Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Which one? The one stating God Created the universe from nothing? Or how about that the bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Or how about the one where God created man? Which of my beliefs is paganistic?
Do you read archeological journals? Have you seen excavated areas around the Galileean reigon? All the temples to pagan gods. How about the most resent find of a statue on the coast? Pagan Isrealites had pagan beliefs. Did I say all Israelites were pagan? No. I certainly did not. And did I not say that the writers of Genesis were not pagan? Re-read my posts.
I've just shown you pagan israelites had pagan statues and temples? All you have to do is research Israel.
Not true. I mean are we reading the same bible. Didn't Israel get expelled from the land because of their idolatry?
Do you know what you are talking about? There is always a remenant of believers but that doesn't change the fact there were pagan Israelites who believed in the baals. And later in the greek gods.
That is not true I quoted from Gilgamesh and Atrahasis. I've quoted other biblical scholars. All you have to do is go to national geographic and find ancient pagan temples in Israel. Didn't Obama speak at one of these temples specifically
how about fox news is that a good source?
No I said my interpretation did that.
I just gave you some resources. I think it is you turning blind eye to the facts. Even the bible shows pagan beliefs in Israel
Again you misuse Pentateuch as you are not refering to the Greek Translation of the OT commonly known as LXX but rather Torah. I've shown you that though Moses gets credit for the writing of Torah he wasn't solitary in its production. It is clear Moses compiled writings as well as providing his own for Torah and a significant possibility that Joshua completed the last book.
clearly Documentary Hypothesis as submitted by Wellhausen is flawed however there is significant evidence to suggest that there were more sources than attributed by Tradition.
Note I hold more closely to this view
So that the Spirit of God who spoke through the writers did not wish to teach men such truths as did not help anyone to salvation.
Go back to the post from which you quoted me. I put your entire post in quotes, and then said, "This is your belief." It was all stated in the above quote. You can read your belief for yourself. I posted it for you. Reading comprehension skills??
For one of my post-graduate degrees I took Biblical Archeology. I have a library of between 2,000 and 3,000 books, many of them dealing with Biblical archeology. It is amazing to me that the more archeological evidence they find, the more it supports the Bible. For example they found evidence that supports how the walls of Jericho fell outward just as the Bible describes it. The Dead Sea Scrolls, as you know, was a great find. Biblical archeology is fascinating, especially as it is interpreted in the light of the Word of God.
And I didn't say you did. You were speaking of the writers of the books.
Re-read my post. I don't deny that Israel went after other gods. They did. But they never totally forsook the Lord God Jehovah. That is something that you must search out for yourself and understand. Do a study on the incident of Israel worshiping the golden calf while Moses was in the mountain. Had Israel forsaken Jehovah at that time?
Was Moses not allowed to enter the Promised Land because of his idolatry? NO. Because of his disobedience he was not allowed to enter the promised land. The same is true of the Israelites. Their disobedience may have been in the form of idolatry, but it was disobedience to Jehovah nevertheless. That was the reason. Read Stephen's sermon.
Yes, I know what I am talking about. Do you? I don't think so. Remember both Israel and Judah were taken into captivity, both for their disobedience. Both Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed. Yet God will leave a remnant. That doesn't mean there were no believers among the ten northern tribes. My statement is a general statement. The nation of Israel as a whole (before the division), even though they may have worshiped other gods, did not totally leave the worship of Jehovah.
And what point did you make? As was pointed out to you, you quoted from some unsaved critics whose sole purpose was to discredit the integrity of the Bible. Your references in the light of the Word of God were useless, rendered null and void. We all know temples existed. So what! What is the point?
So, what is the difference. Your interpretation allows you to say this:
You give opinions, not facts. Or you don't relate the facts of the Bible in their context which is unfortunate. That is what cults and unbelievers do. It is unfortunate that you are following in their path.
by this you've shown your faulty reasoning due to not comprehending what you've read. Again this is an attempt at a witch hunt for you. If you read my early post with DHK you will see that it was a statement about what to take literally and what is not taken literally. If you note in my earlier discourse I said that I would be consistent in saying both creation and John 6 could be taken figuratively and am consistent. You cannot. The language in John 6 taken at face value is clear Jesus flesh must be eaten. Therefore, applying the same rules you use for Genesis 1 you must conclude that Jesus flesh is to be eaten. But this is not what you do. You automatically apply a different set of rules. Which means you are inconsistent and are choosing by a double standard what you choose to believe. This is not scientific. Nor is it reasonable. You are always looking for that witch to burn.
by making this statement you once again have shown how you place yourself equal to that of God indicating that there is no other interpretation apart from yours with regard to genesis account. It shows your ego.
No, here is the problem you created for yourself. You took a phrase I said out of the context with which it was written Lets look at what you posted.
What did I say that offered up a pagan belief? Well, you quote me saying that Pagans in Israel believed in the same things that Pagans in Cannaan do. How is this a pagan belief? Its just fact. There were pagan israelites who worshiped pagan gods of the land they lived in. So how is that a pagan belief? In short it isn't. Its supported by both bible and archeolgical finds which again I refer you to national geographic. For your referrences.
I bet you none of those books has evidence of a six days of creation. But again the bible is itself a library of different type of books. The History books should be verified. I don't believe the Genesis 1 account to be such save for communicating the truth for salvation.
Did any of those books discuss a more recent finding by Kathleen Kenyon?
I rather doubt it.
the problem with all your statements regarding this is you assume I said or believe that there were no believers in God in Israel at that time. And that is just wrong on your part. I never said that nor do I think that. Note the things I've actually said. Genesis was written in the same literary style as other summerian writings but they weren't pagan who wrote genesis. That is a significant distinction.
Yes I did and I quote form others who do not. However, I believe in both cases that these people have a valid point. Let me bring up something David Lamb said.
I would like to continue his analogy to make my point about using critiques from Non Christian authors. If you want to play bass David is right you don't go to a chemist. You play by picking up the instrument and having a teacher teach you notes etc... Yet if you want to take the bass apart and look at its component parts on how it was made you may certainly use a chemist to determine the chemical make up of the varnish used to protect the wood. You may use a carpenter to determine the wood used and how it was manufactured and if you are speaking about such things you are reasonable to quote them. I'm not quoting these men on matters of faith but on the literary types, composition, etc... of the bible to include comparisons with contemporary literature of when the autographs were written. This is a key distinction. If I said don't believe in God because Erhman is agnostic then you would have a point. However, Erhman is formost in his feild of biblical criticism and makes valid points about non faith issues. Unfortunately, for you literal 6 days is a faith issue for you.
Not at all Rachel had stolen her families household gods. Its clear she may have even worshiped them. I think its key that she was not buried with Jacob instead it was Leah who had faith. But the point is there were pagans in israel who worshiped the same gods as other cananites which you were attempt to say was not so.
Interesting to note Firmament comes from the Latin Firmamentum implying a support or prop. Giving most the understanding of a "Dome". The hebrew word raqia indicates a stamping or speading like that of a metal spread over. Also giving and idea of a Dome. Note Waters are below. We can buy that because of lakes, seas, rivers, etc... Above the spread dome? Lets say that even if sky is what is meant above the sky is outer space and still it does not make sence there is just not that much water in orbit around the earth. Can you imagine astronauts flying through oceans of water to get to the moon? Doesn't make sense. So then we have a Dome spread out. Then it says
Thus in this canopy or Dome under the waters above the Dome is to be the lights. The stars the sun and moon. Also do you think this passage validates astrology? It definately brings up the question. Signs and seasons. However, if you want to just say it shows the passage of the year. I can buy that however the word use of "signs" in the discourse makes it opened up for that. However, in this case we have lights put into the Dome rather than being above the dome. Serious implications that. You can certainly see how an ancient person may understand the creation according to the diagram I previously posted. Again there are some serious scientific issues here. We know the atmosphere does not contain the lights of heaven but the lights of heaven are beyond the firmament. And beyond the galaxies, and stars and the known universe is there a gigantic body of water? See where I'm going with this? How about the lights. In day four we have lights being created into bodies containing them yet light was pre-existant. Many say God was the light described on day one. Well did he turn himself on and off when creating the first day? Impossible.