قرطاج يجب ان تدمر
If you're talking about credibility as far as schools of academia like history and archaeology then I'd say the Old Testament can be considered generally credible, but when you get down to specifics it becomes less and less credible. Same goes for the New Testament.
Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
Read the new...Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle | @BeardedRiker
My TWC skins: Rahl's Style, Pub, Starfleet, LoTR Center and Rome2.0
The whole point of the law about rape is that once someone was it meant that if you could not show a family line, the family line would die out and since the rapist would be put to death for what he did, meaning his family line is wiped out and the young woman would have no family to belong to and thus she would be an outcast, since she can no longer prove her virginity and thus have no future, since no one would be able to take her in as a wife due to that. They did not have DNA testing to show genetics, so virginity was the best way to show that. Violating virginity was taken very seriously in that culture
As a historical book it is roughly equal to the Iliad: most places mentioned existed and the legendary figures in the plot probably existed, but are obviously mythified and exaggerated. In much the same way that the Iliad is a comprehensive (one-sided) cross-section of the Aegean peoples, the old testament is the ultimate source (if rather one-sided) for the Hebrew people. Both these books are an accurate representation of how these people percieved their world.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
Excuse me for having a lack of information on the subject, but isn't Christianity more about following what the new testament says, rather than what the old testament tells?
[Col] The Kybrothilian
Best subforum: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forum...hp?60-Coliseum
If you are interested in reading an AAR that also let you decide its course, visit here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ticipative-AAR
This artist is awesome (warning: some artwork contain nudity): http://syrsa.deviantart.com/
"So long as you are a slave to the opinions of the many you have not yet approached freedom or tasted its nectar."
-Flavius Claudius Julianus
"The people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now concerns itself no more, and longs eagerly for just two things - bread and circuses!"
-Decimus Junius Juvenalis
"A time will come when the whole world will go mad. And to anyone who is not mad, they will say:'You are mad, for you are not like us'"
-Prophet Muhammed (p.b.u.h.)
Here’s a bit on the conquest of Canaan by Yair Hoffman from A Historical Atlas of the Jewish People...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Last edited by sumskilz; March 22, 2012 at 09:24 PM.
Well, off the top of my head any story about the Tower of babel and anyone descended from those folks is a work of fiction.
Yeah... but specifically I was referring to the Tower of Babel story, Noahs Ark, Moses, etc. And pretty much all of Genesis. Joseph, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Sarah, Lot, Hagar and Ishmael. I could go on.
With the Iliad its obvious all the Gods dont exist, at least to us, but figures like Achilles and Patroclus were secondary actors, not kings or rulers and were just additions to the larger story.
Lot to go through and not really worth my time in the end... I would agree that had Hellenism succeeded the Iliad would be their "Old Testament".
From P. Kyle McCarter’s Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple...The claim that Abraham came to Canaan from Mesopotamia is not historically implausible. Such a journey could have taken place in more than one historical period. As we have seen, however, the insistence that the Israelites were not Canaanites in origin was so persuasive that the belief that the first patriarch came from a foreign land could have arisen as part of an ethnic boundary-marking that characterized the development of the tradition.
Still, the connections between the family of Abraham and the city of Haran in northern Mesopotamia (Eski Harran or "Old Haran" in modern Turkey) are very precise in our earliest narrative source (J. or the Yahwist). Terah, Nahor and Serug--Abraham's father, grandfather and great grandfather (Genesis 11:22-26)--seem to be the eponymous ancestors of towns in the basin of the Balikh River, near Haran.
All three names appear in Assyrian texts from the first half of the first millennium B.C.E. as the name of towns or ruined towns in the regions of Haran, namely Til-(sha)-Turakhi (the ruin of Turakh), Ti-Nakhiri (the ruin of Nakhir) and Sarugi. Earlier, in the second millennium B.C.E., il-Nakhiri had been an important administrative center, called Nakhuru. The patriarchal connection with this region may be rooted in historical memories of Amorite culture of the second millennium B.C.E.
Yeah I know Himster, I was agreeing with you mate, alls good.
Most of the bible is pure metaphor, as I am sure you know well enough, no argument here. The Tower of Babel was prob the Ziggurate in Babylon. Babel = Babylon. Anyway, the story is morphed and transformed and whatever and no surprise the story of babel is similar to the Sumerian myth story featured in Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta.
Everything in the bible was taken from some other religion or culture, I am sure of it. Same with the Christian NT.
First, "innocent" by WHOSE standard, Yours?
What do you know about the people & their society?
Second, research more....emote less
If one reads the Old Testament as a base and researches the people to see if "Hey, Is this so?"
perhaps we would ALL get somewhere.
Then find out if other incidences in Hebrew usage of the term in the Tanakh occur.
Check out what the Jewish commentaries & archaeologists say about this also.
Don't speculate, research and post.
Research more...emote less
Unless you are ok with baby killing?
Because by any moral modern standard (given that we are amoral by christian standards) we view killing babies as wrong.
I think we are clear here that you are OK with murdering babies if suspected of being immoral.
Just to be clear that puts a person below the level of a paedophile because at least he leaves his victims alive. I might be wrong and I'm very hesitant to say it because it seems so extreme but are you telling me that you back the idea that killing babies is OK and yes you are on a lower moral level than a paedophile by moral standards? This isn't an insult I ask out of confusion because I'm sure it can't be true because its crazy but I have to ask.
Christian morality is supposedly objective but here we have an adherent defending that even by an apologists words is slaughter and bloodshed of children.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Whats that a government wouldn't hand over the people who did something you don't like so you kill everyone including non military personell. Totally moral honest guv.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)