A post scientific judaism/christianity. So, from archeology and anthropology we know much better the history of the israelities and it seems to be comletely different to how it is described in the bible.
>no sign of any exodus out of mesopotamia by abraham. >no exodus out of egypt or enslavement by the Egyptians or Moses. >no conquering of canaan. >no grand davidic dynasty(it existed but was extremely basic, controlling tiny villages) >Israeites were simply nomadic canannites that used canannite and nearby lands for pastor and eventually settled in.
So, now if we tak einto account archeological data and accept the bible as a theological treatise that uses history sparcily to create a narrative how do we none the less justify the theological approach? How do we interpret the bible as important and corect despite its obvious political and societal underpinnings? I mean, lets assume we have to, how can we make the two work? How do we see judaism and christianity as valid and important RELIGIONS after we accept and internalize the archeological data?
I heard that Ur was discovered because of the story in Genesis. Is that true or just memery?
Luis Scott
That is a very honest question OP and one that I often ask myself. And I do mean myself. Don't expect many other Christians to acknowledge let alone respond to this. They would sooner hide in a shell and claim that all scientists, historians and archaeologists are out to get them, and/or make up pseudo scientific theories as to why the bible is right and everyone else is either wrong or lying, than facing the facts, that the bible may be largely fictional. This takes nothing away from the fact that God may exist and that the ancient Israelites intuited it (but so did the Greeks), and many religious and philosophical traditions were enlarged upon it. Many saints, ascetics and monks later had intuitions about whom this God may be and enlarged and expanded upon the tradition. There are good arguments for the existence of God and the Christian tradition is a way to try to get in communion with him. The bible being factual or not doesn't change that. It's unfortunate that Christians feel threatened by this and would rather dig their heads in the sand of biblical literalism.
Gavin Stewart
The bible describes the world and the past through a very narrow "ideological" lense. These descriptions found within it do not try to be scientific, meaning they do not purpot to describe and explain the world and the past through rigid investigation, but rather through a set of beliefs, abstract ideas and an ideal or fantastic world view. The bible does not claim it has historical knowledge in the sense we understand history, it even mostly predates the invention of this investigative genre of writing. If you want to know what REALLY happend with ancient israel the bible may contain hints but under many layers of myths fantasies and straight out inventions. If you are rather interested in the spiritual tradition which is a part of the westerns world heritage for more than two millenia, the "scientific" flaws in the bible should not bother you at all.
Aiden Ramirez
>This takes nothing away from the fact that God may exist and that the ancient Israelites intuited it they didn't intuit it, it was an idea that evolved over time with influence from surrounding cultures. It has no firmer basis than any other part of the Bible. the logical arguments are vague and disputed, not to mention that they can only bring you to an impersonal Deist God that isn't anything like the personal father figure of christianity. the only thing that it has going for it that the historical part of the Bible doesn't is that it is unfalsifiable
Daniel Butler
You're saying that Christianity and the traditions associated with it are an effective way to become closer to your understanding of God, but which traditions do you mean?
Modern, western Christians are so far off from what Christianity originally was.
Your "traditions" stem from the source material, but have been manipulated and edited by ancient politicians and bishops at, the Council of Nicaea, the Catholic Church, etc.
If oyu want to get closer to what Jesus's Christianity really was, then shouldn't you be an Assyrian Christian/Coptic Christian or possibly even an Ethiopian Christian (It reached ethiopia in 1st century AD)?
>f oyu want to get closer to what Jesus's Christianity really was No I don't think you get my point. I have a phenomenological and developing view of Christianity. It's not about discovering some primitive, pure form of Christianity. To me medieval and even modern insights into the nature of divinity are no less valid than ancient Greek and Israelite ones. Yeah, of Jesus of Nazareth himself.
Angel Long
>The bible describes the world and the past through a very narrow "ideological" lense. These descriptions found within it do not try to be scientific, meaning they do not purpot to describe and explain the world and the past through rigid investigation, but rather through a set of beliefs, abstract ideas and an ideal or fantastic world view. No one disputes this. this is the very reason that we reject it.
> If you are rather interested in the spiritual tradition which is a part of the westerns world heritage for more than two millenia, the "scientific" flaws in the bible should not bother you at all. You confuse me here. You seem to be saying that there is some underlying spiritual truths within it, which has no basis in fact. These stories are the very foundation for these spiritual truths and without them actually being true there is no reason to accept the conclusion. If you just mean general interest, then yeah, of course the flaws in the Bible shouldn't bother you. In fact they are the very reason that I am so interested in the Bible
Jason Davis
I think that the German idealists and romantics had the right idea. The tradition of literary criticism of the bible arose out a famous protestant theological seminary in Germany, in which Hegel was a student. Many followers of Hegel and others in the idealist and romantic movements thought that it's not about negating religion, but, as the truth that the bible is a fictional work and the loss of faith that that entails, philosophy and art should gradually take the place of religion.
Ryan Flores
It's actually the exact same that's in the bible; you just want the bible to be wrong so that you're not accountable to God for your evil behavior.
Jace James
Ur, Jericho, the Hittite empire, the war cisterns of Jerusalem; all used to be "reasons the bible was wrong".
And all found later.
Dylan Morales
Why you would reject revealed truth from God in favor of always being scientifically wrong is rather ponderous, and should demonstrate to you that you're not as rational as you think you are.
In fact, you're completely irrational.
Samuel Brooks
>evil
Nicholas Young
Yes. Anything that is not God, and not the 2/3 of the angels who retained their estate, and not a born again Christian, is evil.
That would be the devil, the 1/3 of the angels who fell with the devil, the evil spirits of the nephilim, and all lost human beings. All evil.
And because your heart is dark, and evil, you fear the light.
And yet, God sees in the dark as well as He sees in the light, and you're not hiding anything from Him, at all.
Christian Morris
I for one do not think that the scientific discourse is able to provide an exaustive description of reality. Science can't prove of the basic assumptions of science itself.It can't prove logic. It can't say anythinng about ethics, aesthetics, let alone metaphysics. The mythological and symbolic narrative found in the bible is a much better way, but one would have to do away with biblical literalism and christian exclusivism, and recognize the relative validity of other mythological narratives.
The Jews have been celebrating Passover, their exodus from Egypt, faithfully ever year for over 3500 years.
People who think the exodus never happened are immune to logic and reason, and consumed with hate.
Aaron Green
>I for one do not think that the scientific discourse is able to provide an exaustive description of reality. Science can't prove of the basic assumptions of science itself.It can't prove logic. It can't say anythinng about ethics, aesthetics, let alone metaphysics. there isn't a better method for describing physical reality. of course it doesn't have anything to say about metaphysics, that's an entirely different discipline. of course science isn't some all purpose tool for every thing. saying that science should be disregarded because it can't comment on ethics and aesthetics is like complaining that a hammer isn't useful for baking a cake
Jaxson Foster
>There are good arguments for the existence of God
Matthew Garcia
You just contradicted the Bible. 2nd Chronicles 35:18 states that no Passover had been kept from the time of Samuel until King Josiah's rule. if you are going to mindlessly parrot the Bible then at least do it right
Ian Hernandez
It is like when people say "they blindly believe in the Bible" when they "blindly believe in the scribes" as having the truth, just because they are said to "have all the historical information".
It is just what we are told, we are told that they have final authority over what we learn.
These same archaeological historians also never tell us the truth about world War two but instead they puff up America making them look like angels and demonize Hitler without ever telling us the ideas Hitler had that weren't demonic or evil. So it would make sense for historians to just "deny" al religious claims because they have the power to make their words look like exalted truth
Samuel Baker
>These same archaeological historians also never tell us the truth about world War two but instead they puff up America making them look like angels and demonize Hitler without ever telling us the ideas Hitler had that weren't demonic or evil If you want to know what Hitler's ideas were there is plenty of literature on the subject, not to mention Mein Kampf. also wtf, archaeologists don't deal primarily with textual sources
Xavier Garcia
It isn't about not being able to find his ideas, it is that we are conditioned from such a young age to believe Hitler is evil that we never look until way later in life to see what else he had to say.
In school we are taught a bunch of "facts" that are reinforced over 10 15 years, rather than being taught how to deal with life in a realistic way. We are indoctrinated into blind faith via the educational system, rather than have freedom to pursue studies in what we believe
Dylan Ortiz
There are plenty of bad arguments for God.
Juan Walker
>but, as the truth that the bible is a fictional work and the loss of faith that that entails, Communism should gradually take the place of religion.
