven fallacious through field work and recordings made by scholars in predominantly oral communities... recitations deviate to varying degrees from the source text --- please familiarize yourself with this scholarship, starting with the late Walter Ong's Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. Third, the burden is yours to prove entire gospels were circulating orally, not for me to prove the negative. My earlier concession to what parts of later gospel traditions likely circulated orally is consistent with the studies of oral cultures cited by Ong and others.
Actually even without Gods help, people can recall things perfectly for short periods, have you ever made 100% on a test? For that time period you were perfect in your recall. As far as other oral communities, it depends on the cultures of those communities on how careful they are remembering. The ancient hebrews believed in moral absolutes unlike most other communities, so their striving for error free recall is probably a little higher than other ancient cultures. Especially, regarding embellishment and inserting falsehoods to make it more palatable. I will concede that there was probably not whole gospels being circulated, but there very well could have been large sections of the gospels circulating orally.
That's quite imaginative... it is also incompatible with the Judges narrative that has the house of Joseph send spies to find out the way into the city. How ignorant do you think the military personnel of this tribe were if they needed a local's help when they already ruled the city and were putting down a rebellion? :unsure: You'd have to embellish your convoluted solution even further to account for this... all of it made up anyway, ad hoc to explain away the problem --- I suppose I should be pleased you finally see what the problem is, even if your attempt to deal with it leaves much to be desired.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Given that Joshua conquered them many years before this, the rebels of Bethel may have made secret modifications to their city in order to create areas of ambush such as secret tunnels, secret doors, and etc, so they very well may have needed a local's help to enter the modified city safely.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
That he would make a 40 day error stretches belief. IMO that is much more farfetched than my explanation.
Your opinion is driven by your commitment to inerrancy... the idea that an author would so carefully place single-day chronological markers throughout his post-resurrection narrative leading up to the ascension, but really imply a forty-day interval between these two events, renders him an incompetent writer. Whether you admit it or not, that is what we are left with if we accept your proposition. On the other hand, I'm simply saying that in the months or years Luke took to write Acts he changed his mind on when the ascension took place, presumably based on new information coming to his attention. This is by no means an unbelievable or far-fetched scenario... people change their minds all the time with further research and reflection on a subject. The problem is your a priori assumption that there cannot be any disunity within and between the various biblical writings... insisting there is no conflict here is not the result of an impartial evaluation of the evidence.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Yes, they refer to the day at the end of the seven days.
Except that, as I've already pointed out, the deity warns Noah in 7:4 that he will send the flood waters in seven days' time and 7:9 records that pairs of clean and unclean animals went into the ark with Noah --- seven days later the flood came (7:10). What is the point of the warning if Noah, his family and the animals didn't use this time to embark? Despite the claims of 7:7-9, did they all just line up outside and wait for the door to open for business on the seventeenth of the month? :unsure: The whole point of the supplement is to provide plausibility to the otherwise problematic claim that they all entered the ark in a single day, the day the flood occurred...

Not according to Dr. Kenneth A. Kitchen one of the most respected middle eastern scholars in the world. He says what I stated above.
Kitchen's specialty is Egyptology... as for your claim that he is among the most-respected scholars in the world, I think you need to broaden your horizons beyond the small circle of evangelicals you are currently familiar with. In any case, Kitchen deals only with the number and arrangement of the connections between Deuteronomy and other ANE treaties, he does not address at all (at least not in his treatment of the subject in his most well-known book that I have handy) the word-for-word parallels to which I earlier referred (and these are rather decisive in adjudicating the matter). Even then he concedes that Deuteronomy's reliance on the neo-Assyrian treaties is "a theoretical possibility" (294), though one he quickly dismisses as insignificant. My source (also an evangelical Christian) elsewhere had the following to say about Kitchen:

I have read numerous books by Kitchen, and though he is a fine Egyptologist, it is my experience that he generally does a poor job of presenting the views of critical biblical scholarship. (12)

I agree with Sparks' evaluation. He also shares an anecdote of when he read Kitchen's critique of composite authorship of the Pentateuch in some study notes:

For the first time it began to dawn on me that the critical arguments regarding the Pentateuch were far better, and carried much more explanatory power, than the flimsy broom that Kitchen was using to sweep them away. At that moment I began to doubt that evangelical scholars were really giving me the whole story when it came to the Bible and biblical scholarship. (12)

I can only hope you come to the same realization and start looking at a number of the resources I have provided to you throughout our exchanges... my summaries here are no substitute for reading the work of critical biblical scholars yourself.

The Bible seems to imply it.
There's nothing to respond to here... you've made an assertion and failed to show where you think even one of the biblical authors implies such a thing as this. In any case, for an introduction to the issues involved in this group's origins within the context of the origins of their version of the Pentateuch, consult Anderson and Giles' pertinent chapter "Stories of Samaritan Origins" (7-23).

Those could just as easily be explained by Moses using multiple sources and multiple scribes who recorded His dictation plus combined with his own writing. In addition, the Pentateuch is written from a non-Palestinian point of view, to an audience more familiar with Egypt and Sinai than the land of Canaan, as seen in Genesis 13:10 and 33:18. Also, no part of the OT uses more Egyptian loanwords. Like abrek in Genesis 41:43. And there are many other evidences for Mosaic authorship.
Kudos for at least offering some specifics, though I would categorize them as equally feeble attempts to defend Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (see below). Invoking multiple sources and scribes freely rendering dictation move these five books farther and farther away from any semblance of singular authorship and closer to one of the composite models I and other critical scholars embrace... the supplementary model is the best to explain all the evidence even if the documentary model continues to hold sway, at least in North American seminaries and universities, not so much in Europe anymore. While the idea of sources might work to explain material such as that found in Genesis and early Exodus, it has little explanatory power for the rest of the Pentateuch that narrates happenings its author was ostensibly witness to and would hardly need to rely on sources for. As we are already discussing elsewhere in the thread, different ideas about the origins of bronze on the sacrificial altar and what the ark looked like and who made it are impossible to reconcile with a single authorial vision, particularly that of an alleged eyewitness.

As for your specific citations... I will deal with each of them briefly in turn:

Gen 13:10. The land of Egypt, an ANE superpower during the kingdom period, would have been viewed with awe by Israelites and as an exotic region, a land of great wealth and natural abundance... the comparison of pre-destruction Sodom and Gomorrah to a paradisiacal garden and Egypt, far from reflecting the viewpoint of one intimately familiar with the latter, is instead tapping into public imagination about the land with an audience familiar with the existing less-than-desirable topography around the southern tip of the Dead Sea --- indeed, clarification "when you go {to} Zoar" orients the reader in the direction of Egypt using a locale in the south of Judahite territory in proximity to Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. 14:8); this would make no sense and would be wholly unnecessary to a reader familiar only with the Sinai area, which is far south of this region.

Gen 33:18. The reference to Shechem being "in the land of Canaan" is not to clarify its location for an otherwise ignorant reader... s/he would already know this from 12:5-6 anyway. No, its presence marks Jacob's return to the land proper... he leaves Paddan Aram where he has sojourned with Laban for twenty years, crosses the Euphrates and comes down through Gilead (31:17-18,21-25), which is situated east of the Jordan. After fording the Jabbok (32:22) and encountering Esau in the vicinity of Penuel (32:31; 33:1), he establishes himself at Succoth (33:17), whose precise location is unknown but typically associated with Deir Alla on the east bank of the Jordan (Rainey and Notley 115). In the very next verse, the one you cited, Jacob arrives safely at Shechem and the author includes the notice that it is in the land of Canaan, indicating that he has reached his intended destination from 31:18, all that remains is the anticipated reunion with his father Isaac for which he still has to travel south to Mamre (35:27).

Gen 41:43. Yes, אברך (avrek) is often cited as an Egyptian loanword, but its status as such is less certain than proponents often realize. Here is Lambdin's analysis, which while dated is still cited authoritatively by HALOT (1.10):

'Abrek, Gen. 41: 43, an exclamatory word, has excited an immense number of suggestions and explanations, many of which are based on Coptic and are therefore useless, while others, though more sound historically, present insurmountable linguistic difficulties. If the word is indeed Egyptian, of which fact there is no certain proof, two possible equations have been suggested: (1) Eg. 'b-r .k, " attention ! " by Spiegelberg, which Breasted approves on phonetic grounds but questions because of the sing. k where one would expect pl. tn, and (2) Eg. brk, a Semitic loan word in Egyptian, equivalent to Heb. berak, the imperative of which Brugsch would identify with 'abrek. Because a prosthetic aleph is not characteristic of 3-rad. verbs in Egyptian, Spiegelberg's 'b-r .k must remain preferred, but by no means certain. (146)

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the word is genuinely Egyptian, look at the context... it is placed in the mouths of Egyptians calling for people to make way for Joseph --- authors often pepper their narratives with foreign words where appropriate to the stories they are telling. The Pentateuch's texts were written by educated elites whose contact with Egyptian culture and writing I have already conceded... there is nothing particularly surprising about the phenomenon, in response to your general claim, or about this example in particular.

To be continued in second post due to character limitation...
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Nevertheless, the scroll of Isaiah shows a remarkable preservation of basically an identical text over a period of 1100 years.
I presume you here refer to the "Great Isaiah Scroll" (1QIsaA), which dates to about 125 BCE based on paleographic analysis (VanderKam and Flint 131). It is often invoked by evangelicals for apologetic purposes such as you have above, but it is based on an analysis of the so-called "Suffering Servant" chapter whose well-preserved text is extrapolated to the book as a whole... the problem is that while "{t}he text of this scroll is generally in agreement with the Masoretic Text, {} it contains many variant readings and corrections" (ibid 131). Other manuscript fragments of the book preserve text types that are actually closer to MT than IQIsaA, which "contain{s} many highly instructive variants from the traditional form of the Hebrew text" (ibid 131). The scribe responsible for the scroll is not evaluated positively... after noting the example of a couple sentences missed because of homoioteleuton in Isa 16:8-9 (not an isolated case), the scribe is evaluated as "careless and responsible for many of the errors in this large scroll" (ibid 132). And this is your star witness? :unsure: You cling to this one scroll whose contribution to your cause is not so pristine as many evangelicals have been led to believe, yet continue to ignore the bigger problem of radically different text types circulating in the Second Temple period.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

PS - Time permitting, I'll respond to the other two posts waiting for my reply in the next couple of days as I did intend to get to them today... just a reminder that I will be going on sabbatical from CARM after September 26 and will probably not return until the New Year so I can devote a solid few months to my writing commitments.


Works cited:

Anderson, Robert T. and Terry Giles. The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to Its Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies (Resources for Biblical Study 72; SBL, 2012)
Kitchen, K.A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 2003)
Koehler, Ludwig and Baumgartner, Walter (eds). The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (2 vols; Brill, 2001)
Lambdin, Thomas O. "Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament." Journal of the American Oriental Society 73.3 (1953) 145-55.
Rainey, Anson F. and R. Steven Notley. The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World (Carta, 2006)
Sparks, Kenton L. God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship (Baker Academic, 2008)
VanderKam, James and Peter Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HarperSanFrancisco, 2002)
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
No, it is not an essential doctrine, but rejecting it opens a serious can of worms for someones Christian faith.

Well if the text records something in a historical narrative fashion, then it the events did not occur, that also opens a serious can of worms for someones Christian faith.
Only if that faith is in the infallibility of a book.

Large sections could have been circulating. And since they both belonged to the early church in Palestine at the same time, they very well probably did meet and he very well may have been one of Lukes sources.
The author of John seems to have some firsthand familiarity with Palestine, but the same cannot be said for Luke... he displays what Kloppenborg refers to as place-name knowledge of the region rather than relational knowledge or local knowledge --- the author has relational knowledge of the Levantine coast, most likely derived from cartographical sources, as well as some local knowledge of sites in the northeast Aegean (201).

Why doesnt he mention the Neroinian persecution? And especially the death of James given that even a non Christian, Josephus mentioned James' death. Why would he leave such a significant death out? And why would he not mention Christ's prophecy about the Fall of Jerusalem being fulfilled, this would confirm His divine prophetic status. It makes no sense that he would not mention these major events in the early Church. These strongly point to a pre-62 AD date.
I answered a similar question yesterday in another thread, one with respect to why the author of Acts did not narrate Paul's death... I will copy and paste my answer here and supplement to address your specific concerns. Authors can choose to end their historical narratives wherever they please... Matthew, for example, ends with the risen Jesus speaking with his disciples on a mountain in Galilee --- should we conclude from this that it was written before the alleged ascension because the author does not narrate it? Of course not. Likewise, there is no reason why the author of Acts had to narrate Paul's demise in Rome... he chose instead to end on his hero preaching there boldly and unhindered for rhetorical reasons, to inspire his readers to do likewise. The author constructs Paul's speech to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 with knowledge of Paul's death, having the man predict he will never see them again and then get his ecclesial affairs in order by adjuring them to watch over the entire church of God in his absence. The Neronian persecution, the death of James and fall of Jerusalem all postdate where the author chose to end his narrative... it should further be noted that James and others key figures associated with the Jerusalem church such as Peter and John fall out of the narrative well before its climax --- the author's focus shifts to Paul once he enters the story and he is the exclusive protagonist for the last third of the book.

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Work cited:
Kloppenborg, John S. "Luke's Geography: Knowledge, Ignorance, Sources, and Spatial Conception" in Luke on Jesus, Paul and Christianity: What Did He Really Know? edited by Joseph Verheyden and Kloppenborg (Biblical Tools and Studies 29; Peeters, 2017)
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
The techniques for memorization are similar and the Hebrews were probably the best at it.
Baseless assertions.

Actually even without Gods help, people can recall things perfectly for short periods, have you ever made 100% on a test? For that time period you were perfect in your recall. As far as other oral communities, it depends on the cultures of those communities on how careful they are remembering. The ancient hebrews believed in moral absolutes unlike most other communities, so their striving for error free recall is probably a little higher than other ancient cultures. Especially, regarding embellishment and inserting falsehoods to make it more palatable. I will concede that there was probably not whole gospels being circulated, but there very well could have been large sections of the gospels circulating orally.
More baseless assertions, particularly your analysis of ancient ethics and any relation thereof to memorization... to make matters worse, there were multiple versions of Israel's sacred text circulating as I have documented elsewhere in this thread, to say nothing of the plethora of minor variants --- the same holds true for the New Testament texts, only on a smaller scale. These text traditions are too unstable to even consider the notion of accurate recall for oral transmission... they will have variations, as field work has demonstrated --- I already gave you a starting point to educate yourself on these matters and I suggest you do so rather than toss out these desperate speculations.

Given that Joshua conquered them many years before this, the rebels of Bethel may have made secret modifications to their city in order to create areas of ambush such as secret tunnels, secret doors, and etc, so they very well may have needed a local's help to enter the modified city safely.
As I said, you would have to embellish your convoluted solution even further, which is precisely what you've done above. Sorry, but I'm interested in what the biblical texts actually convey, not your 21st-century midrash. As I mentioned earlier on in our discussion, given enough creativity, you could reconcile any pair of contradictory texts... the method has no restraints and is not in the least bit convincing.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

El Cid

Member
Your opinion is driven by your commitment to inerrancy... the idea that an author would so carefully place single-day chronological markers throughout his post-resurrection narrative leading up to the ascension, but really imply a forty-day interval between these two events, renders him an incompetent writer. Whether you admit it or not, that is what we are left with if we accept your proposition. On the other hand, I'm simply saying that in the months or years Luke took to write Acts he changed his mind on when the ascension took place, presumably based on new information coming to his attention. This is by no means an unbelievable or far-fetched scenario... people change their minds all the time with further research and reflection on a subject. The problem is your a priori assumption that there cannot be any disunity within and between the various biblical writings... insisting there is no conflict here is not the result of an impartial evaluation of the evidence.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Your opinion is driven by your commitment to disproving inerrancy and the divine origin of scripture. Many of your "errors" are supposed corrections by copyists and editors or even the writer himself. So If Luke made such a serious mistake in his gospel, why did he not correct it or a copyist or later editor correct it so it matched his book of Acts? Could it be they didnt think there was an mistake or error? The problem is your a priori assumption that the the Bible is not infallible and then you try to prove your a priori assumption. Seems like circular reasoning to me and is certainly not an impartial evaluation of the evidence.
 

El Cid

Member
es, they refer to the day at the end of the seven days.
Except that, as I've already pointed out, the deity warns Noah in 7:4 that he will send the flood waters in seven days' time and 7:9 records that pairs of clean and unclean animals went into the ark with Noah --- seven days later the flood came (7:10). What is the point of the warning if Noah, his family and the animals didn't use this time to embark? Despite the claims of 7:7-9, did they all just line up outside and wait for the door to open for business on the seventeenth of the month? :unsure: The whole point of the supplement is to provide plausibility to the otherwise problematic claim that they all entered the ark in a single day, the day the flood occurred...
They did use the time to embark. Verse 13 just says on that very day, he is referring to the day mentioned in verse 11 which is also to seven days after the warning. I see no problem here.
El Cid said:
Not according to Dr. Kenneth A. Kitchen one of the most respected middle eastern scholars in the world. He says what I stated above.
Kitchen's specialty is Egyptology... as for your claim that he is among the most-respected scholars in the world, I think you need to broaden your horizons beyond the small circle of evangelicals you are currently familiar with. In any case, Kitchen deals only with the number and arrangement of the connections between Deuteronomy and other ANE treaties, he does not address at all (at least not in his treatment of the subject in his most well-known book that I have handy) the word-for-word parallels to which I earlier referred (and these are rather decisive in adjudicating the matter). Even then he concedes that Deuteronomy's reliance on the neo-Assyrian treaties is "a theoretical possibility" (294), though one he quickly dismisses as insignificant. My source (also an evangelical Christian) elsewhere had the following to say about Kitchen:

I have read numerous books by Kitchen, and though he is a fine Egyptologist, it is my experience that he generally does a poor job of presenting the views of critical biblical scholarship. (12)

I agree with Sparks' evaluation. He also shares an anecdote of when he read Kitchen's critique of composite authorship of the Pentateuch in some study notes:

For the first time it began to dawn on me that the critical arguments regarding the Pentateuch were far better, and carried much more explanatory power, than the flimsy broom that Kitchen was using to sweep them away. At that moment I began to doubt that evangelical scholars were really giving me the whole story when it came to the Bible and biblical scholarship. (12)

I can only hope you come to the same realization and start looking at a number of the resources I have provided to you throughout our exchanges... my summaries here are no substitute for reading the work of critical biblical scholars yourself.
It is not just Kitchen there are non evangelicals that agree with him like George E. Mendenhall and Abraham Yahuda, a jewish scholar
El Cid said:
The Bible seems to imply it.
There's nothing to respond to here... you've made an assertion and failed to show where you think even one of the biblical authors implies such a thing as this. In any case, for an introduction to the issues involved in this group's origins within the context of the origins of their version of the Pentateuch, consult Anderson and Giles' pertinent chapter "Stories of Samaritan Origins" (7-23).
I admit I need to do more research on this.
El Cid said:
Those could just as easily be explained by Moses using multiple sources and multiple scribes who recorded His dictation plus combined with his own writing. In addition, the Pentateuch is written from a non-Palestinian point of view, to an audience more familiar with Egypt and Sinai than the land of Canaan, as seen in Genesis 13:10 and 33:18. Also, no part of the OT uses more Egyptian loanwords. Like abrek in Genesis 41:43. And there are many other evidences for Mosaic authorship.

As for your specific citations... I will deal with each of them briefly in turn:

Gen 13:10. The land of Egypt, an ANE superpower during the kingdom period, would have been viewed with awe by Israelites and as an exotic region, a land of great wealth and natural abundance... the comparison of pre-destruction Sodom and Gomorrah to a paradisiacal garden and Egypt, far from reflecting the viewpoint of one intimately familiar with the latter, is instead tapping into public imagination about the land with an audience familiar with the existing less-than-desirable topography around the southern tip of the Dead Sea --- indeed, clarification "when you go {to} Zoar" orients the reader in the direction of Egypt using a locale in the south of Judahite territory in proximity to Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. 14:8); this would make no sense and would be wholly unnecessary to a reader familiar only with the Sinai area, which is far south of this region.
He just means the part of Egypt that is in the direction of Zoar. A group of people that has just left Egypt and headed toward Zoar, this would be a perfect explanation of an area they had just fairly recently passed thru so it makes perfect sense to me.
Gen 33:18. The reference to Shechem being "in the land of Canaan" is not to clarify its location for an otherwise ignorant reader... s/he would already know this from 12:5-6 anyway. No, its presence marks Jacob's return to the land proper... he leaves Paddan Aram where he has sojourned with Laban for twenty years, crosses the Euphrates and comes down through Gilead (31:17-18,21-25), which is situated east of the Jordan. After fording the Jabbok (32:22) and encountering Esau in the vicinity of Penuel (32:31; 33:1), he establishes himself at Succoth (33:17), whose precise location is unknown but typically associated with Deir Alla on the east bank of the Jordan (Rainey and Notley 115). In the very next verse, the one you cited, Jacob arrives safely at Shechem and the author includes the notice that it is in the land of Canaan, indicating that he has reached his intended destination from 31:18, all that remains is the anticipated reunion with his father Isaac for which he still has to travel south to Mamre (35:27).
Not necessarily.
Gen 41:43. Yes, אברך (avrek) is often cited as an Egyptian loanword, but its status as such is less certain than proponents often realize. Here is Lambdin's analysis, which while dated is still cited authoritatively by HALOT (1.10):

'Abrek, Gen. 41: 43, an exclamatory word, has excited an immense number of suggestions and explanations, many of which are based on Coptic and are therefore useless, while others, though more sound historically, present insurmountable linguistic difficulties. If the word is indeed Egyptian, of which fact there is no certain proof, two possible equations have been suggested: (1) Eg. 'b-r .k, " attention ! " by Spiegelberg, which Breasted approves on phonetic grounds but questions because of the sing. k where one would expect pl. tn, and (2) Eg. brk, a Semitic loan word in Egyptian, equivalent to Heb. berak, the imperative of which Brugsch would identify with 'abrek. Because a prosthetic aleph is not characteristic of 3-rad. verbs in Egyptian, Spiegelberg's 'b-r .k must remain preferred, but by no means certain. (146)

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the word is genuinely Egyptian, look at the context... it is placed in the mouths of Egyptians calling for people to make way for Joseph --- authors often pepper their narratives with foreign words where appropriate to the stories they are telling. The Pentateuch's texts were written by educated elites whose contact with Egyptian culture and writing I have already conceded... there is nothing particularly surprising about the phenomenon, in response to your general claim, or about this example in particular.

To be continued in second post due to character limitation...
Sounds to me like you are trying to rationalize this one. Abraham Yahuda goes beyond just loanwords. In addition, Numbers 11:7-8 gives the taste and texture of manna, only an eyewitness would know this. And I could give many more examples.
 
Top