Cam42 Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 03:23 PM']As we get into the "when" of scripture, may I suggest this very general timeline of events in the Old Testament to compare with the scripture. Creation and Adam 6000 BC Noah and the Flood 3000 BC Abraham 2000 BC Joseph (Egypt) 1700 BC Moses 1500 BC Conquest of Canaan 1400 BC Saul, David, Solomon 1000 BC Assyrian Invasion of Judah 700 BC Babylonian Captivity 600 BC Rebuilding of Temple 500 BC Greek occupation 300 BC Roman occupation100 BC, Dates are only approximate and have been rounded off. [right][snapback]619494[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well, that clearly cannot be trusted....how do we know when it acutally happened....you may be off by at least 10 years. And that is far to long a time for accuracy's sake.
LittleLes Posted June 23, 2005 Author Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 22 2005, 05:33 PM']Well, that clearly cannot be trusted....how do we know when it acutally happened....you may be off by at least 10 years. And that is far to long a time for accuracy's sake. [right][snapback]619754[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: No. I think the rounded figure is sufficient for the reader to get an idea of the timelines involved. If the need arises, then we can try for more specific dating, if this is even possible. And please note that not all the events listed may have even happened or happened as described in scripture. For example, do you think that Adam and Eve were really created in 6000 B.C.?
Cam42 Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 07:26 PM']RESPONSE: No. I think the rounded figure is sufficient for the reader to get an idea of the timelines involved. If the need arises, then we can try for more specific dating, if this is even possible. And please note that not all the events listed may have even happened or happened as described in scripture. For example, do you think that Adam and Eve were really created in 6000 B.C.? [right][snapback]619883[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.....wasn't it you who were quibbling over 13 years of separation on another thread not so very long ago? I believe that you were. [quote name=' Who was Paul: Cam42'] I have offered proof that is contemporary to the Ebionite sect and you poo poo it for being too modern, because it 13 years outside your ridiculous criteria.[/quote] That was in response to your nutso claim that St. Iraneus' works were too modern, because they were written 13 years after some arbitrary number, which apparently you can change when you feel the whimiscal need. Not very scholarly.
LittleLes Posted June 23, 2005 Author Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 22 2005, 08:36 PM']Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.....wasn't it you who were quibbling over 13 years of separation on another thread not so very long ago? I believe that you were. [quote name=' Who was Paul: Cam42'] I have offered proof that is contemporary to the Ebionite sect and you poo poo it for being too modern, because it 13 years outside your ridiculous criteria.[/quote] That was in response to your nutso claim that St. Iraneus' works were too modern, because they were written 13 years after some arbitrary number, which apparently you can change when you feel the whimiscal need. Not very scholarly. [right][snapback]619996[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Perhaps if you can recall what was involved, we can deal with it. In some cases a decade can make a difference. An example is the decade between Herod's death in 4 B.C, and Quirinus becoming governor of Syria in 6 A.D. evidencing that Luke's narrative is incorrect. But whether Adam and Eve were created in 6000 B.C or in 6010 BC really wouldn't be significant since the date is spurious to begin with.
Cam42 Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 09:13 PM'] That was in response to your nutso claim that St. Iraneus' works were too modern, because they were written 13 years after some arbitrary number, which apparently you can change when you feel the whimiscal need. Not very scholarly. [right][snapback]619996[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Perhaps if you can recall what was involved, we can deal with it. In some cases a decade can make a difference. An example is the decade between Herod's death in 4 B.C, and Quirinus becoming governor of Syria in 6 A.D. evidencing that Luke's narrative is incorrect. But whether Adam and Eve were created in 6000 B.C or in 6010 BC really wouldn't be significant since the date is spurious to begin with. [right][snapback]620027[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You know exactly what I am talking about....you are caught.....sorry....you can't have it both ways.....you are right, it is spurious....on your part.
LittleLes Posted June 23, 2005 Author Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 22 2005, 09:15 PM'] RESPONSE: Perhaps if you can recall what was involved, we can deal with it. In some cases a decade can make a difference. An example is the decade between Herod's death in 4 B.C, and Quirinus becoming governor of Syria in 6 A.D. evidencing that Luke's narrative is incorrect. But whether Adam and Eve were created in 6000 B.C or in 6010 BC really wouldn't be significant since the date is spurious to begin with. [right][snapback]620027[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You know exactly what I am talking about....you are caught.....sorry....you can't have it both ways.....you are right, it is spurious....on your part. [right][snapback]620028[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: No CAM. As usual we don't know what you are talking about. But since you are off topic, I'll press on with mine.
Cam42 Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 23 2005, 06:39 AM']You know exactly what I am talking about....you are caught.....sorry....you can't have it both ways.....you are right, it is spurious....on your part. [right][snapback]620028[/snapback][/right] [/quote] [quote]RESPONSE: No CAM. As usual we don't know what you are talking about. But since you are off topic, I'll press on with mine. [right][snapback]620309[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You may not, but ignorance is not above reproach, especially feigned ignorance. [quote name='LittleLes @ Mar 7 2005' date=' 06:57 PM']Ah Yes. It is alwyas "an indisputable fact..." according to the Catholic Encyclopedia when they have no evidence to support their "party line" position. It's really very simple. Please provide a reliable citation written within 100 years of Peters death that establishes that he was ever the bishop of Rome. Claims from the third, fourth or fifth century are not reliable historically. LittleLes[/quote] I provide proof that Peter was Pope based on documents which were written 113 years after his death. You go on to say: [quote name='LittleLes @ Mar 8 2005' date=' 01:43 PM ']Sorry Cam, Over a hundred years and legend has had plenty of time to develop. And if you examine the original text, the names Peter and Paul do not appear in the section of AH 3.3.3 which you quoted. Nor does the word "Rome" appear before the word church. This is a good example of the practice I mentioned earlier about implying something the text does not really say. And, of course, Iranaeus wrote in Greek, and only later Latin translations survive. Where do you suppose they came from? As I make my way through the writing purported to be of the early church fathers, I may want to discuss this translation in some detail. I just started with Eusebius today. LittleLes [/quote] I hold to my original thought.... [quote]That was in response to your nutso claim that St. Iraneus' works were too modern, because they were written 13 years after some arbitrary number, which apparently you can change when you feel the whimiscal need.[/quote] You can't even keep to your own criteria......so I will say this: Rounding the dates is not sufficient. That allows for plenty of time for legend to develop. And it is not very accurate. I would suggest that if you are going to list dates, that you should be accurate....within 20 minutes of writing or so. I wouldn't want you to think that the texts are too modern.
LittleLes Posted June 23, 2005 Author Posted June 23, 2005 Oh golly! Somebody created a thread titled "LittleLes"! I'm so honored! But there are only two posts. The first poster evidently has an open mind. The second evidently does not! But pressing on with the "who" and "when" questions about Genesis, we have these factoids: (1) I listed the arbitrary date of the creation of man as about 6,000 B.C. Some references put this at 4000 B.C. A reoccuring figure is 5315 A.D., but I don't know how it is derived. Whatever the case, the existence of humans for 80,000 to 150,000 years although popular with scientists, seems to be in dispute. (Dating Abraham at about 2,000 B.C. is less controversial) . (2) The creation account in Genesis is a doublet, ie., there are really two differing account, in Genesis chapter 1, and Genesis chapter 2. It is thought that the Priestly writer wrote chapter 1 and the Jehovist wrote chapter 2. And they were both retained by the redactor. To illustrate, regarding the creation of woman, she was either created along with man: Gen 1:27: "God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them." or she was created later from man's rib Gen 2:22 "The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. " (3) But the first four chapters of Genesis contain an interesting puzzle; We know that there were originally four people involved: Adam, Eve, and their sons, Cain and Abel. (Later other children). Yet: Gen 4:13 -18: Cain said to the LORD: "My punishment is too great to bear. Since you have now banished me from the soil, and I must avoid your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, anyone may kill me at sight." Not so!" the LORD said to him. "If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged sevenfold." So the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight. Cain then left the LORD'S presence and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain had relations with his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. Cain also became the founder of a city, which he named after his son Enoch. " Questions: (a) Where did the "anyone" come from if they were not Cain's family members? (b) Where did Cain find a wife in the land of Nod? This strongly implies that there were other first parents besides Adam and Eve.
LittleLes Posted June 23, 2005 Author Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 23 2005, 07:07 AM']You may not, but ignorance is not above reproach, especially feigned ignorance. I provide proof that Peter was Pope based on documents which were written 113 years after his death. You go on to say: I hold to my original thought.... You can't even keep to your own criteria......so I will say this: Rounding the dates is not sufficient. That allows for plenty of time for legend to develop. And it is not very accurate. I would suggest that if you are going to list dates, that you should be accurate....within 20 minutes of writing or so. I wouldn't want you to think that the texts are too modern. [right][snapback]620312[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Sorry CAM. There is no reliable evidence that Peter was ever a bishop of Rome. And, of course, Popes hadn't even been invented yet. We'd agree to a point about legends . In the case of Genesis, there was plenty of time for a legend to develop. In fact, several different fables did. You aren't really claiming tht the creation of man as described in Genesis is historical, are you.
LittleLes Posted June 23, 2005 Author Posted June 23, 2005 And in Genesis 6 and 7, we find another one of those doublets, two accounts of the Flood narrative which differ significantly in detail. For example: Gen 6::20 Of all other living creatures you shall bring two into the ark, one male and one female, that you may keep them alive with you. Of all kinds of birds, of all kinds of beasts, and of all kinds of creeping things, two of each shall come into the ark with you, to stay alive. (Thought to be of Jahwist origin). Or Gen 7:2-3 Of every clean animal, take with you seven pairs, a male and its mate; and of the unclean animals, one pair, a male and its mate; likewise, of every clean bird of the air, seven pairs, a male and a female, and of all the unclean birds, one pair, a male and a female.(Thought to be of the Priestly Source). And does this legend sound familiar? ‘O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu: Tear down the house and build a boat! Abandon wealth and seek living beings! Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings! Make all living beings go up into the boat. The boat which you are to build, its dimensions must measure equal to each other: its length must correspond to its width.' It's the Legend of Gilgamesh found at two locations on cruniform tables which are far earlier in origin than the Bible. Comparing the Gilgamesh legend to Genesis' Flood narrative shows that in may respects, they are identical. And the Gilgamesh legend was developed by a Sumarian people which are Semites also.
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 05:21 PM']Descriptions of events in the Old Testmant sometimes give a clue as to when these passages were written. For example, in the 11th century, the camel begins to appear in cuneiform texts and reliefs from the area. Gen 37:25 in describing the kidnapping of Joseph reports thus: "They then sat down to their meal. Looking up, they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, their camels laden with gum, balm and resin to be taken down to Egypt. " Joseph in Egypt is suppose to date from about 1700 B.C., but at that point camels hadn't been introduced to the MidEast. So if camels are described so matter of factly, it seems that this account had to have been written sometime after the 11th century B.C.and the introduction of the camel. [right][snapback]619717[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Please cite a source saying camels appeared in the mid-east in the 11th century BC and no earlier. I have a source saying it was probably between 4000 BC and 1400 BC, and 1700 BC is much closer to the latest date than the earliest date. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromedary"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromedary[/url]
LittleLes Posted June 23, 2005 Author Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Jun 23 2005, 10:46 AM']Please cite a source saying camels appeared in the mid-east in the 11th century BC and no earlier. I have a source saying it was probably between 4000 BC and 1400 BC, and 1700 BC is much closer to the latest date than the earliest date. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromedary"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromedary[/url] [right][snapback]620476[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: You might be correct, but here's my reference: The Camel and the Wheel, Richard W. Bulliet, Columbia:1990 (orig. ed. 1975). From these references [Genesis] a pattern of camel use can be extrapolated that seems very much in consonance with later Middle Eastern society: the camel forming part of a bride price, a small caravan of camels crossing the desert from Palestine to Iraq, a woman perched atop a camel loaded with camp goods, merchants carrying incense to Egypt. This entire vision, however, both original text and extrapolated image, has been categorically rejected by W.F. Albright, one of the foremost scholars of Biblical history and Palestinian archaeology and the person whose opinion on camel domestication is most frequently encountered. According to Albright, any mention of camels in the period of Abraham is a blatant anachronism, the product of later priestly tampering with the earlier texts in order to bring more in line with altered social conditions. The Semites of the time of Abraham, he maintains, herded sheep, goats, and donkeys but not camels, for the latter had not yet been domesticated and did not really enter the orbit of Biblical history until about 1100-1000 BC with the coming of the Midianites, the camel riding foes of Gideon." pages35-36] The Bible itself associated the coming of the camels with the Midianites, but I'll have to agree with you that the evidence isn't clear cut and there are reasonable but differing opinions. LittleLes
Cam42 Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 23 2005, 07:29 AM']RESPONSE: Sorry CAM. There is no reliable evidence that Peter was ever a bishop of Rome. And, of course, Popes hadn't even been invented yet. We'd agree to a point about legends . In the case of Genesis, there was plenty of time for a legend to develop. In fact, several different fables did. You aren't really claiming tht the creation of man as described in Genesis is historical, are you. [right][snapback]620321[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Weighed and measured......and you have been found wanting..... again.
Didacus Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 04:44 PM']RESPONSE: Which of Cardinal Ratzinger's arguments are you supporting exactly and why? Or do you just like his writing in general without analysis of his content? And which form of historical criticism is he talking about? All of them? Or only a few in particular? If all, then he is in disagreement with Pope Pius XII: " In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles." [right][snapback]619668[/snapback][/right] [/quote] i must admit I have insufficient knowledge to pose any proper critique of Ratzinger's writtings, so I guess I am just a fan of sorts. i just pay attention, try and learn something new or two and occasionally ask a question to try and look smarter than I really am, like "So what do you think of my new avatar?". There are a few statements within the Ratzinger writting that I understand well enough to say "Yes, I am in agreement with this statement.." of those I've posted a couple on the thread. In general though, I am cross reading his writting with a dictionary, trying to grasp certain paragraphs on a sentence by sentence basis. I think I will have to re-read it a few times over again before understanding all of it properly. Yes I know... I can be slow at times...i keep waiting for a thread that talks about thermodynamics... now THAT would be my game!
LittleLes Posted June 24, 2005 Author Posted June 24, 2005 [quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 24 2005, 06:27 AM']i must admit I have insufficient knowledge to pose any proper critique of Ratzinger's writtings, so I guess I am just a fan of sorts. i just pay attention, try and learn something new or two and occasionally ask a question to try and look smarter than I really am, like "So what do you think of my new avatar?". There are a few statements within the Ratzinger writting that I understand well enough to say "Yes, I am in agreement with this statement.." of those I've posted a couple on the thread. In general though, I am cross reading his writting with a dictionary, trying to grasp certain paragraphs on a sentence by sentence basis. I think I will have to re-read it a few times over again before understanding all of it properly. Yes I know... I can be slow at times...i keep waiting for a thread that talks about thermodynamics... now THAT would be my game! [right][snapback]621366[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Yes. Unfortunately "Writing for Clear Reading" isn't a course taught in the seminaries. To be easily understandable, a sentence should not be longer than 18 works (See Flesch et al). Or the sentence should be divided into two sentences. For fun sometime, see if you can find any encyclicals or writings by church leaders that observe this rule.
Cam42 Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 07:45 AM']RESPONSE: Yes. Unfortunately "Writing for Clear Reading" isn't a course taught in the seminaries. To be easily understandable, a sentence should not be longer than 18 works (See Flesch et al). Or the sentence should be divided into two sentences. For fun sometime, see if you can find any encyclicals or writings by church leaders that observe this rule. [right][snapback]621370[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That is a totally ridiculous statement....Just because you can't read those sentences doesn't mean that they are not important nor are they coherent. I mean, seriously, you write sentences that are 10 WORDS long and you don't manke any sense at all. This is akin to the 100 year rule you created in March. Lunacy. Utter lunacy.
Didacus Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 06:45 AM']RESPONSE: Yes. Unfortunately "Writing for Clear Reading" isn't a course taught in the seminaries. To be easily understandable, a sentence should not be longer than 18 works (See Flesch et al). Or the sentence should be divided into two sentences. For fun sometime, see if you can find any encyclicals or writings by church leaders that observe this rule. [right][snapback]621370[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I believe their form of writting is correct and precise. Just that the audience to whom it was intended is a little more knowledgable than myself - trying to fix that, but it takes time and dedication to gain knowledge. I admit the ideas posted by Ratzinger (aka, papa Benedict XVI) is abstract, but that does not necessarily take away the validity of his ideas. One simply has to read with an open mind, and seek to understand what one does not rather than simply condem it. (but then again, that's just me talking... )
LittleLes Posted June 24, 2005 Author Posted June 24, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 24 2005, 06:55 AM']That is a totally ridiculous statement....Just because you can't read those sentences doesn't mean that they are not important nor are they coherent. I mean, seriously, you write sentences that are 10 WORDS long and you don't manke any sense at all. This is akin to the 100 year rule you created in March. Lunacy. Utter lunacy. [right][snapback]621372[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Actually, you might want to ask your librarian to obtain a copy of Dr. Flesch's works on clear writing, classics in their field. The 18 word reccomendation is his, not mine. The only reason I'm aware of it is that the Air Force and a number of large companies, in an effort to improve internal and external communications, took up Flesch's recommentations and made them doctrine for their employees. And you again did not specify what you are referring to, but if it is the guideline that histories originally written one hundred years or more after the event are generally not witnessed or otherwise first hand accounts, and may not be entirely reliable, it's only common sense. For this reason, if I were to write a histroy of the Civil War from the top of my head, it might not be entirely historically accurate. The fundamental flaw you kept making was confusing different issues: if there was any historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome with whether there was any reliable historical evidence that he was, in fact, the bishop of Rome. But I would agree that unless it can be at least established that he was in fact in Rome, the question of his being a bishop there is largely moot!
LittleLes Posted June 24, 2005 Author Posted June 24, 2005 [quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 24 2005, 06:56 AM']I believe their form of writting is correct and precise. Just that the audience to whom it was intended is a little more knowledgable than myself - trying to fix that, but it takes time and dedication to gain knowledge. I admit the ideas posted by Ratzinger (aka, papa Benedict XVI) is abstract, but that does not necessarily take away the validity of his ideas. One simply has to read with an open mind, and seek to understand what one does not rather than simply condem it. (but then again, that's just me talking... ) [right][snapback]621373[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: I agree with what you say. But one of the first rules of writing is to analyze the audience (the eventual readers). Then appropriate guidelines can be determined. However, in reading Ratzinger (or others), it is necessary to analyze objectively exactly just what they are saying, not how well they say it.
Didacus Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 07:18 AM']RESPONSE: I agree with what you say. But one of the first rules of writing is to analyze the audience (the eventual readers). Then appropriate guidelines can be determined. However, in reading Ratzinger (or others), it is necessary to analyze objectively exactly just what they are saying, not how well they say it. [right][snapback]621381[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That is just my point, I am NOt in the intended audience. I am trying to squeeze in... And yes, I do try to adhere to the contents and not the wording. But I do need to understand wording before getting to the meaning of the text. So what do you think of my avatar?
Recommended Posts