Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
    ...Continued from previous post



    I did accurately quote the scientific views of the Baha'i Faith:
    Your Trolling Hatchet Job continues. No, you did not accurately quote the scientific views of the Baha'i Faith. You quoted Abdul'baha who is not a prophet nor a scientist, and they do not reflect the scientific views of the Baha'i Faith. It is best to cite sources that give the real view Such as here -

    Originally posted by http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-r-friberg/bahai-creation-evolution-debate_b_4721219.html

    The conflict over evolution and the origins of humanity once again comes to the fore with the debate between Bill Nye -- the Science Guy -- and Ken Ham -- the young earth creationist. Tickets for the debate were sold out in minutes, putting it into the rarefied air of a Super Bowl or a Rolling Stones tour. Clearly, people are interested.

    Of course, there is opposition. Dan Arel, writing for the Richard Dawkins Foundation, protests that "scientists should not debate creationists." The noted astrophysicist and science television show host Neil deGrasse Tyson tells Bill Moyers in a television interview that faith and reason are unlikely to be reconciled.

    But not everybody is opposed to such debates or pessimistic about the future of the relationship of these two influential aspects of our organized life. Many, including members of the Baha'i Faith, look forward to a future when science and religion -- and faith and reason -- are reconciled and no longer opposed.
    The article reviews the citations that cover the real Baha'i view of the relationship of science and religion, which I provided and you chose to ignore. .

    Not sure where you're getting that I ever asserted that anyone was excommunicated from the Baha'i Faith for being naturalists. But if you'd like background and details on those who have been shunned, excommunicated, or felt forced to resign their membership, here you go:
    I previously told you this was off topic on the previous thread, because you were mixing the Baha'i view of science and excommunication. Again, start a thread on this topic and I will address it. One topic at a time. The shotgun Hachet Job Trolling continues.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-14-2014, 11:02 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #32
      I see you ignored my post #29. Probably a good idea on your part.

      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Your Trolling Hatchet Job continues. No, you did not accurately quote the scientific views of the Baha'i Faith. You quoted Abdul'baha who is not a prophet nor a scientist, and they do not reflect the scientific views of the Baha'i Faith. It is best to cite sources that give the real view Such as here -
      On the Prophet angle, see post #29. I've never claimed that Abdu'l-Bahá was a scientist, so not sure where you're getting that from. He is repeatedly called infallible within the faith, however, and he did say things that contradict scientific views (as noted in post #30). Those are his real views.

      The article reviews the citations that cover the real Baha'i view of the relationship of science and religion, which I provided and you chose to ignore. .
      Where did you post the Huffington Post article before? Not much of a rebuttal as it doesn't really touch on the quotes I cited concerning Abdu'l-Bahá's views on the missing link, and the article grudgingly acknowledges that Abdu'l-Bahá's views that man is not an animal are a departure from "well-known" views, but then fudges it with an unconvincing apologetic:

      Here there is indeed a departure from some well-known points of view, but it is not a departure from the facts and details of evolutionary science. Rather, the departure is from certain of the perspectives and interpretations -- what are perhaps best called the evolutionary narratives -- that have developed around the evolutionary sciences.

      And this Baha'i perspective is not widely different from that of "evolutionary creation" as espoused by such Christian organizations as Biologos (started by Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institute of Health, arguably the world's leading biologist), by scholarly Catholicism, or indeed, by a wide cross-section of informed religious belief throughout the world.
      Hmm, Baha'i's agree with Christians on the nature of evolution afterall?

      I previously told you this was off topic on the previous thread, because you were mixing the Baha'i view of science and excommunication. Again, start a thread on this topic and I will address it. One topic at a time. The shotgun Hachet Job Trolling continues.
      You don't have very good memory recall, do you? It was YOU who veered away from the topic of the Genesis thread when YOU brought up Baha'i beliefs in a thread about Christian beliefs. And again, YOU are the one who brought up Baha'i views and science in this thread in post # 26.
      Last edited by OingoBoingo; 03-14-2014, 11:44 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
        I see you ignored my post #29. Probably a good idea on your part.

        On the Prophet angle, see post #29. I've never claimed that Abdu'l-Bahá was a scientist, so not sure where you're getting that from. He is repeatedly called infallible within the faith, however, and he did say things that contradict scientific views (as noted in post #30). Those are his real views.
        Again, and again and again. The Baha'i Faith does not consider the statements by the Bab, Baha'u'llah, nor Abdul'baha as infallible statements of the Baha'i Faith concerning the science of our physical existence, and you keep ignoring the clear statements of Baha'i Doctrine concerning science. Knowledge of science is considered progressive and evolving knowledge based on the advances of science over time. Coming from an ancient paradigm it is understandable that you cannot understand this, but that is a matter of fact of Baha'i Doctrine. In the matters of the scientific knowledge of the physical world ALL religious writings including those of the Baha'i Faith must conform to the advancing knowledge of science.



        Where did you post the Huffington Post article before? Not much of a rebuttal as it doesn't really touch on the quotes I cited concerning Abdu'l-Bahá's views on the missing link, and the article acknowledges that Abdu'l-Bahá's views that man is not an animal is contrary to scientific views. Instead he fudges it with an unconvincing apologetic:
        No fudging here. It restates the some of citations from Baha'i scripture that cited before, and more, concerning the Doctrine of the Harmony of Science and religion of the Baha'i Faith, which you ignored before and continue to ignore.

        Hmm, Baha'i's agree with Christians on the nature of evolution afterall?
        Careful, yes and no. The Baha'is share the spiritual believe in the intent and purpose of Creation, but the actual physical processes are determined by the methods of science as the Doctrine of the Baha'i Faith.

        You don't have very good memory recall, do you? It was YOU who veered away from the topic of the Genesis thread when YOU brought up Baha'i beliefs in a thread about Christian beliefs. And again, YOU are the one who again brought up Baha'i views and science in this thread in post # 26.
        That was not the problem, please reread the previous post. The subject was the relationship of science and religion. I gave the Baha'i comparative example, and you went off topic with excommunication issues, and misrepresentation of the Baha'i Doctrine of the relationship of science and religion.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-14-2014, 11:57 AM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          ... Careful, yes and no. The Baha'is share the spiritual believe in the intent and purpose of Creation, but the actual physical processes are determined by the methods of science as the Doctrine of the Baha'i Faith.
          I think most Christian theologians would agree the second part as well, Frank, at least those that I've known.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Again, and again and again. The Baha'i Faith does not consider the statements by the Bab, Baha'u'llah, nor Abdul'baha as infallible statements of the Baha'i Faith,
            Yes, they quite clearly do. I JUST posted citations from Shoghi Effendi and Adib Taherzadeh (post #29) that says that Abdul'baha is unerring and infallible. It doesn't sound like you know much about your own faith.

            Originally posted by shunyadragon
            and you keep ignoring the clear statements of Baha'i Doctrine concerning science. Knowledge of science is considered progressive and evolving knowledge based on the advances of science over time. Coming from an ancient paradigm it is understandable that you cannot understand this, but that is a matter of fact of Baha'i Doctrine. In the matters of the scientific knowledge of the physical world ALL religious writings including those of the Baha'i Faith must conform to the advancing knowledge of science.
            "The lost link of Darwinian theory is itself a proof that man is not an animal. How is it possible to have all the links present and that important link absent? Its absence is an indication that man has NEVER been an animal. It will NEVER be found. 'Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace
            That's not progressive. That's about as definitive as you can get. And I haven't given you my paradigm, so don't know how you know it's ancient.

            Careful, yes and no. The Baha'is share the spiritual believe in the intent and purpose of Creation, but the actual physical processes are determined by the Methods of science.
            Pretty sure that's what Dr. Francis Collins believes as well.

            That was not the problem, please reread the previous post. The subject was the relationship of science and religion. I gave the Baha'i comparative example, and you went off topic with excommunication issues, and misrepresentation of the Baha'i Doctrine of the relationship of science and religion.
            I've reread the previous posts a number of times. You first brought up Baha'i beliefs in a thread about Christian beliefs (Post #76). You were making the derisive point that constant division within Christianity was caused by conflict over the inspired nature of the text, and that the Baha'i Faith is free of this issue. I rebuffed that (Post #77) by pointing out that Baha'is also believe their holy teachers and writings are inspired, and that there is division in the Baha'i Faith concerning interpretation. I wasn't saying anything about Baha'i Faith and science at that point.

            In the very next post (#78) it was YOU who brought up the fact that no one in the Baha'i Faith was excommunicated for advocating correct scientific views. I never broached that subject, so I have no idea where that came from. In the next post (Post #79) I pointed out that not all Baha'i views are scientific (this after YOU brought up the scientific views of Baha'i believers). Then you were the first to go into your whole rant about science and Baha'is again here, I was happy just to talk about the Gestapo nature of the Universal House of Justice (I can't write that name without thinking they watched too much Super Friends back in the 70s, LOL).
            Last edited by OingoBoingo; 03-14-2014, 12:38 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              No fudging here. It restates the some of citations from Baha'i scripture that cited before, and more, concerning the Doctrine of the Harmony of Science and religion of the Baha'i Faith, which you ignored before and continue to ignore.
              Yes, it was fudging. He recognizes that Abdu'l-Bahá's views on the non-animalistic nature of humanity is "a departure from some well-known points of view" (that's apologetic speak for 'goes against the scientific consensus' by the way), but that's okay, because its not really a departure from the facts of evolution, just the interpretation "that have developed around the evolutionary sciences".

              That isn't a convincing apologetic shunyadragon. That's fudging.

              Oh, before I forget. Where did you post that article before, or did you lie about that?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                Yes, they quite clearly do. I JUST posted citations from Shoghi Effendi and Adib Taherzadeh (post #29) that says that Abdul'baha is unerring and infallible. It doesn't sound like you know much about your own faith.
                I have been a Baha'i for over 40 years and studied all the scripture and related documents.

                You are still neglecting the actual Doctrines of the Baha'i Faith concerning the nature of science being the interpreter of the understanding of the nature of the physical existence.


                Originally posted by Shoghi Effendi
                It is hoped that all the Bahá’í students will ... be led to investigate and analyse the principles of the Faith and to correlate them with the modern aspects of philosophy and science. Every intelligent and thoughtful young Bahá’í should always approach the Cause in this way, for therein lies the very essence of the principle of independent investigation of truth. (Shoghi Effendi quoted in The Universal House of Justice, 1997 Aug 13, Science and Religion, p. 2)
                Originally posted by Universal House of Justice
                With regard to the harmony of science and religion, the Writings of the Central Figures and the commentaries of the Guardian make abundantly clear that the task of humanity, including the Bahá’í community that serves as the “leaven” within it, is to create a global civilization which embodies both the spiritual and material dimensions of existence. The nature and scope of such a civilization are still beyond anything the present generation can conceive. The prosecution of this vast enterprise will depend on a progressive interaction between the truths and principles of religion and the discoveries and insights of scientific inquiry. This entails living with ambiguities as a natural and inescapable feature of the process of exploring reality. It also requires us not to limit science to any particular school of thought or methodological approach postulated in the course of its development. The challenge facing Bahá’í thinkers is to provide responsible leadership in this endeavour, since it is they who have both the priceless insights of the Revelation and the advantages conferred by scientific investigation.
                (The Universal House of Justice, 1992 Dec 10, Issues Related to Study Compilation)

                That's not progressive. That's about as definitive as you can get. And I haven't given you my paradigm, so don't know how you know it's ancient.
                Then give it if it is not the ancient Christian paradigm



                Pretty sure that's what Dr. Francis Collins believes as well.
                Which belief of Dr. Francis Collins are our referring to?

                Deal with the Doctrine of the Baha'i Faith concerning the harmony of science and religion which Dr. Francis Collins endorses.



                I've reread the previous posts a number of times. You first brought up Baha'i beliefs in a thread about Christian beliefs (Post #76).
                OK! Explained that, and your derisive attack of off topic subjects.

                9quote] You were making the derisive point that constant division within Christianity was caused by conflict over the inspired nature of the text, and that the Baha'i Faith is free of this issue. I rebuffed that (Post #77) by pointing out that Baha'is also believe their holy teachers and writings are inspired, and that there is division in the Baha'i Faith concerning interpretation. I wasn't saying anything about Baha'i Faith and science at that point. [/quote]

                Your references did not represent the actual Baha'i Doctrine concerning Science and Religion.

                In the very next post (#78) it was YOU who brought up the fact that no one in the Baha'i Faith was excommunicated for advocating correct scientific views. I never broached that subject, so I have no idea where that came from. In the next post (Post #79) I pointed out that not all Baha'i views are scientific (this after YOU brought up the scientific views of Baha'i believers). Then you were the first to go into your whole rant about science and Baha'is again here,
                Yes, I brought up the Baha'i views on science, and it did not have anything to do with the issue of excommunication which is off topic, and the fact; If you want to address this topic, make a thread on this topic.

                The discussion was the Baha'i views on science and not the issue of excommunication unless it related to the issue of science. The fact is it did not.

                I was happy just to talk about the Gestapo nature of the Universal House of Justice (I can't write that name without thinking they watched too much Super Friends back in the 70s, LOL).
                I addressed that and you did not respond!!!!!!
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-14-2014, 01:33 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Tablets related to Gilgamesh number in the thousands and have been found from the fertile crescent to Egypt.
                  Originally posted by by [url
                  http://www.academia.edu/1070693/A_Provenance_Study_of_the_Gilgamesh_Fragment_from_[/url] Megiddo]

                  A PROVENANCE STUDY OF THE GILGAMESHFRAGMENT FROM MEGIDDO by Y. GOREN, H. MOMMSEN, I. FINKELSTEIN and N. NA’AMAN

                  A Late Bronze Age fragment of a clay cuneiform tablet with the Gilgamesh Epic was found in the 1950s on the surface at Megiddo. The presence of scribes in Megiddo is evident fromthe el-Amarna letters. This is the only first-class literary Mesopotamian text ever to be found in Canaan. The aim of the present study was to examine the origin of this tablet, by mineralogical and elemental methods. The petrographic and NAA results indicate that the tablet was not Mesopotamian, but was written in southern Israel. The implications of this result in view of the small corpus of scholarly cuneiform texts discovered in Egypt and the southern Levant in the second millennium BCE are discussed.
                  I can't find anything in your link that says that thousands of tablets related to Gilgamesh have been found. Can you highlight it? Also, in post #14 you implied that the earliest cuneiform tablets we have date closer to the original author of the Epic of Gilgamesh than the New Testament manuscripts/fragments do to their authors. I don't see that in your either of your links. Do you have a source for that?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    I have been a Baha'i for over 40 years and studied all the scripture and related documents.

                    You are still neglecting the actual Doctrines of the Baha'i Faith concerning the nature of science being the interpreter of the understanding of the nature of the physical existence.
                    I'm not neglecting the actual doctrines of the Baha'i Faith, I've directly cited what the Baha'i teachers have taught. Some of the things that have been taught (man is not an animal, we will never find a missing link) are contrary to the findings of the scientific community. If the Baha'i Faith's teachings are contradictory on this point, that's not my fault.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Then give it if it is not the ancient Christian paradigm
                      No, its none of your business what my paradigm is, and its not relevant to this discussion.

                      Deal with the Doctrine of the Baha'i Faith itself then we will deal with Dr. Francis Collins.
                      I already have.

                      OK! Explained that, and your derisive attack of off topic subjects.
                      What? I can't parse what you're saying here.

                      Your references did not represent the actual Baha'i Doctrine concerning Science and Religion.
                      Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. All I've ever done is cite Baha'i teaching. If you think that Baha'i teaching by infallible Baha'i teachers does not represent actual Baha'i Doctrine, then that's your problem, not mine.

                      Yes, I brought up the Baha'i views on science, and it did not have anything to do with the issue of excommunication which is off topic, and the fact; If you want to address this topic, make a thread on this topic.
                      How are you not grasping this yet? YOU were the one who went off topic. YOU are the one tried to rub Christianity's nose into the dirt by saying that division was caused by conflict concerning interpretation of inspired text, and that the Baha'i Faith wasn't like that. I brought up the point of excommunication to show you that the Baha'i Faith is not exempt from these charges. I wasn't off topic, I was replying to YOUR off topic post. And I don't need to make another thread as long as YOU keep changing the topic first.

                      I addressed that and you did not respond!!!!!!
                      Are you blind? I did too in the first half of post #29. You're not even reading these posts, are you. You're in such a tizzy that you can't even focus on what's been talked about anymore.
                      Last edited by OingoBoingo; 03-14-2014, 01:46 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                        I can't find anything in your link that says that thousands of tablets related to Gilgamesh have been found. Can you highlight it? Also, in post #14 you implied that the earliest cuneiform tablets we have date closer to the original author of the Epic of Gilgamesh than the New Testament manuscripts/fragments do to their authors. I don't see that in your either of your links. Do you have a source for that?
                        The New Testament authors are assigned quite late, the second century AD, The Gilgamesh tablets date to the earliest extensive use of cuneiform ~2700 AD. There is no earlier extensive cuneiform writings. The author likely compiler and editor of Gilgamesh dates to sometime before 600 BC. This method of compiling and editing ancient documents is the rule of history and reflects the history of the Bible documents. This is the dominant nature of the documents of the ancient period of early written language up until some time after about ~400 to 600 AD. I may s=cite more on this in the near future. Check references already made, and maybe do some research yourself.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          The New Testament authors are assigned quite late, the second century AD,
                          The earliest manuscript fragments date to the early-mid 2nd century. I wouldn't consider 60-90 years "quite late" (if the originals were written between AD 60-100). Quite the contrary, that's really early.

                          The Gilgamesh tablets date to the earliest extensive use of cuneiform ~2700 AD.
                          AD? I think you mean BC or BCE. AD 2700 hasn't happened yet.

                          Assuming you meant 2700 BC, are you referring to the earliest tablets that have been found by archaeologists? If so, do you have a source for the tablets that date that early?

                          The author likely compiler and editor of Gilgamesh dates to sometime before 600 BC.
                          Wait. How is it that the earliest cuneiform tablets concerning the Epic of Gilgamesh predate the actual author? Or are you saying that there were two authors. If there were two authors when did the original author write down the legend?

                          This method of compiling and editing ancient documents is the rule of history and reflects the history of the Bible documents. This is the dominant nature of the documents of the ancient period of early written language up until some time after about ~400 to 600 AD. I may s=cite more on this in the near future. Check references already made, and maybe do some research yourself.
                          Your methodology sounds hopelessly confusing. You're saying that ancient manuscript fragments dating only 60-90 years after the originals are late. You're saying that the cuneiform tablets concerning the epic of Gilgamesh date 2,100 years before the author. You're say that there are THOUSANDS of cuneiform fragments about the Epic of Gilgamesh (looking forward to a source on that one). And you're saying that the original author of the Epic of Gilgamesh is closer to the earliest fragments that we have, than the original authors of the New Testament are to the earliest fragments we have (again without source).

                          I think somewhere in there you're comparing the recording of the Epic of Gilgamesh with the Old Testament Documentary Hypothesis, and then somehow extrapolating from that that recovered New Testament manuscripts are not as close to its authors as the Epic of Gilgamesh fragments are to its author.

                          I'm going to call your bluff and say that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                            The earliest manuscript fragments date to the early-mid 2nd century. I wouldn't consider 60-90 years "quite late" (if the originals were written between AD 60-100). Quite the contrary, that's really early.
                            Not early enough to justify the traditional Christian claim.



                            AD? I think you mean BC or BCE. AD 2700 hasn't happened yet.

                            Assuming you meant 2700 BC, are you referring to the earliest tablets that have been found by archaeologists? If so, do you have a source for the tablets that date that early?



                            Wait. How is it that the earliest cuneiform tablets concerning the Epic of Gilgamesh predate the actual author? Or are you saying that there were two authors. If there were two authors when did the original author write down the legend?



                            Your methodology sounds hopelessly confusing. You're saying that ancient manuscript fragments dating only 60-90 years after the originals are late. [/quote]

                            Yes too late to document the traditional Christian claim to date them to the lives of the apostles. Again, the fragments do not represent manuscript gospels with authors as we know them.

                            You're saying that the cuneiform tablets concerning the epic of Gilgamesh date 2,100 years before the author. You're say that there are THOUSANDS of cuneiform fragments about the Epic of Gilgamesh (looking forward to a source on that one). And you're saying that the original author of the Epic of Gilgamesh is closer to the earliest fragments that we have, than the original authors of the New Testament are to the earliest fragments we have (again without source).

                            I think somewhere in there you're comparing the recording of the Epic of Gilgamesh with the Old Testament Documentary Hypothesis, and then somehow extrapolating from that that recovered New Testament manuscripts are not as close to its authors as the Epic of Gilgamesh fragments are to its author.


                            I'm going to call your bluff and say that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
                            I think somewhere . . . does not get you anywhere. The author was a compiler editor as I provided in a previous post dating to sometime prior to 600 BC. My argument is that the cuneiform tablets date to the time of the rule of Gilgamesh. The Gilgamesh tablets were in a huge library of contemporary records of the time. The gospels fail at this point.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Not early enough to justify the traditional Christian claim.
                              The Gospel of John is critically dated to 90-100 (some date it earlier), and the earliest manuscript evidence (Papyrus 52) is dated to CE/AD 125. 25 to 35 years old isn't enough to justify the claim that the manuscript evidence is early? Are you crazy?

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon
                              Yes too late to document the traditional Christian claim to date them to the lives of the apostles.
                              What? Who said anything about dating the manuscript evidence to the Apostles?

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon
                              Again, the fragments do not represent manuscript gospels with authors as we know them.
                              Again? When was this claim first made in this thread? Unpack what you're trying to say, since this is the first time this claim was made in this thread. Let me make your argument for you, since you seem unable to articulate it. I'm assuming you're trying to say that the original Gospel material (in particular) isn't fully reflective of the early source fragments that has been found. Is that correct?

                              I think somewhere . . . does not get you anywhere. The author was a compiler editor as I provided in a previous post dating to sometime prior to 600 BC. My argument is that the cuneiform tablets date to the time of the rule of Gilgamesh. The Gilgamesh tablets were in a huge library of contemporary records of the time. The gospels fail at this point.
                              Is English your first language? Cause you're not making any sense. I'm trying my best to parse what you're saying, but its quite the jumble. If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that there are cuneiform tablets that date to the actual rule of Gilgamesh. According to this Wikipedia page (which I'm loathe to use on principal), Gilgamesh ruled in 2500 BCE. You previously implied that the Epic of Gilgamesh dated to circa 2700 BC, which is 200 years before his lifetime (well actually, you said AD 2700, which is 5200 years after his lifetime, but I'm trying to cut you some slack). You seem to be also saying that the legendary Epic of Gilgamesh dates to 600 BC, which is 1900 years after the death of the historical Gilgamesh (here I'm using the Wikipedia date of his lifetime rather than your 2100 year account to again cut you some slack). How is it that a legendary tale told 1900 years after the historical Gilgamesh is likened to the 25 to 90 years of the New Testament account (assumed legendary accretion and all) similar?

                              According to you, the fragmentary and legendary cuneiform Epic of Gilgamesh was written thousands of years after the historical Gilgamesh existed, and that's some how closer than the events described by the original authors of the New Testament some 25-90 years later!!?? Huh? That makes no sense at all.

                              I think you need to take a break from this forum. Rethink your position, and come back when you have your facts straight in your head.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Actually I got into a bad argument over Gilgamesh on the wrong thread. I defer to showmeproof in his Ugarit thread for any discussion on cuneiform tablets in history and their relationship to the Bible, and the origins of the Pentateuch. Back out of the rabbit hole and back to the topic at hand.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X