Doc's bishopric Sunday School (Noun or adjective? One word or two?)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.22 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-05-2013, 11:09 AM
RE: DOC'S PSYCHIATRIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (PUTTING "DA MENTAL" BACK IN FUNDAMENTAL)
[attachment=1406]WILL TRADE 2 MINT MARTIN LUTHERS (STILL IN WRAPPER) FOR 1 GRUDEM OR 1 HODGE.

DOC
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2013, 11:14 AM
RE: DOC'S PSYCHIATRIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (PUTTING "DA MENTAL" BACK IN FUNDAMENTAL)
What might I get for my somewhat tattered Micky Mantle rookie card.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2013, 03:36 AM
RE: DOC'S PSYCHIATRIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (PUTTING "DA MENTAL" BACK IN FUNDAMENTAL)
From the stoners row Revenant raises his hand

Rev: Yeah doc I got some questions about the book of Judges. It seems as though it was written after the establishment of the kingdom just to give credibility to the title of King.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2013, 10:20 AM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2013 11:34 AM by docskeptic.)
RE: DOC'S PSYCHIATRIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (PUTTING "DA MENTAL" BACK IN FUNDAMENTAL)
(30-05-2013 03:36 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  From the stoners row Revenant raises his hand

Rev: Yeah doc I got some questions about the book of Judges. It seems as though it was written after the establishment of the kingdom just to give credibility to the title of King.

Doc, peering through the fog at the back of the class: Good question! Your assertion is, of course, wrong. The book of Judges was accepted very early on as part of the Hebrew Canon. There is a Talmudic tradition that Samuel was the author of the book.

Rev: But the book covers a period of at least 410 years, which means that at least part of the book was written centuries after the fact. How much reliance can be placed on such a report?

Doc: There’s no difficulty with that. Samuel may have had access to detailed records allowing him to recreate the events or he may have been divinely inspired to recall the events.

Rev: To the point of recalling private conversations? Or the entire Song of Deborah which she composed and sang on the spot? C’mon. Get real. Also consider Judges 21:25 which says, “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.” This verse must have been composed after there was at least 1 king in Israel making the date of its composition at least 50 years later than earlier supposed if not much later.

Incidentally, Genesis 36:31 expresses a similar thought, “These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned.” This would make Genesis (or at least parts of it) as late as the monarchical period, i.e. at least a 1000 years later than the time period of its purported author, Moses.

Doc, breathing stertorously and waggling his fingers: I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Rev, feeling a choking sensation, loosens his bow-tie: Ah! That’s better. And what are you doing, you idiot? Stop that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
30-05-2013, 10:45 AM
RE: DOC'S PSYCHIATRIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (PUTTING "DA MENTAL" BACK IN FUNDAMENTAL)
(30-05-2013 10:20 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(30-05-2013 03:36 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  From the stoners row Revenant raises his hand

Rev: Yeah doc I got some questions about the book of Judges. It seems as though it was written after the establishment of the kingdom just to give credibility to the title of King.

Doc, peering through the fog at the back of the class: Good question! Your assertion is, of course, wrong. The book of Judges was accepted very early on as part of the Hebrew Canon. There is a Talmudic tradition that Samuel was the author of the book.

Rev: But the book covers a period of at least 410 years, which means that at least part of the book was written centuries after the fact. How much reliance can be placed on such a report?

Doc: There’s no difficulty with that. Samuel may have had access to detailed records allowing him to recreate the events or he may have been divinely inspired to recall the events.

Rev: To the point of recalling private conversations? Or the entire Song of Deborah which she composed and sang on the spot? C’mon. Get real. Also consider Judges 21:25 which says, “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.” This verse must have been composed after there were at least 1 king in Israel making the date of its composition at least 50 years later than supposed.

Incidentally, Genesis 36:31 expresses a similar thought, “These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned.” This would make Genesis (or at least parts of it) as late as the monarchical period, i.e. at least a 1000 years later than the time period of its purported author, Moses.

Doc, breathing stertorously and waggling his fingers: I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Rev, feeling a choking sensation, loosens his bow-tie: Ah! That’s better. And what are you doing, you idiot? Stop that.

[Image: tumblr_m7y8e9RB7E1rcqfgdo1_1280.jpg]

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
01-06-2013, 11:43 AM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2013 12:12 PM by docskeptic.)
RE: DOC'S TEUTONIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (VHERE VE HAF VAYS OF MAKING YOU MOCK)
Revenant77x: Hey, Doc. Remember our recent conversation about Genesis not being as old as previously thought?

Doc, spider senses tingling: Yes?

Rev: Well, if you look closely at Genesis 36: 31-43, you will see that it is identical, essentially word for word, with 1 Chron. 1:43-54 which was composed at least 1000 years later than Genesis.

Doc: So, could that not mean that the author of 1 Chronicles used Genesis as a source and copied that section verbatim into his book?

Rev: No. That would not explain Gen. 36: 31 which mentions Israelite kings at least a 1000 years before they were even a naughty thought in the minds of the populace. It is far more likely that the author of Genesis copied sections from 1 Chronicles. Besides, that's not the only anachronism in Genesis.

Doc, with a sinking feeling: Oh?

Rev: Just look at Genesis 14:14. When he hears that his nephew Lot has been kidnapped, Abraham "called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan."

Doc: So?

Rev: So, Dan was not called Dan till the time of the Judges, several hundred years after Moses. See Judges 18:27-29 which says that, "(The Danites) went on to Laish, against a peaceful and unsuspecting people. They attacked them with the sword and burned down their city. There was no one to rescue them because they lived a long way from Sidon and had no relationship with anyone else. The city was in a valley near Beth Rehob. The Danites rebuilt the city and settled there. They named it Dan after their forefather Dan, who was born to Israel–though the city used to be called Laish." This proves that this portion of Genesis was also written well after Moses. It also proves that the Danites were ruthless barbarians.

Doc: I've had just about enough Genesis-bashing from you, young man. Raus! Raus!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2013, 11:46 AM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2013 12:05 PM by Revenant77x.)
RE: DOC'S TEUTONIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (VHERE VE HAF VAYS OF MAKING YOU MOCK)
(01-06-2013 11:43 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  Revenant77x: Hey, Doc. Remember our recent conversation about Genesis not being as old as previously thought?

Doc, spider senses tingling: Yes?

Rev: Well, if you look closely at Genesis 36: 31-43, you will see that it is identical, essentially word for word, with 1 Chron. 1:43-54 which was composed at least 1000 years later than Genesis.

Doc: So, could that not mean that the author of 1 Chronicles used Genesis as a source and copied that section verbatim into his book?

Rev: No. That would not explain Gen. 36: 31 which mentions Israelite kings at least a 1000 years before they were even a naughty thought in the minds of the populace. It is far more likely that the author of Genesis copied sections from 1 Chronicles. Besides, that's not the only anachronism in Genesis.

Doc, with a sinking feeling: Oh?

Rev: Just look at Genesis 14:14. When he hears that his nephew Lot has been kidnapped, Abraham "called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan."

Doc: So?

Rev: So, Dan was not called Dan till the time of the Judges, several hundred years after Moses. See Judges 18:27-29 which says that, "(The Danites) went on to Laish, against a peaceful and unsuspecting people. They attacked them with the sword and burned down their city. There was no one to rescue them because they lived a long way from Sidon and had no relationship with anyone else. The city was in a valley near Beth Rehob. The Danites rebuilt the city and settled there. They named it Dan after their forefather Dan, who was born to Israel–though the city used to be called Laish." This proves that this portion of Genesis was also written well after Moses. It also proves that the Danites were ruthless barbarians.

Doc: I've had just about enough Geneis-bashing from you, young man. Raus! Raus!

Meh Genesis sucked after Peter Gabriel left... Oh you meant the other one.

I am a fan of the theory that states that the reason for the redundancies and errors so rife in the early part of the bible is from the original formalization of the oral traditions of the northern (Aaronic) and southern (Mosaic) tribes after the return from Babylon. Thus 2 origin stories and the various other duplicates in the books. Moses was set as the Head with Aaron by his side and thus giving both the northern and southern tribes their place in the hierarchy.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2013, 08:16 AM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2013 12:09 PM by docskeptic.)
RE: DOC'S TITANIC THUNDAY THCHOOL (ITS UNTHINKABLE)
(01-06-2013 11:46 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I am a fan of the theory that states that the reason for the redundancies and errors so rife in the early part of the bible is from the original formalization of the oral traditions of the northern (Aaronic) and southern (Mosaic) tribes after the return from Babylon. Thus 2 origin stories and the various other duplicates in the books. Moses was set as the Head with Aaron by his side and thus giving both the northern and southern tribes their place in the hierarchy.

Doc: No, that cannot be. The Bible is the production of God's mind and not a blended document as you claim it to be.

Rev: That would not explain the presence of duplicate passages in the Bible. We already looked at Genesis 36: 31-43 which is identical to 1 Chron. 1:43-54. In addition to these passages , there are many other duplicate passages. Here are some of them:

1. Psalm 14 is identical to Psalm 53
2. 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 is indistinguishable from Ezra 1:1-3
3. Psalm 40:13-17 is essentially identical to the short Psalm 70
4. Psalm 57:7-11 is the same as Psalm 108:1-5
5. Psalm 60:5-12 is the same as Psalm 108:6-13. In other words, Psalm 108 is composed of fragments of two other existing Psalms.
6. Proverbs 14:12 is identical to Proverbs 16:25
7. Proverbs 18:8 is identical to Proverbs 26:2
8. Proverbs 19:25 is essentially identical to Proverbs 21:11
9. 2 Kings 18:13-20:11 is essentially identical to Isaiah 36-38:8
10. 2 Kings 25:27-30 is identical to Jeremiah 52:31-34

These passages lend support to my theory that the Bible is a blended document from many sources. If God meant to communicate with his creation and the Bible is his final, unchangeable word, he was not economical with his words.

Doc: Perhaps these passages were so good or important, that like New York, New York, they named it twice?

Rev: Hardly. Read the passages for yourself and see. Why did God not leave out the duplicates and put in passages that the Bible sorely needs, like, "Slavery is forever forbidden"?

Doc: How would you have written the Bible, then, if it were up to you?

Rev: Very simply. I would have said,
"From,
God.
Heaven. Stop.

To,
Humans.
Earth. Stop.

Don't be poopyheads. Stop."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like docskeptic's post
02-06-2013, 09:11 AM
RE: DOC'S TITANIC THUNDAY THCHOOL (ITS UNTHINKABLE)
Revenant77x by way of doc. Please we need more words. What is a poopyhead could be debated endlessly. Poopyhead needs to be defined more carefully. We need lots and lots of carefully chosen statements making it more clear what god wants.

Oh wait that can lead to possible misinterpretation. Maybe only a few more words about how not to be a poopyhead.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2013, 12:59 PM
RE: DOC'S TITANIC THUNDAY THCHOOL (ITS UNTHINKABLE)
(02-06-2013 08:16 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  Rev: Very simply. I would have said,
"From,
God.
Heaven. Stop.

To,
Humans.
Earth. Stop.

Don't be poopyheads. Stop."

Thats close what I would have said was

From,
God,
Heaven. Stop.

To,
Humans,
Earth. Stop.

For Fucks sake. Stop!

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: