Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-10-2015, 03:01 PM
Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
New to this forum. Looks GREAT! (maybe I'm biased). I've engaged in a discussion with an evangelical about, specifically, OT prophecy (Isaiah 53:1-12). He's done his thesis on it and says that the Wellhausen book is not an unbiased treatment, but that the Gleason Archer works are unbiased (he's an 'evangelical scholar', the very phrase of which makes me shudder - how could he be unbiased, I muse).
I'm trying to stay on track with the discussion (very hard to do when there are SO MANY things to bring up, right?) and have begun to read an Archer text and a Wellhausen text in order to really know something about the historico-philosophical points that biblical scholars bring up.
My questions to the forum are: is there a sub-forum here where I can bring my questions and sort of work through the logic on this with a fellow thinking atheist? My opponent is well-versed and somewhat 'crabby' if I must say so. He's full of himself and his opinions and knows much more than I do at this point. Are there other books that may cover this before I read through 1000 pages with highlighter and notebook in hand? Robert Price, Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman all come to mind, but I don't know how to even begin conversing with those guys!
Any guidance will be super appreciated. My main goal in all of this is to simply confront someone about their beliefs and engage in a deep discussion rather than do my usual silence because I don't know how to 'argue' in the philosophical sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 03:57 PM (This post was last modified: 24-10-2015 04:15 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
(24-10-2015 03:01 PM)Zocane Wrote:  New to this forum. Looks GREAT! (maybe I'm biased). I've engaged in a discussion with an evangelical about, specifically, OT prophecy (Isaiah 53:1-12). He's done his thesis on it and says that the Wellhausen book is not an unbiased treatment, but that the Gleason Archer works are unbiased (he's an 'evangelical scholar', the very phrase of which makes me shudder - how could he be unbiased, I muse).
I'm trying to stay on track with the discussion (very hard to do when there are SO MANY things to bring up, right?) and have begun to read an Archer text and a Wellhausen text in order to really know something about the historico-philosophical points that biblical scholars bring up.
My questions to the forum are: is there a sub-forum here where I can bring my questions and sort of work through the logic on this with a fellow thinking atheist? My opponent is well-versed and somewhat 'crabby' if I must say so. He's full of himself and his opinions and knows much more than I do at this point. Are there other books that may cover this before I read through 1000 pages with highlighter and notebook in hand? Robert Price, Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman all come to mind, but I don't know how to even begin conversing with those guys!
Any guidance will be super appreciated. My main goal in all of this is to simply confront someone about their beliefs and engage in a deep discussion rather than do my usual silence because I don't know how to 'argue' in the philosophical sense.

This is the best part of the forum to throw up his arguments. We've got a number of people who would happily jump on and start skewering every example you put up.

If you have specific questions, you may want to check in with the users GoodWithoutGod (resident bible-guy, very active wherever a theist may be found here) and Aliza (well versed with the OT, with first-hand experience in it's meanings by way of Judaism), though there are other users around who are just a good.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Free Thought's post
24-10-2015, 04:14 PM
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
(24-10-2015 03:57 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(24-10-2015 03:01 PM)Zocane Wrote:  New to this forum. Looks GREAT! (maybe I'm biased). I've engaged in a discussion with an evangelical about, specifically, OT prophecy (Isaiah 53:1-12). He's done his thesis on it and says that the Wellhausen book is not an unbiased treatment, but that the Gleason Archer works are unbiased (he's an 'evangelical scholar', the very phrase of which makes me shudder - how could he be unbiased, I muse).
I'm trying to stay on track with the discussion (very hard to do when there are SO MANY things to bring up, right?) and have begun to read an Archer text and a Wellhausen text in order to really know something about the historico-philosophical points that biblical scholars bring up.
My questions to the forum are: is there a sub-forum here where I can bring my questions and sort of work through the logic on this with a fellow thinking atheist? My opponent is well-versed and somewhat 'crabby' if I must say so. He's full of himself and his opinions and knows much more than I do at this point. Are there other books that may cover this before I read through 1000 pages with highlighter and notebook in hand? Robert Price, Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman all come to mind, but I don't know how to even begin conversing with those guys!
Any guidance will be super appreciated. My main goal in all of this is to simply confront someone about their beliefs and engage in a deep discussion rather than do my usual silence because I don't know how to 'argue' in the philosophical sense.

This is the best part of the forum to throw up his arguments. We've got a number of people who would happily jump on and start skewering every example you put up.

If you have specific questions, you may want to check in with the users GoodWithoutGod (resident bible-guy, very active wherever a theist may be found here) and Aliza (well versed with the OT, with first-hand experience in it's meanings by way of Judaism), thought there are other users around who are just a good.

And Bucky.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
24-10-2015, 04:17 PM
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
(24-10-2015 04:14 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(24-10-2015 03:57 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  This is the best part of the forum to throw up his arguments. We've got a number of people who would happily jump on and start skewering every example you put up.

If you have specific questions, you may want to check in with the users GoodWithoutGod (resident bible-guy, very active wherever a theist may be found here) and Aliza (well versed with the OT, with first-hand experience in it's meanings by way of Judaism), thought there are other users around who are just a good.

And Bucky.

Bucky was the one I was foremost thinking of when I said 'others', if I am to be honest. I just haven't seen a post from him for a while, so I didn't think of putting him up there...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
24-10-2015, 04:19 PM
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
(24-10-2015 04:17 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(24-10-2015 04:14 PM)Anjele Wrote:  And Bucky.

Bucky was the one I was foremost thinking of when I said 'others', if I am to be honest. I just haven't seen a post from him for a while, so I didn't think of putting him up there directly.

He sneaks in here and there.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
24-10-2015, 09:16 PM
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
I can probably help you address Isaiah 53 from a Jewish perspective. I'll give you the punchline: It's not about Jesus.

I do have an ongoing discussion with another user about Judaism and Christianity where I start to address Isaiah 53. Below is a link to this thread. Just scroll down to the relevant post, #18. Post numbers are found at the top right of each post. There are a few other points to be made about Isaiah 53 besides what I have written, but this is a good start if you're interested in the Jewish perspective.

Don't post in that thread because it's 1v1 debate, but you can let me know here if you'd like more information.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ristianity
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Aliza's post
24-10-2015, 09:40 PM (This post was last modified: 24-10-2015 10:56 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
"Archer worked on the team which translated the NIV Bible published in 1978. His defense of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy by proposing harmonizations and exegesis regarding inconsistencies in the Bible made Archer a well known biblical inerrantist". Ahahahahahahahahahaha
LMAO.
THAT's an objective view ? A fundie biblical inerrantist ? He has GOT to be kidding.


First of all, the entire (Fundamentalist) notion of "fulfilled prophecy" is ignorant and off-base. Reading omens, soothsaying, and witchcraft were forbidden. Essentially that IS what this sort of garbage is. The role of a prophet in Ancient Israel was NOT to tell the future. It was to act as the "mouthpiece" of the god to the people OF THEIR OWN TIME. So the ENTIRE ball of wax of his thesis is bullshit scholarship. Sorry. He will never agree, but its a fact. Mainline Biblical scholarship (Harvard, Yale, Princeton) does not buy into this ignorant nonsense. It's simply NOT what the Hebrews thought about prophets, or what they did.
"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft" - Deuteronomy 18:10. It IS "omen reading". period. (I guarantee after a lifetime of indoctrination in fundie Bible crap, he will never agree. See link for the background.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid257278

The Julius Wellhausen ("Documentary") Hypothesis is the foundation of modern Biblical scholarship. Right wing fundies are now in the minority with respect to it, as archaeology and literary criticism have pretty much proven it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
Fundies hate that it might be true, but in fact very conservative scholars accepted it, even 75 years ago. --->>>

"In 1952, a team was set in place by the world-famous, preeminent scholar, archaeologist and pioneer discoverer of Holy Land historical sites and documents, Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the professor of Semitic languages at the Johns Hopkins University. Their job was to write criticisms and scholarly work concerning all biblical texts. The team was composed of the most respected biblical scholars in the US and Europe, including Dr. John W. Bailey, Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Berkley Baptist Divinity School, Dr Albert E. Barnett, Professor Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Dr. Walter Russell Bowel, Professor, The Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Virginia, Dr. John Bright, Professor, Union Seminary and many others.

The team of 124 clergymen and scholars came mostly from conservative, mainline universities and churches for the most part, the likes of whom will never be seen again in one place, whose names evoke the utmost and deepest respect, even if one completely disagrees with their religious views. They wrote the huge 13 volume set, now considered a valuable rare book, called "The Interpreters Bible". Today it is usually kept under lock and key in seminaries and libraries. This set includes an introduction to scholarship and looks at every single verse and word in the Bible, discusses their origins and possible meanings from various points of view. It has been updated in the 1990's, but the original scholarship is still the central fundamental summary of knowledge, which summarized scholarship from the Medieval period (1850's -1950's) and is therefore considered to be an interesting historical snapshot. It is also an assurance that these absolutely respected leading intellectuals from the 20th Century scholarship, of whom most were religious, have agreed to have each other's names associated with their own and that they felt comfortable with what each other were saying in an academic setting and commanded world-wide respect as conservative, careful, and sincere, life-long teachers, academics and scholars.

On page 15 of "The Interpreters Bible", Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the "truth" of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative Christian view of person-hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as "the Christ" in human history.

"The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand."

He then continues by discussing the details of what a "faith document" is and how it differs from what we would consider an historical text today. The next chapter, authored by Dr. Arthur Jeffrey, Professor of Semitic Languages at Columbia, deals with the formation of the Old Testament canon. He wrote what is seen as the fundamental insight in modern Biblical Study and summarized the central academic position of every mainline, respected, and credible center of Biblical scholarship in the world today :

"Historians can merely state that a canon of scripture is not something given, but something humanly devised. From the historical point of view, the canon is the result of human decision as to which among the religious writing existing in a community are those in which it recognizes the authentic voice of religious authority speaking to man."

This is affirmation that what ultimately is included in a Biblical text, is a subjective reflection of the experience of an already believing, religious community, meaning that it's purpose is to reassure them of what they already believe in. The content of the texts does not consist of "externally received" information. It is information they already possessed and the community accepted as a reflection of their prior experience, and belief.

There are three important things to understand about this shocking statement. First of all, humans decided what would go into the texts. Secondly, the process of inclusion was, in general, a community decision. Third, both in the Christian and Hebrew culture, the community stood as the decision maker and guardian/gate keeper,of what went into a text. Last but not least, the decisions were never made by individuals, acting alone.

Judeo-Christianities, by historic definition, only come and exist in groups/communities. A decision reflected a community's collective experience of what it determined to be it's authentic faith experience of God's work among them. They believed that the process of this "determination"/discernment actually constituted the activity of God among them, in their community, as a bottom up, collective experience, i.e. the working of the Holy Spirit. The authority for their textual decisions was the experience of authenticity of and by the community. This is the actual undisputed methodological approach to texts which ended up in the Bible. The communities received and authenticated texts, based on their beliefs, which were already in place. The texts were not accepted as "new information". If the text did not reflect what they thought was an "authentic" (historical) experience, they would not be used or included in the final text. Is is of utmost importance to understand the direction of reception and authentication.

To sum it up, the texts did not contain any new information received from God, the authentication was done by an already believing community, as an affirmation that the text reflected their communal experience(s). They wrote the texts to confirm their beliefs.

This raises the question of "circularity". What came first, the chicken or the egg ? If I affirm a text as authentic, based on what I already believe, and throw out the ones that I don't agree with, then continue claiming that it teaches me the truth, it is obviously only going to teach me what I already know. This community-based authentication is somewhat difficult for modern humans to completely wrap their heads around, since the modern/post-modern concept, especially in America, of "rugged individualism" as a value (system), which underlies all of this present day culture, as is not always "seen", as it is so ingrained as an assumption, in the Hollywood Era, e.g. the "post John Wayne" culture.

This community decision process is also the historical basis for what came to be known as "heresy". Heresy was a minority view, in a community, which the majority sincerely saw as inauthentic. Heresy was also a community-generated phenomenon, based on a communal experience of authenticity. Unfortunately, this is also the useful working standard for the definition of "cult". If a belief system arises, which is not a community-authenticated system, then the criteria are clear. The new system may be a system, but historically, it is not how Christianity developed. There are exceptions to this method of historical, community-generated authentication, such as Mormonism, because their texts were written by an individual, not by the judgement of a community that shared the same experiences."
From : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...+Testament
and : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ble-Bull-s

There is no question any more, that the OT is not "history". It's been debunked by Archaeology. Fundies can put their heads in the sand. It's too late. Science has disproven their crap.

See Dr. Richard Elliott Friedmann, "Who Wrote the Bible", or Dr. William M. Schniedewind, "How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel" (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004)

In general, Fundamentalist institutions lie about the origins of these texts. They have to.




Other topics here : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid174798
GWG can post his links.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Bucky Ball's post
25-10-2015, 10:15 AM
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
WOW! Why have I not discovered you before!? Finally I get to talk to real people, talking sense, thinking logically! This all makes sense! When I talk with religious people, I sometimes think I'm going nuts. Thank you for all this. These posts are like a Ruth's Chris porterhouse...I'm going to devour your posts!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Zocane's post
25-10-2015, 01:54 PM
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
(25-10-2015 10:15 AM)Zocane Wrote:  Finally I get to talk to real people, talking sense, thinking logically!

Hah!

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2015, 02:59 PM
RE: Discussion with a Fundie about The OT
(24-10-2015 09:16 PM)Aliza Wrote:  I can probably help you address Isaiah 53 from a Jewish perspective. I'll give you the punchline: It's not about Jesus.

Of course, from a Jewish perspective it isn't about Jesus. If it was they would have to acknowledge that he is the Messiah. But not all Jews share this opinion. Here is another Jewish perspective:

http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/iss...6/isaiah53

Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
(Isaiah 53:4-6 ESV)


If this isn't about Jesus, who is it about?

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: