THE BIBLE: God’s Word or Man’s?

Camels were beast of burden.. The camel saddle wasn't invented until the 10th century BC.. There's little evidence for camels or horses in ancient Palestine.

 

The saddle I cannot comment upon. They are perishable, and besides, you can ride a camel without a saddle. But camels have been domesticated longer than what a lot of websites state. Surprisingly so.
It matters because of people's belief in the bible.
And if you tell people Abraham didn't have domesticated camels then some might think the bible is wrong. Not necessarily so, but it's enough to tip some over the edge. And then, if you find a 4,000 year old camel saddle, it won't bring the disbelievers back. This happened with the lack of evidence for King David - I doubt finding that evidence would bring back someone who thought the David story was all made up.

 

He is a jew. And your implied distate for academics reflects more on you than it does on academia.

 

Of course you can. Watch:

"Unicorns are a myth."

See, I just did it. In academia and in science, the old canard about "absence of evidence" does not really hold. Determinations must be made without 100% certainty, as such a level of confidence can never be reached.
In this manner, cosmologists can fairly and safely make the determination, for example, that there is no planet within Mercury's orbit. In this manner, scientists can make the determination that humans do not live to be hundreds of years old, or that chewing gum does not cause autism.

 

The Jews didn't lose their nation because they didn't believe. They lost their nation because the Zealots rebelled against Rome and virtually forced many Jews to defend their land against the Romans. Archaeology isn't as blind as you make out. It takes what is before it and interprets the facts on the light of history - and we know a lot about ancient history. There was no Exodus or invasion of Palestine. A study of the ancient world and a careful study of the Bible shows this quite clearly.

 

Daniel didn't exist. The stories are half legendary and the rest ( prophecies) were written during the Maccabean era - and are therefore history..Jacob didn't exist. Isaiah was written by at least 3 different writers over a long period of time. Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with Jesus. The House of David is found just once and has no particular significance except to show a Tribal leader called David may have existed. Everything about this tribal king has been exaggerated and much is myth. A more important character around this time was Omri, but he was ignored because he was a pagan.

Of course the Jews wanted a 'Messiah'. Messiah means 'anointed one'. Many celebrated characters in the OT were anointed ones.
The Jews wanted an 'anointed one' who would lead them with worldly power and authority to victory over their enemies.
There's actually a lot of subtle clues to the historicity of Genesis and Exodus in
the names, cities, towns, roads and cultures that were totally unknown to later
generations of Jews.

There's actually a lot of subtle clues to the historicity of Genesis and Exodus in
the names, cities, towns, roads and cultures that were totally unknown to later
generations of Jews.

. The Jews who started writing the Pentateuch in the 7th Century in Babtlon, knew all about these cities etc. and wrote their 'novel' around them. They weren't actually ignorant of earlier history though they made some mistakes in their 'novel' about Abraham, Moses, Exodus etc. They interacted with other nations and were not isolated from the world around them.

 

Genesis 49:10 is wonderful to unpack.
Jacob spoke to Judah - the one who offered himself for his brother
"The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from
between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience
of the nations."

The scepter is a monarchy - from Judah
... a monarchy suggests a kingdom (though God never wanted a king)
the ruler's staff is the law - not from Judah but protected by Judah
until - there's an end to the kingdom, its king and its laws
Shiloh - the anointed one, the Redeemer, Messiah etc
obedience of the nations - those outside of the now-gone kingdom of the Jews.

And King David, a symbol of the rejected and reigning Messiahs, saw him as
one rejected even of his own brothers and sisters, crucified, his hands pierced
and dranking the gall.

Isaiah saw him as raised from a baby, suffering in our stead. His blood shed
as a lamb for his people.

And I do love the motif of the male lamb, brought into the people's home for
three days so that they would bond to it. Then killed and its blood put upon
the lintel to save the people from the angel of death. Pure and spotless. They
had to eat it whole - religions like to sample the goodly portions and leave the
rest - there's unpalatable things in the word of God. This is why Jesus was
slain, as scripture said he must.

 

It's just a fairy tale!!!

 

Abraham and David were despicable characters who have no redeeming qualities.

 

True, but there's nuances you have to watch for.
Some ridicule the bible for mentioning unicorns. They have a perfect point
because there's no such animal. But if people want to be earnest about the
matter (as we should) then you will find that unicorn meant "horned animal."
It's the same for many things in scripture. It challenges the individual to search
and prove things for themselves - not the collective proof of nature but the
personal experience.
I have zero problem with science. I have a science background. I note that
many 'scientific' issues with the bible have nothing to do with the bible at all,
ie the earth going around the sun - doesn't say anything about astronomy in
the bible. Or, Darwin's 'little warm pond' should be no offense - the bible says
'God commanded the sea to bring forth life' (but... God created life on land, then
the seas brought forth living creatures such as birds. This was finally confirmed
this year - land arose on land, in water and probably not in the briny oceans.)
It should be marvelous in our eyes when you take the time to unpack it all.

 

Yes, so too Jesus - the one who judged, and moralized and condemned the Jews.
The bible is deeply offensive to our politically correct post-modernists.

 

That is not "honesty" . That is equivocation and whittling away something until it fits...quite the opposite of honesty.

 

The "unicorn" children recognize and love is not the unicorn of the bible.
Plain and simple.
But some will ask "Do you believe in unicorns?" if you should say you
believe in the bible. I ask them "What does the bible mean by 'unicorn' ?"

What do YOU think the bible meant by the word?

 

Yes, easy to say now, with the benefit of modern, scientific enlightenment. Funny how that works...all the myths of the Bible suddenly become allegory,or metaphor, or just plain myth, the moment they are shown by science to be absurd...and not a second before. How....convenient.

 

"The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from
between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the nations."

Muslims claim that Shiloh is Muhammed and that really doesn't make sense either.

Isaiah 53 confuses a lot of people.


https://www.bible.com/bible/1/ISA.53.kjv

 

Jesus, the Jewish Preacher, did not judge, moralise or condemn the Jews. That's simply a generalisation used by so many. He condemned the Jewish religious hierarchy for their hypocrisy and misuse of Jewish scriptures. For their leading of the people astray from the Torah teachings. Telling the people what they should do and believe, while not following their own advice. It was for this reason that the Priests contrived to have him put to death. Unlike other 'messiahs' of the time he posed little threat to the Romans. Only to the authority of the Jewish Priesthood. The preacher was of his time - not ours.

The Bible is only offensive to anyone who does not take into account 2 millenia of changes in attitudes. In 2000 years from now our attitudes may be deeply offensive to those who study them. If the Bible were written today it would be a different book - relevant to our time. While some teachings in the Bible can be related to today - many cannot.

 

The sceptre depart from Judah at the removal of King Zedekiah, , by the Babylonians. He was the last of Davids descendants to sit upon the throne. 600 years before Jesus. From then they were ruled by other nations. The only exception being the Maccabean period when kings - and queen - were really puppets of the religious leaders.
Jesus had no father. His genealogy in Matthew excludes him from ever ruling Israel

 

True, in part.
Jesus had no father by definition, but it states "as was supposed."
Yes, there were non-Davidic Kings, they ended earlier than did the law and the nation.
I think the loss would be in stages, not all at once
1 - kings
2 - country
3 - law (Romans forbid Jewish practices after the last war)

 

True, in part.
Jesus had no father by definition, but it states "as was supposed." We should all understand
what means - this is symbolic language.
Yes, there were non-Davidic Kings, they ended earlier than did the law and the nation.
I think the loss would be in stages, not all at once
1 - kings
2 - country
3 - law (Romans forbid Jewish practices after the last war)

 

Symbolic language? Joseph was Jesus father. 'Matthew's' nativity story was made up of prophecies from the OT that had nothing to do with Jesus. They all concern Jahweh's 'son' Israel. Hosea 11. Jesus was never in Egypt. He would have been safe a few miles from Nazareth - in Syria. No need to travel all the way to Egypt.

Romans forbid Jewish practices after the last war)

.But that surely eased after the death of Hadrian. The edicts against the Torah were still in place but seldom enforced. Then the Babylonian Jews came in numbers to Israel and helped things - though many were Hellenistic Jews. Problems for the Jews then were mainly due to the actions of Christians

 

The story we read is that Jesus was born in Nazareth, in the South.
As to whether Joseph or God is the father of Jesus, that is an element of faith.

 

Nazareth was in the North of Herods the Greats Kingdom, close to the Syrian border. Bethlehem Ephratah, the Bible's birthplace of Jesus, is in the south - 90 miles from Nazareth. However, Bethlehem in Zebulon was a few miles from Nazareth. More likely where the Jewish Preacher was born.

 

Two Bethlehems
by Wayne Blank

The birthplace of Jesus Christ, Bethlehem, meaning house of bread, is one of the most famous Bible Places of Bible History. So famous in fact that it has eclipsed another town that existed in Israel by the same name. The Bethlehem where the Messiah was born is in the south, near Jerusalem, in the territory of Judah. The other Bethlehem is in the north, near Nazareth, in the territory of Zebulun (see Tribal Lands).

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2001/20010514.htm

 

There's a LOT about the ancients that we don't know. For example, there's a map that dates back to the dark ages that shows a very detailed Antarctica, which wasn't discovered until the 1800's I believe.

http://www.ancientdestructions.com/piri-reis-map-of-antarctica/

"The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica ice free. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how the Piri Reis Antarctica map managed to so accurate 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the real coastline under the ice. Geological evidence confirms that the latest date Queen Maud Land could have been charted in an ice-free state is 4000 BC.

On 6th July 1960 the U. S. Air Force responded to Prof. Charles H. Hapgood of Keene College, specifically to his request for an evaluation of the ancient Piri Reis Map:

TO: Prof Charles H. Hapgood, Keene College

Dear Professor Hapgood,

Your request of evaluation of certain unusual features of the Piri Reis Antarctica map of 1513 by this organization has been reviewed.. The claim that the lower part of the map portrays the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Land, Antarctic, and the Palmer Peninsular, is reasonable. We find that this is the most logical and in all probability the correct interpretation of the map. The geographical detail shown in the lower part of the map agrees very remarkably with the results of the seismic profile made across the top of the ice-cap by the Swedish-British Antarctic Expedition of 1949.This indicates the coastline had been mapped before it was covered by the ice-cap. This part of Antarctica ice free. The ice-cap in this region is now about a mile thick. We have no idea how the data on this map can be reconciled with the supposed state of geographical knowledge in 1513.

Harold Z. Ohlmeyer Lt. Colonel, USAF Commander"

Suffice to say, they knew a lot more back then than we think they did, about a lot of things. The 'how' is puzzling indeed.

As to the OP question: personally, I see it as a matter of faith that if God wanted Humanity to have access to His Word, He would not allow it to be greatly altered so much as to make its pertinent meaning indecipherable. That's not to say that a certain amount of effort and consideration may be required to do so. I typically refer to Young's Literal Translation- a direct Hebrew/Greek to English translation that doesn't make any assumptions in the interest of 'smooth reading.' The 'lost in translation' effect makes for very difficult reading, but not unreadable.