Mythology and the Bible

There are many writings from the time of Julius Caesar.

Three solid examples are Livy, Sallust and Tacitus, each of whom have been shown to be trustable and cross checkable.

I've read the primary extant writing of Tacitus, and I'd strongly suggest it. It refers to the time of Jesus from a Roman point of view. Tacitus was strongly critical of the times about which he wrote - far from being supportive of the leaders and with insights and examples.


This is the type of information that scholars bring us.

Let's dump the personal opinion stuff and accept that there are people then and now who studied government and decisions made during that period - scholarly experts. And, let's remember that the purpose of the Bible was NOT to create accurate history, though there are instances where the Bible refers to know historic occurrences. Let's remember that the Bible uses allegory and other such forms to communicate ideas seen by the authors as truth, but should not be treated as accurate history.

 

There is a distinct disconnect between serious scientific examination and the personal opinion of casual observers.

My computer is brand new. It practically shouts its newness. Casual observers would testify of its newness, and all the components have a current manufacture date. But serious scientific examination would ignore and dismiss all of that testimony and self evident truth. It would break the computer down to its basic elements and determine that the computer is billions of years old.

My point is that science isn't a valid gauge of reality that we should follow it. In the wrong hands it can render us blind and lead us away from the truth. Science should be our tool, not our shepherd.

 

Science is the ONLY valid gauge of reality.
There are others that CLAIM to be a valid gauge, but science is the ONLY one that has proven to be reliable. Again and again whenever there has been something unexplained and finally gets an explanation it has ALWAYS been science that has given us that explanation. And in ALL the explanations science has come up with, not a single one....without exception....has been "God did it"

 

Exactly. Science is a tool used for exploring our universe.

While mistakes can be made in ALL things, science is designed to be self correcting and provides limits on what may be claimed.

I'm not sure what you see your computer analogy is demonstrating or what you are looking for in a shepherd.

 

I think his point is that, while his computer is new, science would say that it is "billions of years old" because the elements used to make the materials used to make the components are "billions of years old"

Thus science is incapable of understanding the personal experience.

 

I agree, but it's a totally silly argument.

It depends on a LUDICROUS interpretation of what "new" means - in science or in a social setting.

If the "original elements" definition is strictly followed, then "new" becomes meaningless in essentially ALL its uses.

 

Not to mention that the computer was created because the scientific method was used to discover the laws and principles that make computers work.
Computer science?

 

Yes. Plus, highly motivated engineering.

 

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3rd day of October, A.D. 1789.” – President George Washington

Thank you President Washington and both houses of Congress for urging us to keep God in remembrance.

 

Well, I'd encourage all to behave in an upright manner, too. And, I wouldn't limit what so motivates.

But, we have a constitution that recognizes the serious problems of mixing church and state that our founders well understood.

 

In so doing, it also guarantees religious liberty. My point in quoting Washington was to show that he also prayed for "the increase of science" in the same breath as "the practice of true religion". I found that interesting.

 

It's more than interesting - it's what we do, day in, day out.

Science has no way of addressing ideas like gods or the universe being conscious, or whatever.

Religion doesn't have a method of exploring how our physical universe works.

 

Logical fallacy - Appeal to authority.

People who don't like change and those who don't want ideas challenged usually use this logical fallacy.

What's even worse is that I don't think you even understand what was being discussed which is why instead of answering the questions, you were offended by them.

Science and history are two difference things and I commonly find people who have no background or knowledge of science conflating the two.

 

The example of Caesar was not mine. And, I demonstrated how events of that time may be studied today.

Suggesting that the experts of the day on the events of that day must be considered logical fallacy or hearsay is ridiculous.

And, the same goes today with science. You need to be careful before simply writing off science as a logical fallacy.

A far too common view of science is that the findings of experts should be disregarded in favor of personal opinion.

 

Red Herring.

Strawman

Appeal to Authority

 

Yes. There is a religious path and there is a scientific path.

I agree with that, too.

The tools, logic and fundamental assumptions of religion are good for investigating the issues of religion, but don't work when attempting to determine how our physical universe works.

 

There is religion. That doesn't mean there's a god. To worship something that cannot be seen and has never been proven to exist is just a need to believe in something. There isn't a religious book in the world that can prove god exists. There isn't an experience that prove god exists. It's all what you want to believe. Conversion is simply an experience brought on by circumstances of the time. An unrealised need for something else more satisfying than your present condition. A persuasive preacher/teacher. For many people this is sufficient to change their lives. For many others the experience fades with the realities of life or the questioning of what has happened. For me the change to atheism came when I studied the Bible against what I had been told. I had been indoctrinated by the church's teachings. Indoctrination that has been there from the beginning of Christianity. Science has more 'reality' than the god of the Bible. Who, incidentally, was the son of El. Jesus worshipped Jahweh. Yahweh was selected by the Hebrews in the Babylonian captivity as opposed to El or any other gods. Monotheism started in Babylon and after the return to Israel theocracy ruled - as opposed to kings.

 

It shou;d also be remembered that the Bible had no vowels till the Masorettes added them at the beginning of the 1st millenium CE, or chapters and verses until it was divided into them in the 13th century CE. It was a Catholic that divided them and it would have been according to his belief. In fact our Isaiah 53 events actually start in what is now Isaiah 52:13.

 

Once again, the medium guided the writing. If you're writing on a piece of clay about 3 inches in length, you're going to try to cram more writing in. One way of doing this is by eliminating the vowels. Also, spaces, punctuation, etc. also disappear. Chapters began to appear as more copies of the Bible were being made. Previously, the cost of paper and ink made copies rare. The printing press led to the Bible being divided into verses, once again, the medium dictating the writing.

 

One has to know the language and its design.

Arabic is a language where short vowels have functions that aren't so necessary as to be included in print media - from a long time back to today. So they aren't seen in newspapers, etc. Also, the short vowels are represented not as characters, but as marks above or below the consonant to which they apply.

Arabic dictionaries are ordered by the mostly three letter roots. One can see the root of a word, look it up alphabetically (in Arabic), and find the specified word by checking how the non-root letters are used. It's amazingly effective, as just knowing the root means you probably know the word.

Fully voweled text is used in more formal writing, as it is more specific (I'll call it). Then above that, the Qur'an includes all markings, leading to clear meaning. Also, the Qur'an includes the markings for how to voice the scripture when reciting it.

Hebrew is related in some ways. It has no written vowel letters, though it has a lot of vowels. Somewhat like Arabic, the language is based on three letter consonant roots that are inflected to form closely related words.

I don't know anything about Aramaic. Greek has written vowels, both short an long.


Anyway, there are reasons the vowels may not be present in any particular piece of writing.

 

Yeah except you can't prove god is anything more than your belief. God is just as "real" as a child's belief in the tooth fairy.

 

Simple. It's because too many are now trying to implement their beliefs and impose them on others with damaging consequences to their lives.

 

But it's not anonymous.

 

It means you're going in circles that self-justify.

 

That would be your own personal imagination at work. As such it means nothing and proves less.

But a book of impossible tales and personal beliefs derived from personal conclusions of what it means should be followed and maybe codified into law?????? That would be entirely insane. But that is what's happening today in the USA.