- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites
Posted on 5/28/25 at 3:44 pm to somethingdifferent
Posted on 5/28/25 at 3:44 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
El is a moniker for different aspects of God's character, not distinct "gods."
This is not the case. When reading the Bible there is a clear difference between the time in which El is used and when Yahweh is used. God reveals himself as Yahweh to Moses at the burning bush. From that point on Yahweh is the dominant name used for the God of the Israelites.
It is correct that you can find references to Yahweh in Genesis, but that is explained by most scholars through the "Documentary Hypothesis" which claims the first five books of the bible were actually written by different groups during different time periods with different influences (Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomist) The Yahwist refer to Yahweh, while the Elohist refer to El. This doesn't mean they are just different names for the same God, they were using the name of the deity that group supported.
1
Posted on 5/28/25 at 3:48 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
When you're ready for a grown up conversation, just say so
You're arguing with a bot who is just pasting responses from chatgpt.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 5:31 pm to L.A.
quote:
Both of which imply you are NOT fluent in Koine Greek
Hold on, the basis for all human knowledge is recording and transferring.
You can be a luddite who refuses reasonable scholarship, but your claim is still ludicrous.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 5:35 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Oh my God. You completely misrepresented what I said. You answered my previous question, you are if fact deliberately being obtuse.
You are free to restate your claim with more clarity
Posted on 5/28/25 at 5:37 pm to David Fellows
quote:
You're arguing with a bot who is just pasting responses from chatgpt.
Holy shite
Posted on 5/28/25 at 5:44 pm to Azkiger
quote:
You have to do more than connect it to a Roman census, it has to be over seen by Quirinius as well.
You didn't read.
While some may claim that knowing people fluent in the Greek of the Bible as well as having all the translation tools available is unimportant compared to something they once read.
There is a translation that the Greek says it was the one before Quirinius.
Now you are free to disagree with that translation, but it is a valid way to read it.
Luddites will disagree. But every language can be understood with the right tools.
Just because some experts disagree with other experts does not mean they are wrong.
Both sides are not free of bias.
Also Egypt was censured every 14 years, the Romans did it consistently, 12 years apart is small when your tax base needs it.
This post was edited on 5/28/25 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 5/28/25 at 5:50 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:While I'm not on the same page as YEC in all things they have considered multiple factors into their equation. It's absolutely not kooky even if I personally think it's not the most parsimonious approach
RCD isn't the only way to measure the passage of time
Posted on 5/28/25 at 5:56 pm to donut
quote:This is more along the lines of the documentary hypothesis which has already been addressed itt. It has largely fallen out of favor in source criticism circles and been repurposed without the speculation that there is some previous stage where their theology looked wholly different
When reading the Bible there is a clear difference between the time in which El is used and when Yahweh is used
quote:This has already been addressed itt. No JEDP sources have ever been found. It's purely speculative and the idea of developmental stages has been jettisoned
the first five books of the bible were actually written by different groups during different time periods with different influences (Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomist) The Yahwist refer to Yahweh, while the Elohist refer to El
quote:Here we go with this again
most scholars
quote:They are definitely different aspects of YWHW's character
This doesn't mean they are just different names for the same God
Posted on 5/28/25 at 5:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Said the most bot of all the bots ever
Holy shite
Has there ever been a court ruling you disagree with?
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:16 pm to Narax
quote:Exactly.
There is a translation that the Greek says it was the one before Quirinius
p??t? (ugh. Sorry. the Greek did not post correctly)
but that doesn't accord with the skeptical mindset so that word has to be translated in the most unfavorable way possible - "first" as opposed to "before"
And this is only one of several aspects to this issue.
And as I stated before, this is all distraction. It is a case where history yet again confirms someone that the Bible mentioned. We can add the Hittites and the Tel Dan stele to that list that I posted earlier
This post was edited on 5/28/25 at 6:17 pm
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:17 pm to Augustus516
quote:
And here we are today. Most Christians today believe in a Trinity, a teaching not found in the bible
The Trinity the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one it does not in any way teach anything outside of belief in one God! This was taught by the early church fathers who were initially taught by the apostles.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:17 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
It's absolutely not kooky
Depending on the "multiple factors" considered, we're probably going to have to disagree on that point.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:23 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:As I said, I am not a fan of flood geology, but to act like they are kooks and have a half baked theory is just prejudice. They've worked on it for decades and have a non trivial amount of field data to support their hypothesis. I may not agree with it but I do respect the thought process
Depending on the "multiple factors" considered, we're probably going to have to disagree on that point
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:37 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
Holy shite this thread
Right?
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:37 pm to somethingdifferent
I've read through the whole thread, it appears that, here, you employ the Appeal to Authority fallacy:
And here, it appears you accuse another for employing the same fallacy:
You seem to want it both ways.
quote:
It has largely fallen out of favor in source criticism circles
And here, it appears you accuse another for employing the same fallacy:
quote:
quote:Here we go with this again
most scholars
You seem to want it both ways.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:38 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
but that doesn't accord with the skeptical mindset so that word has to be translated in the most unfavorable way possible - "first" as opposed to "before"
Agreed, no other topic except the constitution exists where strangers on the internet scream at you about "your" translation by "your" experts must be wrong and STFU unless you agree with me.
The odd logic where those who reference "scholars agree" then scream about the lack of qualification of "other scholars" that disagree with them.
Or claims about "requiring expertise" that they themselves don't have to judge a translation.
I would not say I am an expert in Spanish French or German, but I can read them reasonably well.
I don't know Russian but I can follow along with critiques of the translations of War and Peace. I can follow Tolkien's translation of Beowulf without his level of professorship.
Because good scholars can transmit their hard earned knowledge through text, that's how they learned.
That's how all humans learn. The Master can impart knowledge upon those who read.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:47 pm to UtahCajun
quote:Yep. It's sad that this is how these discussions usually go. Some people just start throwing out some criticisms they heard in college from their lib professor or they watched zeitgeist and then they think all religious people are nuts. Nevermind that the accusations they sling around are usually 100-150 years old and there are several decades of academic rebuttals. And they always insist that their interpretation of biblical criticism is the ONLY valid interpretation and any refutations are just biased.
Holy shite this thread
They never acknowledge that non religious people, including scientists, are biased as well. Popper said all observation is theory laden, and he was absolutely right. It might surprise people to learn how fractured and tendentious the scientific enterprise is. They are definitely not on the same page and there is definitely not a consensus about almost everything, no matter how much snowflakes skyscream that there is. The job of a good scientist is to not take anything for granted and to challenge everything, including long held presuppositions.
Most critics think in siding with scientists/science over "religion", they are being "objective" and evidence based which is not a slam dunk. There are numerous important things that science will never be able to explain about our existence (abiogenesis is prominent at the moment) because science is necessarily constrained by methodological naturalism, contra Plantinga (although I totally get what he was trying to say).
Most of these people subconsciously (or perhaps even consciously) cling to Gould's NOMA in insisting that "religion" be bifurcated from rational thought because they have a mistaken definition of faith as being blind and therefore it should be at least personal and hidden or at most eliminated altogether
This is what contemporary, western education has done to people; made them tie one hand behind their back in regards to epistemology. Our society has largely bought into the lie of scientism, that everything in the universe can ultimately be explained in the language of science, which is humorous because there are even scientists who know this isn't true. One of the biggest problems in our society is the presumption of atheism and it has warped many, many minds
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:50 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
They've worked on it for decades and have a non trivial amount of field data to support their hypothesis.
You know who else did this? The alchemists.
quote:
I do respect the thought process
I admit to ignorance on their "thought process". But I do respect the Scientific Method.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 6:52 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:I'm describing the utility of the situation, not appealing to authority. The DH is useful in it's form criticism but not in it's source criticism. That's why it's been repurposed. It's been around for decades and hasn't produced any sources nor has it made headway in proving it's conclusion other than just accepting the conjecture despite the methodological potholes
You seem to want it both ways
Page 20 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News