Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Mikeenders]

But some do it anyway. (Luther and Calvin come to mind.)

A lot of backing and filling gets done trying to reconcile the account of Genesis 1 with the account beginning at Genesis 2:4: backing and filling that is wholly unnecessary

I hear you on that but to be quite honest I think its much ado about nothing. I don't find the passages hard to reconcile. 2:4 to me is just a recap and refocus on the garden and the earth around it. The writer is just focusing in on the middle east and the garden.

TO be quite honest i think "Scholars" and skeptics try to complicate it to make it "ooooh look at this" when there is not that much to see. Theres a tendency in every discipline to stroke the ego

Its flabergasting to me to see so many people genuflect to the idea theres a big discrepancy there but then I think some disciplines need something to make complex and muse over/

I guess my general sense of biblical scholarship affects my outlook. NIck and Stein I gather approach it almost as a science from which you can determine a good degree of certainty but to me its just linguistics and history neither of which are a science. They are really in some respects polar opposites. As time progresses you know more in science. In history you lose information with the passing of years. When people make these sweeping statements of certainty on documents with histories of thousands of years in the past with relatively little on the record there's just a con of illusion taking place. So little of the "certainty" is based on complete or even solid evidence. Its a premise that seems reasonable and is extrapolated on top of extrapolations with more assumptions swigged in while every one nods their head as if in awe of the emperor with the new clothes.

[psstein]

I guess my general sense of biblical scholarship affects my outlook. NIck and Stein I gather approach it almost as a science from which you can determine a good degree of certainty but to me its just linguistics and history neither of which are a science. They are really in some respects polar opposites. As time progresses you know more in science. In history you lose information with the passing of years. When people make these sweeping statements of certainty on documents with histories of thousands of years in the past with relatively little on the record there's just a con of illusion taking place. So little of the "certainty" is based on complete or even solid evidence. Its a premise that seems reasonable and is extrapolated on top of extrapolations with more assumptions swigged in while every one nods their head as if in awe of the emperor with the new clothes.

I treat it more as history. I think there are certain pieces of evidence that strongly suggest certain conclusions, for example, Abraham talks to the Philistines, who don't exist for another 1000 years. Another example involves Matthew using 75% of Mark in order to develop his own gospel.

I don't really think there are any objective "facts" in Biblical scholarship, or in history more generally. I think there are pieces of evidence that can be interpreted in certain ways. They can also be interpreted in other ways. That's why there are still discussions about Q and the Documentary Hypothesis (which I think flawed, but probably the best explanation of the evidence). That's why there's a huge amount of literature on the causes of World War I.

[tabibito]

I treat it more as history. I think there are certain pieces of evidence that strongly suggest certain conclusions, for example, Abraham talks to the Philistines, who don't exist for another 1000 years. Another example involves Matthew using 75% of Mark in order to develop his own gospel.

Could that be a simple anachronism? Genesis 21:34 Abraham stayed in (what is at the time of writing) the land of the Philistines, rather than "Abraham stayed in (what was at the time of his sojourn) Philistine territory ?

[One Bad Pig]

I see Gary has devolved to only throwing stinkbombs and has apparently given up on interacting with people. Way to be lazy, Gary!

[tabibito]

I see Gary has devolved to only throwing stinkbombs and has apparently given up on interacting with people. Way to be lazy, Gary!

Goodness. I hadn't even noticed the post until you mentioned it.

Not sure whether to forgive you or not..

[Mikeenders]

I treat it more as history. I think there are certain pieces of evidence that strongly suggest certain conclusions, for example, Abraham talks to the Philistines, who don't exist for another 1000 years. Another example involves Matthew using 75% of Mark in order to develop his own gospel.

I don't really think there are any objective "facts" in Biblical scholarship, or in history more generally. I think there are pieces of evidence that can be interpreted in certain ways. They can also be interpreted in other ways.

Thats a fair enough assessment and most scholars are honest enough about it when the discussion is particularly about the limitations but in more general discussions that "measuredness" doesn't often play out and the layman gets the sense that "Scholars have determined" means scholars have the facts to determine. Lets take the discussion with Gary that at several turns was about consensus of scholars. Now heres a guy thats just ignorant in nature and really is intellectually lazy and just goes around the web to bolster is confirmation bias. However he does share something in common with even some honest people - they will make determinations based on consensus. However what good is consensus for determining objective truth about the Bible when we are talking about alleged facts that on top of them can be interpreted in different ways? Who has the best conjecture isn't exactly anything for anyone to hang their hats on.

Also very often "strongly suggest" is being equated with almost certainly and the very term strongly suggest is subjective. Your strong might not be mine. DO we know that the phillistines don't exist for another 1000 years? Which phillistines? Israel existed before Israel (a nation name derived from ancestral name). Here as in other places there is an authority creep (EDIT - I should have noted - not you - I find you reasonable so that was not meant for you but read like it was so I apologize). When a scientists says something its because its been tested and found repetitively true where a Biblical scholar is drawing conclusions of what is murky at best as to a landscape several thousand years ago. Look whats has happened with the near certainty there was no true Davidic Monarchy the last few years. There was a confident belligerence among some Bible scholars that there was no way such an actual kingdom (worthy of the name that is) existed. Now its more like - well lets hold on a minute. Why? because we are still digging up truths from the ground. When these Bible scholars were speaking as if their conclusion was a settled matter did they inform the public that we still have not excavated a good portion of the areas in and around Jerusalem? (and we are not likely to any time in the near future).

I see the same in what is becoming the almost universal idea among scholars that we can take "ANE context" as Nick alleges to interpret Genesis. How do we even think we know "ANE context"? Do we really think we just lucked out and found the oldest "cosmology" stories of cultures in Sumeria,Babylon etc? Next year we could make the discovery of a lifetime with even older accounts that change our view of what that context actually was as we find an older common source that changes our perspective. This is the nature of ancient history. So much we don't know and its exciting to Bible Scholars when such tings happen and would be heralded as a wonderful thing

What wouldn't be so wonderful is that a generation before it would have been taught that genesis is this or that when it never was because we THOUGHT we knew a context when we thought wrong.

[Mikeenders]

I see Gary has devolved to only throwing stinkbombs and has apparently given up on interacting with people. Way to be lazy, Gary!

Whats actually happening there? I figured "caught in the matrix" was a ban but he posted afterwards (maybe from an already open form?????) or you guys have reaaaaallly short bans

Being new here I of course have no say and no weight to suggest anything but he's just using the forum as one mod put it as his blog so if it were me I'd lower the permanent ban. If youa re on a discussion forum not looking to have a discussion then you don't need to be here.

[psstein]

Thats a fair enough assessment and most scholars are honest enough about it when the discussion is particularly about the limitations but in more general discussions that "measuredness" doesn't often play out and the layman gets the sense that "Scholars have determined" means scholars have the facts to determine. Lets take the discussion with Gary that at several turns was about consensus of scholars. Now heres a guy thats just ignorant in nature and really is intellectually lazy and just goes around the web to bolster is confirmation bias. However he does share something in common with even some honest people - they will make determinations based on consensus. However what good is consensus for determining objective truth about the Bible when we are talking about alleged facts that on top of them can be interpreted in different ways? Who has the best conjecture isn't exactly anything for anyone to hang their hats on.

Also very often "strongly suggest" is being equated with almost certainly and the very term strongly suggest is subjective. Your strong might not be mine. DO we know that the phillistines don't exist for another 1000 years? Which phillistines? Israel existed before Israel (a nation name derived from ancestral name). Here as in other places there is an authority creep (EDIT - I should have noted - not you - I find you reasonable so that was not meant for you but read like it was so I apologize). When a scientists says something its because its been tested and found repetitively true where a Biblical scholar is drawing conclusions of what is murky at best as to a landscape several thousand years ago. Look whats has happened with the near certainty there was no true Davidic Monarchy the last few years. There was a confident belligerence among some Bible scholars that there was no way such an actual kingdom (worthy of the name that is) existed. Now its more like - well lets hold on a minute. Why? because we are still digging up truths from the ground. When these Bible scholars were speaking as if their conclusion was a settled matter did they inform the public that we still have not excavated a good portion of the areas in and around Jerusalem? (and we are not likely to any time in the near future).

I see the same in what is becoming the almost universal idea among scholars that we can take "ANE context" as Nick alleges to interpret Genesis. How do we even think we know "ANE context"? Do we really think we just lucked out and found the oldest "cosmology" stories of cultures in Sumeria,Babylon etc? Next year we could make the discovery of a lifetime with even older accounts that change our view of what that context actually was as we find an older common source that changes our perspective. This is the nature of ancient history. So much we don't know and its exciting to Bible Scholars when such tings happen and would be heralded as a wonderful thing

What wouldn't be so wonderful is that a generation before it would have been taught that genesis is this or that when it never was because we THOUGHT we knew a context when we thought wrong.

Yes, it is exciting when new discoveries are made, which unfortunately will sometimes lead to very stupid comments (see: comments about the Gnostic gospels by many popularizers).

To answer your questions (I think they're questions?):

1. Yes, we're pretty sure the Philistines were not there. The Philistines possibly (likely?) come from a group known as the Sea People, who are first attested around 1200 BC. If Abraham lived (which I think is almost unknowable), then Abraham lived around 1900-2000 BC, depending on when you want to date the Exodus. It seems likely, therefore, that whoever wrote the account in Genesis lived long after Abraham. He very possibly thought the Philistines had been there at the time, though that is simply a conjecture on my part.

2. With regard to the Davidic monarchy, this is still an area of dispute. The old argument that David/Solomon/etc. never existed is dead. We have the Tel Dan Stele explicitly discussing "the House of David." As for what the nature of this monarchy was, it's very tough to tell. The Books of Kings and Chronicles are Deuteronomistic and designed to further a monotheistic program, so they're not the most reliable sources. They're supposed to show how Samaria (Israel) goes into idolatry, and is destroyed, while Judah goes between idolatry and YHWH, and is only redeemed by YHWH. Judah is shown as a large and powerful kingdom, and Israel is shown as small and weak.

The archaeological evidence, on the other hand, shows the opposite. The Assyrians often deal with Israel and ignore Judea. Moreover, books of the prophets (e.g. Jeremiah) suggest that the people have been worshiping other gods for a significant time, and YHWH worship alone (monotheistic YHWH worship) is a more recent phenomenon. Also, the nehushtan, the snake Moses supposedly makes to deal with the snake infestation, is destroyed by (I think) Hezekiah, as the people are worshiping it.

[One Bad Pig]

Whats actually happening there? I figured "caught in the matrix" was a ban but he posted afterwards (maybe from an already open form?????) or you guys have reaaaaallly short bans

Being new here I of course have no say and no weight to suggest anything but he's just using the forum as one mod put it as his blog so if it were me I'd lower the permanent ban. If youa re on a discussion forum not looking to have a discussion then you don't need to be here.

"Caught in the matrix" means that he has been placed in moderation; every post must be approved by a moderator for it to show up to public view.

[Mikeenders]

To answer your questions (I think they're questions?):

NO they were more observations

1. Yes, we're pretty sure the Philistines were not there.

Actually no you are not because being known as the sea people we really don't know that the group WE identify as the phillistines were the first people to be called Phillistines. There are civilizations that trace their names back much farther than the formal nation. this is PRECISELY the kind of "certainty" that I was talking about. From that you extrapolate that Genesis could not be written in the time frame indicated by Judaism. tomorrow you dig up a name and its an oops moment. Plus though dogma pervades the dating of exodus I am not sure that can dogmatically be assumed either given the various issues. I am not biting completely on the Rohl's of the world but he does have some serious points.

With regard to the Davidic monarchy, this is still an area of dispute. The old argument that David/Solomon/etc. never existed is dead. We have the Tel Dan Stele explicitly discussing "the House of David." As for what the nature of this monarchy was, it's very tough to tell.

yes you are pretty much missing the point of my post entirely. I was not asking a question to be informed of where we are at. i know that. My point is that this has changed relatively recently and does more and more each year as we excavate. Where scholars claimed, with the very same degree of certainty you are speaking now of other issues, that a monarchy was out of the question it was entirely false to do so.. Here's the precise point. You speak with the certainty of science and use the language of certainty like a scientist but you are not a scientist and your field does not lend itself in many instances to the kind of rigor that science goes through. So speaking with the same authority is deceptive . Yours is not the only field this is a happening in under the public's nose. Academia in general (since science is included is academia) is slowly creeping into that authority that science has even in fields that have no right to claim it.

To put it blunt Stein a lot of what you just wrote is precisely the problem and illusion that I was talking about. Your field historically has been sure about many things that were found to be wrong but instead of learning form the process you continue to state things as facts that you THINK you know but really don't. The monarchy of David was no small issue to be brushed over . The likes of Finkelstein have outright mocked the idea of a David monarchy and he was not alone. it gained some would say even consensus status among the "right" scholars that the biblical view was entirely way out of the realm of possibility. Pulling back to "still an area of dispute" from yes we know this and other statements of facts should be a dead give away that far tooo much is being assumed out of the spotty records and data we have from ancient time periods. Has the field learned? no. It just seems addicted to trudging on making equally certain statements with even less concrete material on other issues. I guess it might be an embarrassment to a field and its participants if they keep saying "we think". It doesn't sound as impressive at dinner tables.

to illustrate You just mixed and match facts of archaeology with mind reading when you wrote what an ancient document was "supposed to show". Supposed to is a statement of intent and a statement of intent is beyond the text itself. It allows you to create and weave a narrative that tells you that the books cannot be trusted but what concrete fact is the actual intent of a writer based on?? I can relate what Homer wrote. I can relate the historical context. What I can't say is whether Homer believed all the things he wrote or whether he wrote them to achieve some other purpose and on that basis is not to be trusted. SO often Bible "scholars" just take a narrative and run with it. for example I do not concur with

The Books of Kings and Chronicles are Deuteronomistic and designed to further a monotheistic program, so they're not the most reliable sources. They're supposed to show how Samaria (Israel) goes into idolatry, and is destroyed, while Judah goes between idolatry and YHWH, and is only redeemed by YHWH. Judah is shown as a large and powerful kingdom, and Israel is shown as small and weak.

To me thats quite HIGH (ultra even) level of poppycock. If gary had written it I would have laughed. The book of kings is replete with evil kings. Both kingdoms are shown to be equally given to Idolatry. Kings ends with the destruction of Jerusalem the capital of Judah. Do you just slash that out to get to a narrative that its supposed to show one over the other?? In this you have exactly what I was talking about some archaeology mixed in with a whole lot of assumption to get to a narrative that is just weak opinion that like a sparkle on a gem can only be seen holding it at one precise angle and allowing no other.

The archaeological evidence, on the other hand, shows the opposite. The Assyrians often deal with Israel and ignore Judea.

Why wouldn't they? Geographically the Assyrians would encounter Israel first being north of Judah

anther huge problem in the field. Ignoring alternatives. You can barely pick up a book on the market now where a writer is not running off with one possibility to the exclusion of all others.

[Mikeenders]

"Caught in the matrix" means that he has been placed in moderation; every post must be approved by a moderator for it to show up to public view.

ah thanks for the info. Wow . Props to the mods. ON most boards you are either here or gone. They can't be bothered moderating posts like a blog.

[psstein]

[QUOTE=Mikeenders;249784]NO they were more observations

Actually no you are not because being known as the sea people we really don't know that the group WE identify as the phillistines were the first people to be called Phillistines. There are civilizations that trace their names back much farther than the formal nation. this is PRECISELY the kind of "certainty" that I was talking about. From that you extrapolate that Genesis could not be written in the time frame indicated by Judaism. tomorrow you dig up a name and its an oops moment. Plus though dogma pervades the dating of exodus I am not sure that can dogmatically be assumed either given the various issues. I am not biting completely on the Rohl's of the world but he does have some serious points.

The date(s) of the Exodus are more or less fixed by the text of the OT, and that assumes the Exodus actually happened, which if it did, the OT doesn't accurately describe it. You can't really get around what the text says. Israel literally means "the people of El," the Canaanite high god. They didn't become the physical Israelite nation until at least the Judges.

To put it blunt Stein a lot of what you just wrote is precisely the problem and illusion that I was talking about. Your field historically has been sure about many things that were found to be wrong but instead of learning form the process you continue to state things as facts that you THINK you know but really don't. The monarchy of David was no small issue to be brushed over . The likes of Finkelstein have outright mocked the idea of a David monarchy and he was not alone. it gained some would say even consensus status among the "right" scholars that the biblical view was entirely way out of the realm of possibility. Pulling back to "still an area of dispute" from yes we know this and other statements of facts should be a dead give away that far tooo much is being assumed out of the spotty records and data we have from ancient time periods. Has the field learned? no. It just seems addicted to trudging on making equally certain statements with even less concrete material on other issues. I guess it might be an embarrassment to a field and its participants if they keep saying "we think". It doesn't sound as impressive at dinner tables.

You're absolutely correct, and that's one of the big challenges of this field. Finklestein's views are wrong, and his popular book, The Bible Unearthed is deeply problematic. That's really more of a minimalist vs. maximalist issue, but it's one of the few areas where the maximalists really gained the upper hand. If you want to go back further, we can talk about Albright's insistence on the OT's reliability in the patriarchal narratives to Joshua/Judges. Albright's thesis was held for the better part of 30 years, until Thompson/Lemiche/Davies took it apart in the 1970s.

This is a historical field. New information emerges all the time, and theories have to adjust to the new evidence. The strong evidence for a historical Jesus may be overturned by some lost Pauline epistle that talks about Jesus as a cosmic being who was crucified in the heavens. The field would have to adjust to such evidence, and a lot of what we think we currently know would be found wrong. Historical theories are just as tentative, if not more, as scientific theories.

to illustrate You just mixed and match facts of archaeology with mind reading when you wrote what an ancient document was "supposed to show". Supposed to is a statement of intent and a statement of intent is beyond the text itself. It allows you to create and weave a narrative that tells you that the books cannot be trusted but what concrete fact is the actual intent of a writer based on?? I can relate what Homer wrote. I can relate the historical context. What I can't say is whether Homer believed all the things he wrote or whether he wrote them to achieve some other purpose and on that basis is not to be trusted. SO often Bible "scholars" just take a narrative and run with it. for example I do not concur with

Yes, the "narrative" is often a problem, and it still remains a problem. Look at all the historical Jesus studies done, some of which reach vastly different conclusions (i.e. Jesus the apocalyptic prophet vs. Jesus the Cynic vs. Jesus the feminist).

To me thats quite HIGH (ultra even) level of poppycock. If gary had written it I would have laughed. The book of kings is replete with evil kings. Both kingdoms are shown to be equally given to Idolatry. Kings ends with the destruction of Jerusalem the capital of Judah. Do you just slash that out to get to a narrative that its supposed to show one over the other?? In this you have exactly what I was talking about some archaeology mixed in with a whole lot of assumption to get to a narrative that is just weak opinion that like a sparkle on a gem can only be seen holding it at one precise angle and allowing no other.

Nonsense, I know how Kings ends. Kings is part of what many call Deuteronomistic history. The idea is to show that YHWH punished the people for their wickedness. This goes back to ancient Israelite religion, and ancient Near East religion in general. There are much larger reasons for this, but space doesn't really allow for a detailed description.

Why wouldn't they? Geographically the Assyrians would encounter Israel first being north of Judah

anther huge problem in the field. Ignoring alternatives. You can barely pick up a book on the market now where a writer is not running off with one possibility to the exclusion of all others.

Yes, they would, but there are other issues. Judah is almost completely absent. If the mini-empire of Solomon/David existed in the way Kings/Samuel tells us it did, then we'd expect a lot more evidence that what we have. There's also a complete lack of archaeological evidence that we should have if the mini-empire existed. Obviously, that's not "proof" (in either the positivist sense or otherwise) that such a mini-empire didn't exist. It does call the mini-empire into question, however.

[Gary]

Known dates of death of famous people in Antiquity:

King Josiah: 609 BC
Nebuchadnezzar: 562 BC
Cyrus of Persia: December 4, 530 BC
Alexander the Great: June, 323 BC
Julius Caesar: March 15, 44 BC
Mark Anthony: August 1, 30 BC
Cleopatra: August 12, 30 BC
Herod the Great: 4 BC
Caiaphas the High Priest: 36 AD
Pontius Pilate: 39 AD
Philo of Alexandria: 50 AD
Josephus: 100 AD

Jesus of Nazareth: 30-33 AD ? (We think...maybe)

What???

God himself, in human form, is publically executed for high treason by the personal decree of the Roman prefect of Judea, three days later his tomb is found empty along with multiple claims of post-resurrection appearances, accompanied by earthquakes, sightings of angels, a three hour eclipse, the tearing down the middle of the Temple veil, and, scores of dead people roaming the streets of a major city...and no one remembers the exact date of this event???

Give me a break.

Now, I'm not saying that the lack of knowledge regarding Jesus' date of death proves that he didn't exist, but to me it proves, without a doubt, that we do NOT have any eyewitness testimony of the life and death of this man.

The stories about Jesus in the Gospels are stories passed down by word of mouth, over many years, to be later written down by people who had never met Jesus. (They never mention even one physical characteristic of Jesus, for Pete's sake!) These four stories are not eyewitness testimony nor can anyone credibly claim that they are even accurate second hand testimony. They are embellished stories about a man who (most probably) lived and died in first century Palestine.

If the Gospels were really eyewitness accounts, the Church would know the exact date of the death of the most important human being who ever lived.

But they don't, do they?

[Mikeenders]

[QUOTE=psstein;249837]

NO they were more observations

The date(s) of the Exodus are more or less fixed by the text of the OT, and that assumes the Exodus actually happened, which if it did, the OT doesn't accurately describe it.

Lets not play games here. If you are anywhere near as you claim to be versed on these issues you know full well the dates are likewise based on assumptions and yes even from the text. If you are unaware then I am not talking to the person I thought I was. You also should be aware of the various arguments of those that don't agree with your assessment. I don't play the consensus game either. I play the hard facts game and claiming that everyone with an alternate timeline is full of nothing but hot air doesn't really cut it. Dating does not stand totally apart from chronology issue including egyptian chronology which is rife with issues

You can't really get around what the text says. Israel literally means "the people of El," the Canaanite high god. They didn't become the physical Israelite nation until at least the Judges.

My point was the phillistines - not israelites. Please Stein I request you not imply i'm trying to get around the text because you changed the subject. No fair and yes there is history of a different opinion as to whether the Phillistines of Abraham are the same as the later kingdom. That too you should be aware of.

You're absolutely correct, and that's one of the big challenges of this. Finklestein's views are wrong, and his popular book, The Bible Unearthed is deeply problematic. That's really more of a minimalist vs. maximalist issue, but it's one of the few areas where the maximalists really gained the upper hand. If you want to go back further, we can talk about Albright's insistence on the OT's reliability in the patriarchal narratives to Joshua/Judges. Albright's thesis was held for the better part of 30 years, until Thompson/Lemiche/Davies took it apart in the 1970s.

This is a historical field. New information emerges all the time, and theories have to adjust to the new evidence. The strong evidence for a historical Jesus may be overturned by some lost Pauline epistle that talks about Jesus as a cosmic being who was crucified in the heavens. The field would have to adjust to such evidence, and a lot of what we think we currently know would be found wrong.

I feel your pain but its All utterly meaningless to my point. The issue is not your challenges in the field. Thats totally immaterial. The issue is how you handle the facts NOW in light of the fact that there is so much uncertainty. If you can argue that the historicity of Jesus might be overturned by a single discovery (I wouldn't) then what does that say about the pronouncements you now make as settled fact of far lesser backed assumptions? IF you feel that way then you and the entire field ought to back off all the claims of certainty you like to make. Its collectively intellectually dishonest. Start to learning to say we we think more and stop trying to make sweeping statements when you KNOW they are not based on solid clear evidence. its the honest thing to do even if it will give you less stature to say "we think"

Historical theories are just as tentative, if not more, as scientific theories.

Stein its not a science and you are not a scientist and its NOT EVEN CLOSE. Stop comparing yourself to science. Thats the whole problem I am trying to realte. There is little comparison to be made. Even scientific theories are based on repeatable observable tests. Biblical scholarship operates nowhere near that. You are not "just as" anything with science. Leave the word science completely out of it. In fact the general public and especially the church needs to be more educated as to the differences and why in some cases Consensus does not mean a hill of beans because the consensus in Biblical scholarship can be on something that has no real evidence at all.

Nonsense, I know how Kings ends. Kings is part of what many call Deuteronomistic history. The idea is to show that YHWH punished the people for their wickedness. This goes back to ancient Israelite religion, and ancient Near East religion in general. There are much larger reasons for this, but space doesn't really allow for a detailed description.

eh sorry but got to call it- Bogus nonsense. Lets be honest here. You need a lot of space because you have no hard data. You are going to do whats become vogue in biblical scholarship - put up a few facts and then spin assumptions for the next twelve pages and claim that its the most reasonable position because of your focus choices. It doesn't matter what you pronounce. Clear facts are clear facts and by the end of kings both Judah and Israel are laid waste in judgement From God. So much for Kings "supposed" to be showing the supremacy of Judah over israel. OF course that makes ZERO sense to the narrative - because by the end of the book both are rejected by God but its nevertheless a book that is "supposed" to show the supremacy of one because you say so and can make an argument laden with assumptions. Sure we are all supposed to believe that the emperor has new clothes and you can tell intent but space doesn't allow for it. I admit openly you do need more space because when you have facts its as easy as relating them or linking to them in a few sentences but when you have to build an argument laden with assumptions to the point of fact - takes longer.

Plus all academia tends to believe in itself and as of recent to believe itself as something close to science. SO I am not surprised at the bluff or that you really do believe it.

Yes, they would, but there are other issues. Judah is almost completely absent. If the mini-empire of Solomon/David existed in the way Kings/Samuel tells us it did, then we'd expect a lot more evidence that what we have. There's also a complete lack of archaeological evidence that we should have if the mini-empire existed. Obviously, that's not "proof" (in either the positivist sense or otherwise) that such a mini-empire didn't exist. It does call the mini-empire into question, however.

YEs yes we have heard it all before. arguments from silence or in this case near silence which really is only a difference in degree from Finkelsteins arguments before when Biblical scholarship and archaeology had all but proven that there was no true monarchy at all. Its as if you wanted to underscore my point - Does biblical scholarship being wrong ever teach you anything? No instead you just move the goal post a little further down and pretend the arguments from silence have a good track record. Meanwhile when you state theres a complete lack( now utterly false anyway btw - when last have you checked what data is coming in??) of archaeological evidence does anyone also state that much has not been excavated, won't be excavated any time soon and in fact a lot can't be because of existing cities, developments and even political consideration particularly in Jerusalem. Of course not! Instead you deceive the public that the absence has a meaning it really doesn't have because the work is so incomplete..

Now why do I discuss that now in this thread? because if Gary has any point (yes still a dubious if) I think you and Nick are most susceptible to it. Yours is not a very coherent position. When the finkelstiens or the Barts of the world construct their views they do so in much the same way you do. Making an assumption , isolating from other alternatives and then constructing a narrative based on fragments of facts. Logically why in the world should anyone reject a minimalists or skeptics approach to handling issues when you do the same thing and have the same approach ? They make the same impassioned claim that the evidence laden with assumptions fits and your argument is basically nothing more than saying - yeah eat our dog food when it comes to Genesis or Kings but when it comes to the gospels well - don't eat theirs.

Look at what you have done/bought into with Kings claiming it to then be untrustworthy - when no matter how you beg otherwise the ending of the book does not fit your narrative. Why should anyone buying into that hesitate not to buy into The Gospel being untrustworthy because Gospel writers have an agenda Or Paul had an agenda and cannot be trusted? Sit down a skeptic and give him enough space and he'll construct a narrative too. Won't be evidence rich but then neither is yours on Kings.

IN terms of NIcks (and the church at large) apologetics he'd be much better doing what I am doing here - Pointing out the obvious non scientific nature of Biblical scholarship and its present tendency to assume its way to faulty conclusions (because like philosophers they sure do like to spin a theory as fact). I looked up your source on the creed in Corinthians and you did a fine job in summarizing it here but the added facts you claimed it would supply were not in there. What was in there were some pretty bad overstatements of where the facts lead. He shows the exact same tendency I see all over biblical scholarship to overstate things. GOod night he even makes some definitive statements about certainty about when the alleged creed was constituted which there is just no way of knowing as fact and which still are not really proven by the evidence presented.

Bottom line present day biblical "scholarship" itself is suspect. It not only is not a science its a field rife with assumptions and conjectures pretending its on solid basis. As Christians we should deal with all real issues that affect the Bible but we don;t really have any obligations to accept what is at present an EXTREMELY flawed discipline under the guise that it qualifies even for scholarship when at several turns it does not even meet that standard.

[Mikeenders]

My goodness. Try as hard as I can...I can't leave this thread alone...

Mike: You are 100% correct. What Nick and Tabby are doing is a very dangerous slippery slope. I should know, I started onto that slope 18 months ago, and look where I am now. Inerrancy and a literal interpretation of the Bible is the best hope for the survival of conservative Christianity.

Gary I guess since your posts are under moderation I missed this before (by the time its approved then we are on to the next page looking at responses) . Obviously we disagree more than we agree but as you have stated I can't buy the kind of double standard. If Christianity needs to invoke a changing of what the immediate biblical context states by conjecture and assuming outside contexts overrules then yes I have noticed that it only slows people becoming disillusioned with faith but it sets the path on solid footing for the future. I cant look any of my children in the face and tell them. You cant trust Genesis , Kings or chronicles because they have an agenda but boy you sure can trust the Gospels because they don't. IF I did and they bought it I'd set my calendar for the day that will run out as a rational explanation for them.

Now let me be clear - I could potentially tell them theres a book in the Bible I don't accept and leave their faith just fine (because the books were all written independently) but it couldn't be on such assumptions and mental gyrations. the skeptic idea that one book off and the whole thing comes tumbling down is false. Frankly I'd prefer them to reject kings entirely or Genesis rather than using those assumptions because its only a matter of time before that shoots the other way. As a Matter of fact I know of a few messianic Jews that reject the NT as innerrant. They are Christians accepting virgin birth, death burial and resurrection they just don't buy that any greek documents are inspired - historical and trustworthy as to basic message but not inerrant.

However no doubt you will want to cherry pick that issue rather than deal with the other issue I raised which I think is pretty obvious and self evident - Biblical criticism and scholarship is NOT science and alot of it which even you draw from on the skeptic side is included. That includes your heroes of Bart and other sources. You'd like it to be all your way but thats a dishonest approach . Bart's no scientist and he wallops a conjecture as well as anyone. When has history ever been science? Never. It may contain some science methods like in archaeology but its NOT a science. When has studying a text been a science? Never. We might use some science methods looking at paper and ink. When has determining a contradiction or lie in what someone states been a science? NEVER.

Though you want to see the wrong in Stein and Nick appealing to things as almost science fact you are an even greater offender. During the core of this thread you appealed over and over to nothing but consensus and scholars who agreed with you many of which have no science degree in sight and which make just as faulty arguments in criticism of the BiBle as Stein might make for it. If Biblical Criticism and scholarship is not a science and is given to conjecture then your canard about Christianity having to reject all that science and rationality states is just nonsense. On what planet does my rejecting what isn't scientific and is based on conjectures denying Science and rationality?

NO what you hypocritically do is accept the assumptions and conjectures your skeptic sides floats and then claim when Christians reject them and give alternative explanations that they are spinning or reworking the verses. No we are rejecting an assumption that was never science or even on solid grounds. Your laziness just says - well they are scholars so I will go with what they say or the equally silly they are Jews so they know (until they say something about genesis then they become just religious superstitious people again with no idea of how silly their books is lol)

The best response to any skeptic attack on the Christian faith is this: "Whatever evidence you present that skeptics believe proves the Bible false, whether with reason or science, is wrong. Period. No matter how true it may seem to our human brains, God says it is wrong, and I choose to listen to God, not man."

NO the best response is to call you on your nonsense when you claim with almost science like authority that you have good points because some scholars who aren't even scientists say so. From a scientific authority standpoint can you prove even one contradiction in the Bible? Nope. What we really have is assumptions of skeptics verses assumptions of theists and who has the burden of proof in an accusation of lying as in contradictions? The side making the accusation.

Bottom line is The day that Christianity has to deny something that can be repeated and proven in a lab is the day Christianity would really be in trouble. There is no such science. Admit it or not most everything you posted in this thread was conjecture and assumption

If my pastor had stuck to inerrancy, I might still be a Christian. But instead of preaching the "party line" of my conservative Christian denomination, he thought he knew better than the "dimwits" running the denomination. He didn't believe in a literal Creation. He didn't believe in a literal Tower of Babel. He didn't believe in a literal world-wide Flood. He didn't believe that Methuselah literally lived to be over nine hundred years old. He didn't believe that Jonah had literally been in the belly of a great fish for three days and three nights...But he definitely believed in a literal reanimation of Jesus!

That IS an incoherent position. However As you know I don't buy you were a Christian and the fact that you found yourself at a church that would have such a pastor is even more evidence I am on the right path on that. You've posted enough on this thread for me to be certain of two things of why you reject Christianity

A) Your skepticism is only of Christianity. You will buy any and every argument as long as its skeptical of Christianity and reject any thing to the contrary
B) Regardless of your denials to the contrary you DO have a necessary condition in your mindset that the supernatural is impossible

B by the way is totally logically incoherent with not claiming to be an atheist. IF you believe in ANY kind of God it makes zero sense to take issue with miracles. IF God (who by definition is a supernatural being) has ever made contact with men it would have to be a supernatural experience. It could not be anything else. the longer the contact was the more of the supernatural you would expect to see. So claiming the supernatural is unlikely is just the same as saying there is no god that would make contact with men. It makes no sense to claim what you claim (even beyond your silliness of ducking from the supernatural origins of the universe)