By MICHAEL VALPY
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Canadian archeologist Russell Adams's interest is in Bronze Age and Iron Age copper production. He never intended to walk into archeology's vicious debate over the historical accuracy of the Old Testament -- a conflict likened by one historian to a pack of feral canines at each other's throats.
Yet by coincidence, Prof. Adams of Hamilton's McMaster University says, he and an international team of colleagues fit into place a significant piece of the puzzle of human history in the Middle East -- unearthing information that points to the existence of the Bible's vilified Kingdom of Edom at precisely the time the Bible says it existed, and contradicting widespread academic belief that it did not come into being until 200 years later.
Their findings mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.
Because, if the little bit of the Old Testament's narrative that Prof. Adams and his colleagues have looked at is true, other bits could be true as well.
References to the Kingdom of Edom -- almost none of them complimentary -- are woven through the Old Testament. It existed in what is today southern Jordan, next door to Israel, and the relationship between the biblical Edomites and Israelites was one of unrelenting hostility and warfare.
The team led by Prof. Adams, Thomas Levy of the University of California at San Diego and Mohammad Najjar of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities was investigating copper mining and smelting at a site called Khirbat en-Nahas, by far the largest copper-production site in the region.
They applied high-precision radiocarbon-dating methods to some of their finds, and as they say in the British journal Antiquities, "The results were spectacular."
They firmly established that occupation of the site began in the 11th century BC and a monumental fortress was built in the 10th century BC, supporting the argument for existence of an Edomite state at least 200 years earlier than had been assumed.
What is particularly exciting about their find is that it implies the existence of an Edomite state at the time the Bible says King David and his son Solomon ruled over a powerful united kingdom of Israel and Judah.
It is the historical accuracy -- the very existence of this united kingdom and the might and splendour of David and Solomon, as well as the existence of surrounding kingdoms -- that lies at the heart of the archeological dispute.
Those scholars known as minimalists argue that what is known as "state formation" -- the emergence of regional governments and kings -- did not take place in the area until the imperialistic expansion of the Assyrian empire in the 8th century BC, so David and Solomon, rather than being mighty monarchs, were mere petty chieftains.
And because everything that takes place in the Middle East inevitably is political, the minimalist argument is seen as weakening modern Israel's claim to Palestine.
In the biblical narrative, the Edomites are the descendents of Esau, whose blessing from his father, Isaac, was stolen by his younger brother, Jacob, ancestor of the Israelites. (Fans of the British satirical-comedy group Beyond the Fringe will recall how Jacob pulled off the theft by presenting himself as the hirsute Esau to their blind father, saying in an aside: "My brother Esau is an hairy man, but I am a smooth man.")
The Edomites are lambasted in the Bible for refusing to let the Israelites rest on their land as they flee Egypt. God declares obscurely: "Over Edom will I cast out my shoe." The Israelites grumble enviously that there were kings of Edom before there were kings of Israel -- a highly significant passage because it implies that state formation occurred in Edom before it happened in Israel.
Finally, there is the biblical account of David's war against the Edomites, in which David and his general, Joab, kill 18,000 Edomites and establish military control over them by "putting garrisons throughout all Edom."
Irish scholar John Bartlett, one of the world's great experts on the Edomites, dates the battle at 990 to 980 BC, precisely when Prof. Adams and his colleagues date the fortress.
Says Prof. Adams: "This battle between the Israelites and the Edomites, although not possible to document, is typical of the sort of border conflicts between Iron Age states. And the evidence of our new dates at least proves that it may, in fact, be possible to place the Edomites in the 10th century [BC] or earlier, which now supports the chronology of the biblical accounts.
"It is intriguing that at Khirbat en-Nahas, our large Iron Age fort is dated to just this period, suggesting conflict as a central concern even at a remote copper-production site."
He concludes: "We're not out to prove the Bible right or wrong. We're not trying to be controversial. We're just trying to be good anthropologists and scientists, and tell the story of our archeological site."
The Bible is more truth than lies.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
The Bible is more truth than lies.
It would be interesting to hear/read what other members say about this. :-6
The Bible is more truth than lies.
There have been many other discoveries both in archeology and also our knowledge of earth geological history is improving all the time that go a long way to confirm some of the events described in the bible did actually happen, crossing of the red sea for example, it has been suggested that the description sound like a tsunami -withdrawal of the water etc.
Also the codes of conduct etc how to behave towards others it's only natural people would hand down orally or written if they could.
What annoys me is the literalists who insist that the bible is the unchanged word of god and must be believed and obeyed without question. I don't believe it is the word of god but is a collection of stories of an ancient people trying to understand what is happening to them and tell their story. Just like the sanskrit texts are the same kind of thing. Archeologists arec also making finds that tie in with some of the descriptions of places that were thought to be myth.
Also the codes of conduct etc how to behave towards others it's only natural people would hand down orally or written if they could.
What annoys me is the literalists who insist that the bible is the unchanged word of god and must be believed and obeyed without question. I don't believe it is the word of god but is a collection of stories of an ancient people trying to understand what is happening to them and tell their story. Just like the sanskrit texts are the same kind of thing. Archeologists arec also making finds that tie in with some of the descriptions of places that were thought to be myth.
The Bible is more truth than lies.
"The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman" is among the latest studies collating all of the archaeology for the last hundred plus years.
Neither of them seem to have a problem with Edom.
However, there are some points that are vitally important in this issue. First of all there is absolutley no evidence that either David or Solomon ever ruled over large kingdoms. In fact the evidence points to them being simply local warlords or chieftans. A more important issue is there there is not one shred of evidence anywhere in the middle east for the Exodus as described in the Bible; It may be a story resulting from a small tribal or extended families escape or it may even have arisen as a story from the expulsion of the Hyksos, by the Egyptians, from the Nile Delta.
I say no evidence because that many people would leave a footprint in the desert that thousands of years could never erase or cover up so completely that it could never be found. Such an Exodus simply did not happen.
We do not talk about the Bible as containing lies or fraud because it is not meant to be an historical document but purely a religious document written in the ancient midrashic style which uses a great deal of metaphor. Truth does not necessarily have to be historical in fact it is often not. Tuths are conveyed in many ways including the Parables that Jesus used.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Neither of them seem to have a problem with Edom.
However, there are some points that are vitally important in this issue. First of all there is absolutley no evidence that either David or Solomon ever ruled over large kingdoms. In fact the evidence points to them being simply local warlords or chieftans. A more important issue is there there is not one shred of evidence anywhere in the middle east for the Exodus as described in the Bible; It may be a story resulting from a small tribal or extended families escape or it may even have arisen as a story from the expulsion of the Hyksos, by the Egyptians, from the Nile Delta.
I say no evidence because that many people would leave a footprint in the desert that thousands of years could never erase or cover up so completely that it could never be found. Such an Exodus simply did not happen.
We do not talk about the Bible as containing lies or fraud because it is not meant to be an historical document but purely a religious document written in the ancient midrashic style which uses a great deal of metaphor. Truth does not necessarily have to be historical in fact it is often not. Tuths are conveyed in many ways including the Parables that Jesus used.
Shalom
Ted :-6
The Bible is more truth than lies.
Anne Rice wrote a brilliant series of books all of which are set in real historical places and linked in with the historical events of the time period in which her stories are set. This does not mean the Vampire LeStat is real but it sure makes for a great & believable story.
No, I am not saying Christ is fictional.
The archeology is interesting but it means nothing in validating the truth of the Bible or not.
No, I am not saying Christ is fictional.
The archeology is interesting but it means nothing in validating the truth of the Bible or not.
The Bible is more truth than lies.
posted by ted
However, there are some points that are vitally important in this issue. First of all there is absolutley no evidence that either David or Solomon ever ruled over large kingdoms. In fact the evidence points to them being simply local warlords or chieftans. A more important issue is there there is not one shred of evidence anywhere in the middle east for the Exodus as described in the Bible; It may be a story resulting from a small tribal or extended families escape or it may even have arisen as a story from the expulsion of the Hyksos, by the Egyptians, from the Nile Delta.
I say no evidence because that many people would leave a footprint in the desert that thousands of years could never erase or cover up so completely that it could never be found. Such an Exodus simply did not happen.
I would agree with the local warlords or cieftains but it is all relative. We are used to thinking in terms of populations of billions and huge cities. Ancient civilisations did not have anything like that kind of population. Ancient Eqypt had a populkation os what one million? (haven't a clue as to accurate figures) So when you think of babylon think of a walled city. Same with Jerusalem or any of the ancient cities. Rome started out as a city state and with hundreds of thousand not millions managed to conqueor most of the known world. The jews were a tribe not a nation state as we regard it. A bronze age tribe at that.
The medieval population of England after the plague was under two million.
Battles involved thousands of troops not hundreds of thousands.
However, there are some points that are vitally important in this issue. First of all there is absolutley no evidence that either David or Solomon ever ruled over large kingdoms. In fact the evidence points to them being simply local warlords or chieftans. A more important issue is there there is not one shred of evidence anywhere in the middle east for the Exodus as described in the Bible; It may be a story resulting from a small tribal or extended families escape or it may even have arisen as a story from the expulsion of the Hyksos, by the Egyptians, from the Nile Delta.
I say no evidence because that many people would leave a footprint in the desert that thousands of years could never erase or cover up so completely that it could never be found. Such an Exodus simply did not happen.
I would agree with the local warlords or cieftains but it is all relative. We are used to thinking in terms of populations of billions and huge cities. Ancient civilisations did not have anything like that kind of population. Ancient Eqypt had a populkation os what one million? (haven't a clue as to accurate figures) So when you think of babylon think of a walled city. Same with Jerusalem or any of the ancient cities. Rome started out as a city state and with hundreds of thousand not millions managed to conqueor most of the known world. The jews were a tribe not a nation state as we regard it. A bronze age tribe at that.
The medieval population of England after the plague was under two million.
Battles involved thousands of troops not hundreds of thousands.
The Bible is more truth than lies.
koan wrote: The archeology is interesting but it means nothing in validating the truth of the Bible or not.
Having been a Christian in my youth (Roman Catholic) I was always sure that we were the top of the heap. The Old Testament was passe and superceded by the New Testament.
I was employed by an Israeli and sometimes the talk would go towards the Bible. I was comforted by his words that he did not believe in the Old Testament Bible per se. Feeling to get to the adnission by him that the New Testament was the Way I asked him about it.
He floored me because he said that the Bible was an historical, folkloric and book on healthy eating and habits. Taking it verbatim was useless but it had many great advantages to it such as the dietary laws that forbade the eating of pork. He said that it wasn't so much the eating of pork, but the diseases that unrefrigerated pork had that would cause certain death if ingested.
Even to this day I remember him fondly as someone that opened my eyes to the blindered religious concepts that stopped me from seeing the light.
Having been a Christian in my youth (Roman Catholic) I was always sure that we were the top of the heap. The Old Testament was passe and superceded by the New Testament.
I was employed by an Israeli and sometimes the talk would go towards the Bible. I was comforted by his words that he did not believe in the Old Testament Bible per se. Feeling to get to the adnission by him that the New Testament was the Way I asked him about it.
He floored me because he said that the Bible was an historical, folkloric and book on healthy eating and habits. Taking it verbatim was useless but it had many great advantages to it such as the dietary laws that forbade the eating of pork. He said that it wasn't so much the eating of pork, but the diseases that unrefrigerated pork had that would cause certain death if ingested.
Even to this day I remember him fondly as someone that opened my eyes to the blindered religious concepts that stopped me from seeing the light.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
The Bible is more truth than lies.
kensloft wrote: Having been a Christian in my youth (Roman Catholic) I was always sure that we were the top of the heap. The Old Testament was passe and superceded by the New Testament.
I was employed by an Israeli and sometimes the talk would go towards the Bible. I was comforted by his words that he did not believe in the Old Testament Bible per se. Feeling to get to the adnission by him that the New Testament was the Way I asked him about it.
He floored me because he said that the Bible was an historical, folkloric and book on healthy eating and habits. Taking it verbatim was useless but it had many great advantages to it such as the dietary laws that forbade the eating of pork. He said that it wasn't so much the eating of pork, but the diseases that unrefrigerated pork had that would cause certain death if ingested.
Even to this day I remember him fondly as someone that opened my eyes to the blindered religious concepts that stopped me from seeing the light.hmm interesting Kensloft
I was employed by an Israeli and sometimes the talk would go towards the Bible. I was comforted by his words that he did not believe in the Old Testament Bible per se. Feeling to get to the adnission by him that the New Testament was the Way I asked him about it.
He floored me because he said that the Bible was an historical, folkloric and book on healthy eating and habits. Taking it verbatim was useless but it had many great advantages to it such as the dietary laws that forbade the eating of pork. He said that it wasn't so much the eating of pork, but the diseases that unrefrigerated pork had that would cause certain death if ingested.
Even to this day I remember him fondly as someone that opened my eyes to the blindered religious concepts that stopped me from seeing the light.hmm interesting Kensloft
The Bible is more truth than lies.
sagan wrote: I've found nothing to convince me he isn't fictional.
Exactly. If there's a scrap I'll back you up.
Exactly. If there's a scrap I'll back you up.
The Bible is more truth than lies.
sagan wrote: Just some reasonable non-biblical evidence.
If Jesus never existed do you think that all of the countries in that region would've allowed this to carry on for the past two millennia?
If they could have proven that He didn't or hadn't ever existed don't you think that they would have debunked the myth? People spend their entire lives not believing that He existed for whatever reason they have but that doesn't prove that He did not walk the earth.
Go to yahoo or google search engines and enter the word Josephus. This is one of the most renowned historians of the times immediately after Christ's death. You will find that it was not only the bible that recorded Christ's presence on earth but a multitude of others rcorded His presence. Most have been lost but that does not mean that they will not be rediscovered somewhere in the future.
If anything it'll show you that the Bible was not the only resource that spoke of His presence.
If Jesus never existed do you think that all of the countries in that region would've allowed this to carry on for the past two millennia?
If they could have proven that He didn't or hadn't ever existed don't you think that they would have debunked the myth? People spend their entire lives not believing that He existed for whatever reason they have but that doesn't prove that He did not walk the earth.
Go to yahoo or google search engines and enter the word Josephus. This is one of the most renowned historians of the times immediately after Christ's death. You will find that it was not only the bible that recorded Christ's presence on earth but a multitude of others rcorded His presence. Most have been lost but that does not mean that they will not be rediscovered somewhere in the future.
If anything it'll show you that the Bible was not the only resource that spoke of His presence.
The Bible is more truth than lies.
Hey, sagan, nudge nudge wink wink
Conveniently lost, huh?
Conveniently lost, huh?
The Bible is more truth than lies.
I’ll be more than happy to debate any other written evidence from this period that you believe confirms the existence of the individual known as Jesus Christ.
I'll be only too happy to discuss it as soon as something becomes available. Please don't hold your breath because it could be a long time coming.
I'll be only too happy to discuss it as soon as something becomes available. Please don't hold your breath because it could be a long time coming.
-
persephone
- Posts: 664
- Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 3:14 pm
The Bible is more truth than lies.
kensloft wrote: If Jesus never existed do you think that all of the countries in that region would've allowed this to carry on for the past two millennia?Well the countries who do believe in Jesus aren't or have never been oppressive in any way have they? :rolleyes:
Bad Girls have very high standards, but they love you even if you sometimes fall short.
The Bible is more truth than lies.
letha wrote: Well the countries who do believe in Jesus aren't or have never been oppressive in any way have they? :rolleyes:
You got that straight! Where do you get your pot?
You got that straight! Where do you get your pot?
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
The Bible is more truth than lies.
The Bible is a World Class best seller. But Least read.
The Bible is more truth than lies.
It seems to me that getting into a discussion as to whether or not Jesus as an historical character ever existed is almost like getting into a discussion about the existence of God.
There is evidence and there is evidence. Some would be convinced by certain kinds of evidence and others would want more. History is not an exact science and never will be. With the advent of quantum theory even the very existence of objectivity is now in question, very much in question as is the very nature of reality. Quantum theory makes for very interesting reading.
Having said that and based on my own studies formally and informally for some 40+ years and my personal experiences and based on the fact that the vast majority of theological and Biblical scholars around the world see absolutely no reason to doubt the historicity of the man called Yeshua of Nazareth I have seen enough evidence to convince me of the historicity of Yeshua of Nazareth.
Generally people will believe what they want to believe in spite of the "objective" or "subjective" evidence pro or con.
Shalom
Ted :-6
There is evidence and there is evidence. Some would be convinced by certain kinds of evidence and others would want more. History is not an exact science and never will be. With the advent of quantum theory even the very existence of objectivity is now in question, very much in question as is the very nature of reality. Quantum theory makes for very interesting reading.
Having said that and based on my own studies formally and informally for some 40+ years and my personal experiences and based on the fact that the vast majority of theological and Biblical scholars around the world see absolutely no reason to doubt the historicity of the man called Yeshua of Nazareth I have seen enough evidence to convince me of the historicity of Yeshua of Nazareth.
Generally people will believe what they want to believe in spite of the "objective" or "subjective" evidence pro or con.
Shalom
Ted :-6
The Bible is more truth than lies.
The issue is less do we believe that Christ existed, to which my answer is yes, than can it be proven. It would be fun to come up with a series of "therefores" that are weak and perhaps even nonsensical.
What do you say, Sagan? Feel like "proving" the point for them?
What do you say, Sagan? Feel like "proving" the point for them?
The Bible is more truth than lies.
sagan :-6
I will suggest the works of several scholars whose work seems to reasonably point to the historicity of Jesus and that he in fact came from Nazareth. I invite you to read them and then ask the question.
John Dominic Crossan: "The Historical Jesus an Eastern Mediterranean Peasant"
IBID : "The Birth of Christianity"
IBID: "Excavating Jesus"
Marcus Borg: Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time."
IBID: "The Meaning of Jesus"
IBID; "Reading the Bible again for the First Time"
John Spong; "Liberating the Gospels"
IBID: "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism.
Hans Kung: "Does God Exist"
IBID: "On Being a Christian"
Geza Vermes: "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ"
Powell: "Jesus as a Figure in History"
You are asking a question that like many court cases, there is not one piece of evidence but the totallity of the evidence points in a particular direction. Eventually you have enough evidence to say that it is so. I could present many others, all of which I have read and studied but that should suffice.
I suspect that you are also asking your question based on the traditional view of the Bible as being historically true in all things. This of course is not the case. It is a religious book composed of myth, legend, folk tale, short story, fiction, poetry, philosophy and theology and many kernels of history spread throughout much of that embellished for religious reasons. It is written in the ancient midrashic style and makes liberal use of metaphor because that is the only way that we can speak of the Divine. Something does not have to be historically accurate to be true.
Now you can accuse me of evading the question. However, that is not the case. I have given you a list of scholars and their works that will indeed present you with the myriad of pieces of evidence that you are looking for. I am not about to rewrite these books.
The multitude of evidence and experience points to an historical Jesus who in all likelihood came for Nazareth. Even the members of Judaism accept that Jesus was from Nazareth. However, if they were wrong it makes not one iota of difference to the truths presented.
I highly recomment the works of Crossan because he goes into great depth concerning his methodology and has submitted it for peer review as has Marcus Borg. Both are eminent scholars.
Shalom
Ted :-6
I will suggest the works of several scholars whose work seems to reasonably point to the historicity of Jesus and that he in fact came from Nazareth. I invite you to read them and then ask the question.
John Dominic Crossan: "The Historical Jesus an Eastern Mediterranean Peasant"
IBID : "The Birth of Christianity"
IBID: "Excavating Jesus"
Marcus Borg: Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time."
IBID: "The Meaning of Jesus"
IBID; "Reading the Bible again for the First Time"
John Spong; "Liberating the Gospels"
IBID: "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism.
Hans Kung: "Does God Exist"
IBID: "On Being a Christian"
Geza Vermes: "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ"
Powell: "Jesus as a Figure in History"
You are asking a question that like many court cases, there is not one piece of evidence but the totallity of the evidence points in a particular direction. Eventually you have enough evidence to say that it is so. I could present many others, all of which I have read and studied but that should suffice.
I suspect that you are also asking your question based on the traditional view of the Bible as being historically true in all things. This of course is not the case. It is a religious book composed of myth, legend, folk tale, short story, fiction, poetry, philosophy and theology and many kernels of history spread throughout much of that embellished for religious reasons. It is written in the ancient midrashic style and makes liberal use of metaphor because that is the only way that we can speak of the Divine. Something does not have to be historically accurate to be true.
Now you can accuse me of evading the question. However, that is not the case. I have given you a list of scholars and their works that will indeed present you with the myriad of pieces of evidence that you are looking for. I am not about to rewrite these books.
The multitude of evidence and experience points to an historical Jesus who in all likelihood came for Nazareth. Even the members of Judaism accept that Jesus was from Nazareth. However, if they were wrong it makes not one iota of difference to the truths presented.
I highly recomment the works of Crossan because he goes into great depth concerning his methodology and has submitted it for peer review as has Marcus Borg. Both are eminent scholars.
Shalom
Ted :-6
The Bible is more truth than lies.
koan 
It's the same old argument "Does God Exist". It is just tranferred to Jesus. I have no desire or interest in engaging in such an argument because it ends up going in circles and ultimately nowhere and of course is of little consequence anyway.
There are those convinced by the evidence and those who would never accept the evidence for any reason. Waste of time. I've supplied enough evidence to equal the Willy Picton Trial in Vancouver. Glad I'm not the lawyers or the judge.
Shalom
Ted
It's the same old argument "Does God Exist". It is just tranferred to Jesus. I have no desire or interest in engaging in such an argument because it ends up going in circles and ultimately nowhere and of course is of little consequence anyway.
There are those convinced by the evidence and those who would never accept the evidence for any reason. Waste of time. I've supplied enough evidence to equal the Willy Picton Trial in Vancouver. Glad I'm not the lawyers or the judge.
Shalom
Ted
The Bible is more truth than lies.
Ted :-1
You've stripped me of my sun rays. I feel naked!
I was trying to make the arguement into a game because the arguement is useless. Guess I didn't make my point.
You've stripped me of my sun rays. I feel naked!
I was trying to make the arguement into a game because the arguement is useless. Guess I didn't make my point.
The Bible is more truth than lies.
koan wrote: Ted :-1
You've stripped me of my sun rays. I feel naked!
I was trying to make the arguement into a game because the arguement is useless. Guess I didn't make my point.
Wasn't lost on me.
You've stripped me of my sun rays. I feel naked!
I was trying to make the arguement into a game because the arguement is useless. Guess I didn't make my point.
Wasn't lost on me.
The Bible is more truth than lies.
kensloft wrote: Wasn't lost on me.
My hero!
Do I get my sunglasses back?
My hero!
Do I get my sunglasses back?
The Bible is more truth than lies.
koan wrote: My hero!
Do I get my sunglasses back?
Don't you have it a little backwards? Oh? Maybe you don't. It's far cheaper to put sunglasses on you rather than buy them for the rest of the world. Silly Me.
Do I get my sunglasses back?
Don't you have it a little backwards? Oh? Maybe you don't. It's far cheaper to put sunglasses on you rather than buy them for the rest of the world. Silly Me.
The Bible is more truth than lies.
Sagan
As I have said whether or not Jesus came from Nazareth is immaterial.
You say you are familiar with midrash and metaphor. Obviously not as it applies to scripture.
Thirdly you gave a nice quote from Powell, taken out of context thus providing no information either way.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with modern theology and where it stands on the questions.
You note the scholars are Christians as if that somehow disqualifies their research. I guess we should not trust any research submitted by a supporter of any topic as s/he might be biased.
BTW Geza Vermes is not a Christian but a Jewish scholar who seems to have no problem with either the historical Jesus or that he came from Nazareth.
You have a problem with the way the Bible describes Nazareth. That is precisely the problem one gets when one reads it as an historical document only. There are many kernels of history throughout the Bible but in many cases they have been rather embellished.
I'm not sure that I could supply you with any evidence you would accept so I won't waste my or your time.
You might find the books "Metaphorical Theology" by Sallie McFague and "Quantum
Theology" by D. O'Murchu somewhat enlightening concerning the historical/metaphorical approach to theology.
As far as the Bible goes it becomes for Christians the "Word of God" because God speaks to us through the very human words of the Bible not because of its authorship.
As far as evidence itself goes modern quantum theory is calling into question most evidence as it is calling into question the very idea of "objectivity" which I have long contended does not exist.
And of course one can find scholars pro and con on just about anything. One believes what one chooses to believe in spite of the "objective evidence"
Shalom
Ted
As I have said whether or not Jesus came from Nazareth is immaterial.
You say you are familiar with midrash and metaphor. Obviously not as it applies to scripture.
Thirdly you gave a nice quote from Powell, taken out of context thus providing no information either way.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with modern theology and where it stands on the questions.
You note the scholars are Christians as if that somehow disqualifies their research. I guess we should not trust any research submitted by a supporter of any topic as s/he might be biased.
BTW Geza Vermes is not a Christian but a Jewish scholar who seems to have no problem with either the historical Jesus or that he came from Nazareth.
You have a problem with the way the Bible describes Nazareth. That is precisely the problem one gets when one reads it as an historical document only. There are many kernels of history throughout the Bible but in many cases they have been rather embellished.
I'm not sure that I could supply you with any evidence you would accept so I won't waste my or your time.
You might find the books "Metaphorical Theology" by Sallie McFague and "Quantum
Theology" by D. O'Murchu somewhat enlightening concerning the historical/metaphorical approach to theology.
As far as the Bible goes it becomes for Christians the "Word of God" because God speaks to us through the very human words of the Bible not because of its authorship.
As far as evidence itself goes modern quantum theory is calling into question most evidence as it is calling into question the very idea of "objectivity" which I have long contended does not exist.
And of course one can find scholars pro and con on just about anything. One believes what one chooses to believe in spite of the "objective evidence"
Shalom
Ted
The Bible is more truth than lies.
koan :-6
I knew what you were up to. LOL
Shalom
Ted :-6
I knew what you were up to. LOL
Shalom
Ted :-6
The Bible is more truth than lies.
sagan :-6
It would seem to me that we will just have to agree to disagree. It's kind of hard to have a discussion when we are not even reading the same book.
Shalom
Ted :-6
It would seem to me that we will just have to agree to disagree. It's kind of hard to have a discussion when we are not even reading the same book.
Shalom
Ted :-6
The Bible is more truth than lies.
Ted wrote: koan :-6
I knew what you were up to. LOL
Shalom
Ted :-6
Hooray! I got my glow back.
Thanks Ted :-6
I knew what you were up to. LOL
Shalom
Ted :-6
Hooray! I got my glow back.
Thanks Ted :-6
The Bible is more truth than lies.
I would like to clarify a few points about Yeshua of Nazareth and the town or hamlet of nazareth.
Sagan rightly notes that Nazareth was a virtually unknown village. However I would like to refer to "The Historical Jesus" by Crossan pg 15-16.
"Between 1955 and 1960 the Franciscan scholar Bellarmino Bagatti excavated at Nazareth beneath both the demolished older Church of the Annunciation and other Franciscan property extending north-eastward toward their Church of of Saint Joseph. He summarized his descoveries by saying, 'Chronologically we have : tombs of the Middle Bronze Period [c.2000-1500 B.C.E.]; silos with ceramics of the Middle Iron Period [c 900-539B.C.E.]' and then, uninterrupted, eramics and constructions of the Hellenistic Period [c 332-63B.C.E.] down to modern times'(Bagatti1.29-32). The remnants from those erlier occupations are, however, quite limited, while those of the final one are much more extensive. Thus despite some hints of an ancient lineage, 'It is in the second century B.C.E.]that extensive remains are to be found, which suggests that this is the period of the refounding of the village. . . This implies that the village was less than two hundred years old in the first century".
Thus is Bagatti is correct and Crossan is correct then Nazareth was indeed a village at the time of Jesus.
Now to the question of "synagogue"
"Excavating Jesus" by J. D. Crossan and J. L Reed
"But in the Jewish homeland at the time of Jesus, the term "synagogue" referred primarily to a gathering, and less so to a building with an accompanying , well-defined liturgy.. . . Perhaps many gatherings took place in the village square and others in court yards or rooms of a villager's lare house, each which wuld be indistinguishable to archaeologists in their function as a synagogue."
It would appear that synagogue could either have referred to a gathering or a building.
Now I will address the issue of Jesus birth place. "The Meaning of Jesus" Marcus Borg and Tom Wright. p183
"What then is left historically from these stories? Jesus was born before the death of Herod the Great, and thus probably no later then 4 B.C.E. His parents were Mary and Joseph. He was probably born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem. He was born into a marginalized peasant class."
It would appear that at least some Scholars give the birth place of Jesus being a small hamlet of 200 to 400 (Crossan) people.
I knew my memory was bad but it certainly isn't that bad. LOL.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Sagan rightly notes that Nazareth was a virtually unknown village. However I would like to refer to "The Historical Jesus" by Crossan pg 15-16.
"Between 1955 and 1960 the Franciscan scholar Bellarmino Bagatti excavated at Nazareth beneath both the demolished older Church of the Annunciation and other Franciscan property extending north-eastward toward their Church of of Saint Joseph. He summarized his descoveries by saying, 'Chronologically we have : tombs of the Middle Bronze Period [c.2000-1500 B.C.E.]; silos with ceramics of the Middle Iron Period [c 900-539B.C.E.]' and then, uninterrupted, eramics and constructions of the Hellenistic Period [c 332-63B.C.E.] down to modern times'(Bagatti1.29-32). The remnants from those erlier occupations are, however, quite limited, while those of the final one are much more extensive. Thus despite some hints of an ancient lineage, 'It is in the second century B.C.E.]that extensive remains are to be found, which suggests that this is the period of the refounding of the village. . . This implies that the village was less than two hundred years old in the first century".
Thus is Bagatti is correct and Crossan is correct then Nazareth was indeed a village at the time of Jesus.
Now to the question of "synagogue"
"Excavating Jesus" by J. D. Crossan and J. L Reed
"But in the Jewish homeland at the time of Jesus, the term "synagogue" referred primarily to a gathering, and less so to a building with an accompanying , well-defined liturgy.. . . Perhaps many gatherings took place in the village square and others in court yards or rooms of a villager's lare house, each which wuld be indistinguishable to archaeologists in their function as a synagogue."
It would appear that synagogue could either have referred to a gathering or a building.
Now I will address the issue of Jesus birth place. "The Meaning of Jesus" Marcus Borg and Tom Wright. p183
"What then is left historically from these stories? Jesus was born before the death of Herod the Great, and thus probably no later then 4 B.C.E. His parents were Mary and Joseph. He was probably born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem. He was born into a marginalized peasant class."
It would appear that at least some Scholars give the birth place of Jesus being a small hamlet of 200 to 400 (Crossan) people.
I knew my memory was bad but it certainly isn't that bad. LOL.
Shalom
Ted :-6
The Bible is more truth than lies.
sagan :-6
I would seriously suggest that you read some of the works that I have suggested.
John Spong is quite good at explaining haggadic midrash which is an ancient term that in its original form meant both a style of writing and a method of interpretation.
Fundamentalist/literalism is the heresy of the Reformation and the Renaissance. Before that time the population of the early church knew what the Bible was and how it should be read.
Basically the Bible is midrashic from cover to cover. Part of the important of midrash as far as a story goes is that it shows the value and the truth value that the writiers gave to what they were writing. Something does not have to be historical to be true and to convey truth.
The Birth stories of Yeshua are midrashic they are not historical and were never meant to be. After the followers of Jesus had experienced the reality of the Risen Lord they understood that he was indeed the Messiah. The evangelists then searched the ancient scriptures and wrote the story up accordingly thus showing the truth value they placed on Jesus as the Messiah. The stories are true they just don't happen to be historical.
An ancient first nations saying goes like this "I don't know if it actually happened this way but I do know the story is true.""Reading the Bible Again for the First Time". P50
There is so much to learn and so little time to learn it in.
As many scholars now see it there is the traditional paradigm of Christianity,: the one we all grew up with and there is the emerging paradigm. The emerging paradigm tries to understand the scriptures as they were written and what they meant at the time and then to see what they mean in terms of todays profound expansion of knowledge especially in the field of science.
I have found that the Bible has become far more powerful and profound then it ever was when I read it as a literal documant.
Shalom
Ted :-6
I would seriously suggest that you read some of the works that I have suggested.
John Spong is quite good at explaining haggadic midrash which is an ancient term that in its original form meant both a style of writing and a method of interpretation.
Fundamentalist/literalism is the heresy of the Reformation and the Renaissance. Before that time the population of the early church knew what the Bible was and how it should be read.
Basically the Bible is midrashic from cover to cover. Part of the important of midrash as far as a story goes is that it shows the value and the truth value that the writiers gave to what they were writing. Something does not have to be historical to be true and to convey truth.
The Birth stories of Yeshua are midrashic they are not historical and were never meant to be. After the followers of Jesus had experienced the reality of the Risen Lord they understood that he was indeed the Messiah. The evangelists then searched the ancient scriptures and wrote the story up accordingly thus showing the truth value they placed on Jesus as the Messiah. The stories are true they just don't happen to be historical.
An ancient first nations saying goes like this "I don't know if it actually happened this way but I do know the story is true.""Reading the Bible Again for the First Time". P50
There is so much to learn and so little time to learn it in.
As many scholars now see it there is the traditional paradigm of Christianity,: the one we all grew up with and there is the emerging paradigm. The emerging paradigm tries to understand the scriptures as they were written and what they meant at the time and then to see what they mean in terms of todays profound expansion of knowledge especially in the field of science.
I have found that the Bible has become far more powerful and profound then it ever was when I read it as a literal documant.
Shalom
Ted :-6
The Bible is more truth than lies.
koan :-6
It always delights me when I can give someone a lift during the day or evening as the case may be.
Shalom
Ted :-6
It always delights me when I can give someone a lift during the day or evening as the case may be.
Shalom
Ted :-6
The Bible is more truth than lies.
Ted & Sagan
I always love intelligent debate. It is fascinating and informative on both sides. You have both played fair and with courtesy. Kudos to you both.
:yh_clap
I always love intelligent debate. It is fascinating and informative on both sides. You have both played fair and with courtesy. Kudos to you both.
:yh_clap
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
The Bible is more truth than lies.
koan wrote: Ted & Sagan
I always love intelligent debate. It is fascinating and informative on both sides. You have both played fair and with courtesy. Kudos to you both.
:yh_clapSHALOM Koan
I always love intelligent debate. It is fascinating and informative on both sides. You have both played fair and with courtesy. Kudos to you both.
:yh_clapSHALOM Koan
The Bible is more truth than lies.
sagan :-6
The words quoted re the 2nd Cent B.C.E. come from Bagatti so I'm afraid you are not arguing with me on that one but you are indeed arguing with Bagatti.
I think Crossan has answered to that quite well. The kinds of homes they were building were not of bricks and mortar or tiles but of organic material which after this great period of time leave little behind. It was a small and inconsequential village of 200 to 400 folks. (Crossan)
However, obviously Bagatti was convinced of a small village there at that time.
As far as "synagogue" goes, once again you are not arguing with me but the scholars who have been doing the research. Some towns had actual buildings and some did not. In fact as I recall the early Christians often met in someones house and was not considered unusual.
As far as if it is all midrash and metaphor what can one offer for hope? First of all there are kernels of history in the Bible albeit often embellished beyond the reality of the time. But in answer to your question what could be more comforting and insuring then the experiential reality of the Risen Lord. Millions of Christians throughout the ages have had that experience just as I have. The Christian faith is not about believing in a person or a dogma or a doctrine it is about living in a transforming relationship with the Risen Lord and the Good News of Jesus Christ is that we can begin to experience the kingdom of God here on earth even before we enter into the entirely spritual realm following death.
The only language that we have that we can use in discussing the Divine and the infinite is metaphor. We have no language that can even come close to describing or defining the Divine. We lack the language and we lack the conceptualization ability but we know what we have experienced and it is that experience that generates the comfort and insurance that we as humans need and have found.
Once again any of us will believe what we want to believe based on whatever criteria satisfies us. After some 40+ years of formal and informal study, personal associations with a theologian and 2 scholars and having several scholars as teachers and mentors I am quite satisfied with what I have come to believe.
For me the Bible has become a far more powerful and profound book since I have come to understand something of Midrash and Metaphorical theology. I no longer have to read the Bible and play make believe because the great truths of God are to be found within the writings of the sacred scriptures.
As far a Jesus miracles etc. goes He was known as a healer, and exorcist, a great teacher, a prophet, a spirit person and eventually the "Son of God" which is and can only be a metaphor for that profundity that we as humans can never understand in our present state. I accept the above list of things for which he was known. Whether or not each of the miracles mentioned in the Bible are historically true or not is immaterial, though I do believe that some of them are and some of them are history metaphorized. "I do not know if the story actually happened this way but I do know the story to be true."
My faith is in Almighty God as seen in Yeshual of Nazareth and I need nothing else. Jesus said that we would know the truth and it would set us free and that I accept fully no matter what the truth is. I am not hung up on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
May the peace of Christ be with you.
Shalom
Ted :-6
The words quoted re the 2nd Cent B.C.E. come from Bagatti so I'm afraid you are not arguing with me on that one but you are indeed arguing with Bagatti.
I think Crossan has answered to that quite well. The kinds of homes they were building were not of bricks and mortar or tiles but of organic material which after this great period of time leave little behind. It was a small and inconsequential village of 200 to 400 folks. (Crossan)
However, obviously Bagatti was convinced of a small village there at that time.
As far as "synagogue" goes, once again you are not arguing with me but the scholars who have been doing the research. Some towns had actual buildings and some did not. In fact as I recall the early Christians often met in someones house and was not considered unusual.
As far as if it is all midrash and metaphor what can one offer for hope? First of all there are kernels of history in the Bible albeit often embellished beyond the reality of the time. But in answer to your question what could be more comforting and insuring then the experiential reality of the Risen Lord. Millions of Christians throughout the ages have had that experience just as I have. The Christian faith is not about believing in a person or a dogma or a doctrine it is about living in a transforming relationship with the Risen Lord and the Good News of Jesus Christ is that we can begin to experience the kingdom of God here on earth even before we enter into the entirely spritual realm following death.
The only language that we have that we can use in discussing the Divine and the infinite is metaphor. We have no language that can even come close to describing or defining the Divine. We lack the language and we lack the conceptualization ability but we know what we have experienced and it is that experience that generates the comfort and insurance that we as humans need and have found.
Once again any of us will believe what we want to believe based on whatever criteria satisfies us. After some 40+ years of formal and informal study, personal associations with a theologian and 2 scholars and having several scholars as teachers and mentors I am quite satisfied with what I have come to believe.
For me the Bible has become a far more powerful and profound book since I have come to understand something of Midrash and Metaphorical theology. I no longer have to read the Bible and play make believe because the great truths of God are to be found within the writings of the sacred scriptures.
As far a Jesus miracles etc. goes He was known as a healer, and exorcist, a great teacher, a prophet, a spirit person and eventually the "Son of God" which is and can only be a metaphor for that profundity that we as humans can never understand in our present state. I accept the above list of things for which he was known. Whether or not each of the miracles mentioned in the Bible are historically true or not is immaterial, though I do believe that some of them are and some of them are history metaphorized. "I do not know if the story actually happened this way but I do know the story to be true."
My faith is in Almighty God as seen in Yeshual of Nazareth and I need nothing else. Jesus said that we would know the truth and it would set us free and that I accept fully no matter what the truth is. I am not hung up on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
May the peace of Christ be with you.
Shalom
Ted :-6
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
The Bible is more truth than lies.
Re Jesus Christ, Yahweh, Allah, or whatever you like to call Him. Just hang about until He returns (Matthew 24.) and it should not be to long now.:-2
The Bible is more truth than lies.
sagan wrote: Which, sadly, makes any further discussion on this subject meaningless. Faith will always trump facts.
That there was something there is what is significant. There was something there and not barren and fallow fields. If you go to Mexico you will find the housing that will no longer be there in two thousand years. We could plant some bottle as a record of our time being there and some archaeologists will excavate the region finding our message in a bottle.
The liklihood of that happening is pretty slim at best. What remains of it is that your guess is as good as mine own? For all we know it could have been a jug tossed by someone from nearby. He could have been the Nazarene from the town that had been misplaced because someone hadn't thought to bring the maps in the minds of the folkloric up to date.
Took us a long time to get maps and even our maps have mistakes that need to be fixed. I am so glad that the people of that age and time didn't have to worry about their maps being out of whack.
We could, in this day and age, actually answer the question for once and for all with the technology and expertise that is extant. All we have to do is move everybody out of there and do a full scale research.
With the price of land and real estate in the regions the costs are sometimes killingly overpriced.
You are probably more right than wrong based on the explanation of the debate but that doesn't say that Nazareth never existed. For all we know it could have been just around the corner from where we thought it was. That doesn't mean that it wasn't there, hence, the Bible did not lie. This is like trading off the differences in size betwen pebbles and stones. All the statistics that you want are there for you to record and argue the results ad nauseum.
If we're going to be real then let's be so.
Ted said:
May the peace of Christ be with you.
sagan said:
[quoteThank you, but unnecessary. And also thank you for such a civilised debate.
Thank you for such an opening into the world of good debate. Civilised, informative, relevant. Whatever you don't call whatever it is that doesn't exist I thank you for sharing it with me.
Ted? Ditto.
That there was something there is what is significant. There was something there and not barren and fallow fields. If you go to Mexico you will find the housing that will no longer be there in two thousand years. We could plant some bottle as a record of our time being there and some archaeologists will excavate the region finding our message in a bottle.
The liklihood of that happening is pretty slim at best. What remains of it is that your guess is as good as mine own? For all we know it could have been a jug tossed by someone from nearby. He could have been the Nazarene from the town that had been misplaced because someone hadn't thought to bring the maps in the minds of the folkloric up to date.
Took us a long time to get maps and even our maps have mistakes that need to be fixed. I am so glad that the people of that age and time didn't have to worry about their maps being out of whack.
We could, in this day and age, actually answer the question for once and for all with the technology and expertise that is extant. All we have to do is move everybody out of there and do a full scale research.
With the price of land and real estate in the regions the costs are sometimes killingly overpriced.
You are probably more right than wrong based on the explanation of the debate but that doesn't say that Nazareth never existed. For all we know it could have been just around the corner from where we thought it was. That doesn't mean that it wasn't there, hence, the Bible did not lie. This is like trading off the differences in size betwen pebbles and stones. All the statistics that you want are there for you to record and argue the results ad nauseum.
If we're going to be real then let's be so.
Ted said:
May the peace of Christ be with you.
sagan said:
[quoteThank you, but unnecessary. And also thank you for such a civilised debate.
Thank you for such an opening into the world of good debate. Civilised, informative, relevant. Whatever you don't call whatever it is that doesn't exist I thank you for sharing it with me.
Ted? Ditto.
The Bible is more truth than lies.
sagan :-6
You are certainly correct about the inconsistencies in the Bible. There are numberous . But that is natural given that the Bible is a compilation of stories and some history that reflect man's response to the Divine. However, that does not negate the ancient wisdom or the truths presented in the Bible. The idea that something must be historical to be true is a product of the renaissance and the scientific era. It is however, a mistaken idea.
For instance if we look at the Birth stories of Jesus which are midrashic what we see is what the early church and the followers of Yeshua had come to believe about this man. Whatever the Easter, event or experience was, we do not really know. But is was so profound that it caused the disciples who were hiding in fear of their very lives to make a complete about face and be willing to die for their beliefs. In one way or another they had a profound sence that Jesus was still with them. The had the experiential reality of the Risen Lord as many have had down through the centuries.
This experience was profound enough to change the course of history. There is as much veracity for the truths of the Bible as there is for much of modern science. I am particularly thinking of quantum theory. We cannot see atoms nor can we see the particles that they break up into when they are smashed in an atom smasher. The only evidence we have for their existence are the traces etc. they leave behind. So it is with religous experiences. We do not have direct evidence but we do see the results of the experience just as in science.
Science does and has always accepted in many cases indirect evidence and so can we in the spiritual realm.
Shalom
Ted :-6
You are certainly correct about the inconsistencies in the Bible. There are numberous . But that is natural given that the Bible is a compilation of stories and some history that reflect man's response to the Divine. However, that does not negate the ancient wisdom or the truths presented in the Bible. The idea that something must be historical to be true is a product of the renaissance and the scientific era. It is however, a mistaken idea.
For instance if we look at the Birth stories of Jesus which are midrashic what we see is what the early church and the followers of Yeshua had come to believe about this man. Whatever the Easter, event or experience was, we do not really know. But is was so profound that it caused the disciples who were hiding in fear of their very lives to make a complete about face and be willing to die for their beliefs. In one way or another they had a profound sence that Jesus was still with them. The had the experiential reality of the Risen Lord as many have had down through the centuries.
This experience was profound enough to change the course of history. There is as much veracity for the truths of the Bible as there is for much of modern science. I am particularly thinking of quantum theory. We cannot see atoms nor can we see the particles that they break up into when they are smashed in an atom smasher. The only evidence we have for their existence are the traces etc. they leave behind. So it is with religous experiences. We do not have direct evidence but we do see the results of the experience just as in science.
Science does and has always accepted in many cases indirect evidence and so can we in the spiritual realm.
Shalom
Ted :-6
The Bible is more truth than lies.
sagan :-6
I must comment on "Faith always trumps facts." I simply don't agree with that statement. For many of us our faith is based on facts and evidence that we accept.
Lets examin faith for a moment and the places it comes into play: religion, logic, science, engineering, flight and so on. We don't mind flying because we have faith in the aircraft and so on. However, all of the above and others not mentioned are basically human constructs and humans are far from perfect and we do make mistakes.
The idea of evidence depends on the "objective" search, finding and concluding that we have objectively arrived at the evidence. However, pure ojectivity does not exist. Science and physicis especially quantum physics has clearly shown this. So when we talk about an archaeologist being Christian therefore he is biased as a scientist he is no more or less biased then any other scientist in the world. We all bring our biases to our work and our research
Atheists are biased just as much as Chritsians or a member of any other faith. Scientists are biased just as much as anyone else. Any hint of "objectivity" is immediately contaminated by the bias of the observer. And now apparently the observer can even influence the outcome of his research by the very fact of observation.
I will grant sagan one point here. I have personally found the fundamentalit/literalist who professes his Christianity does demonstrate more bias then the more liberal. The more liberal have nothing to lose and everything to gain since they are out for the truth and not out to make the archaeological finds correspond to the Bible which in most cases it does not.
With objectivity being a problem and bias being another we each believe what we choose to believe.
Shalom
Ted :-6
I must comment on "Faith always trumps facts." I simply don't agree with that statement. For many of us our faith is based on facts and evidence that we accept.
Lets examin faith for a moment and the places it comes into play: religion, logic, science, engineering, flight and so on. We don't mind flying because we have faith in the aircraft and so on. However, all of the above and others not mentioned are basically human constructs and humans are far from perfect and we do make mistakes.
The idea of evidence depends on the "objective" search, finding and concluding that we have objectively arrived at the evidence. However, pure ojectivity does not exist. Science and physicis especially quantum physics has clearly shown this. So when we talk about an archaeologist being Christian therefore he is biased as a scientist he is no more or less biased then any other scientist in the world. We all bring our biases to our work and our research
Atheists are biased just as much as Chritsians or a member of any other faith. Scientists are biased just as much as anyone else. Any hint of "objectivity" is immediately contaminated by the bias of the observer. And now apparently the observer can even influence the outcome of his research by the very fact of observation.
I will grant sagan one point here. I have personally found the fundamentalit/literalist who professes his Christianity does demonstrate more bias then the more liberal. The more liberal have nothing to lose and everything to gain since they are out for the truth and not out to make the archaeological finds correspond to the Bible which in most cases it does not.
With objectivity being a problem and bias being another we each believe what we choose to believe.
Shalom
Ted :-6
The Bible is more truth than lies.
Ted wrote: sagan :-6
I must comment on "Faith always trumps facts." I simply don't agree with that statement. For many of us our faith is based on facts and evidence that we accept.
With objectivity being a problem and bias being another we each believe what we choose to believe.
Atheists are biased just as much as Chritsians or a member of any other faith.
Shalom
Ted :-6
One of my favourite made up phrases is: Racists come in all sizes shapes and colours. I've made an animation to the effect.
Could it be that this could be translatable as religionists come... .
Do you think that I could sell some of these to the churches. You know?
I must comment on "Faith always trumps facts." I simply don't agree with that statement. For many of us our faith is based on facts and evidence that we accept.
With objectivity being a problem and bias being another we each believe what we choose to believe.
Atheists are biased just as much as Chritsians or a member of any other faith.
Shalom
Ted :-6
One of my favourite made up phrases is: Racists come in all sizes shapes and colours. I've made an animation to the effect.
Could it be that this could be translatable as religionists come... .
Do you think that I could sell some of these to the churches. You know?