Does anybody else wish there were more intelligent, well educated scholars of the bible making compelling arguments for the truth and accuracy of the bible?
The historical accuracy of the bible from an archeological perspective, the divine prophecy of the bible being accurately fulfilled, the historicity of figures in the bible. All of these things in a compelling argument for it possibly being god's inspired word?
It's not that I believe nor want to believe but rather I find it disheartening how few compelling arguments exist, yet how pervasive the bible is on history and simply the culture surround life as we know it. Everywhere I go I find more questions than answers which often lead to uninformed opinions. The bible is so polarizing that it seems to find anyone who is truly objective about it. It's either wholesale dismissed or blindly believed or somebody else masquerading as one side or the other to convince them the other side is correct.
I mean at this point I'd think intelligent people would simply start getting bored and play devil's advocate FOR the bible. Everywhere I go I just can't seem to find any compelling discussion.
There are plenty of scholars of religion around who analyze the bible and other holy books in a historical context. Same for theologians who try to debate religion rationally without all the shit-flinging.
brace for >rationally
You won't find many of either here, obviously, though some people do try bless their hearts.
>>481091
>Does anybody else wish there were more intelligent, well educated scholars of the bible making compelling arguments for the truth and accuracy of the bible?
There are plenty of them. They're theologians.
>truth…accuracy
You haven't considered what these mean theologically and are attempting to impose your feeble human rationality onto the works of god.
>The historical accuracy of the bible from an archeological perspective
Doesn't exist. These are rational human disciplines that reject the role of the divine in history and archaeology respectively. The post-patriarchal redaction of the myths of a levantine hill tribe who had some run ins with sea people and babylon aren't.
>the divine prophecy of the bible being accurately fulfilled, the historicity of figures in the bible. All of these things in a compelling argument for it possibly being god's inspired word?
God you're contemptuous of divinity. You're less humble before the divine than Luther, and more self-inflated with rationality.
>yet how pervasive the bible is on history
It isn't. Start reading the archaeology of the ancient levant and some serious theological works on the redactive process of the torah. And this is THEOLOGY you're missing out on and wrong on.
I bet you can't even name the consort of Yahweh, or Yahweh's role in the pantheon before the Jerusalem temple started redacting him as a sole god?
I bet you think the Samaritans were theologically wrong… given that innovation happened in Jerusalem, the Samaritans are probably the old school. Also, of course, tax issue.
>>481091
>Does anybody else wish there were more intelligent, well educated scholars of the bible making compelling arguments for the truth and accuracy of the bible?
Well, we have about 2000 years worth. Even in modern day, InterestingPhilosophy and Dei Verbum come to mind.
>historical accuracy
It takes lots of searching, but I can guarantee that the exodus fits in.
Honestly I would "intelligently discuss" the Bible with others but it usually ends in vain denominational bickering and people getting confused/bored.
>>481240
>There are plenty of them. They're theologians.
Being a theologian =/= offering compelling arguments. Maybe among your peers but what about your average truth seeking human? I haven't found any that cause me to reconsider my beliefs any more than the drivel I found on social sites.
>impose your feeble human rationality onto the works of god
What does this even mean?
>Doesn't exist
That doesn't mean it can't exist. If you believe it can't exist then you are merely spreading your beliefs and no better than anybody else.
>It isn't.
The bible has had an unmistakable impact on the history.
>I bet you can't even name the consort of Yahweh, or Yahweh's role in the pantheon before the Jerusalem temple started redacting him as a sole god?
>I bet you think the Samaritans were theologically wrong… given that innovation happened in Jerusalem, the Samaritans are probably the old school. Also, of course, tax issue.
Baiting and insulting sure is a great way to start a discussion. Or just you know, start your own thread if you want to change the topic that much.
>>481240
>There are plenty of them. They're theologians.
My half cent concerning theologians is that they're just learning to be priests or to help the priest industry in some other way. In other ways, practicing their faith.
I haven't heard of atheist theologians actually.
>>481335
>I haven't found any that cause me to reconsider my beliefs any more than the drivel I found on social sites.
Get a subscription to a peer reviewed journal or 10.
>That doesn't mean it can't exist.
No, the disciplines of history and archaeology RULE OUT THE DIVINE AT A DISCIPLINARY LEVEL.
Largely to stop your kind of eisegetic shitposting from low quality sources and inside your own mind.
And for someone who claims to have read theology, I bet you're busy looking up what eisegetic means, aren't you? Fucking cunt.
>The bible has had an unmistakable impact on the history.
Yes, and? This doesn't mean that its contents have historicity. Texts of fabrication and texts of truth all have impacts on history. The Quran has a vast impact on history as a text, that doesn't mean that a striving small businessman actually heard god in a cave.
>Baiting and insulting sure is a great way to start a discussion.
>Can't name Yahweh's consort, or his role in the prior pantheon.
>Can't describe Samaritan disputes.
You know nothing about theology or the history of the people who would claim to be Israel.
You are a shitposting baptist cunt.
>>481358
>My half cent concerning theologians is that they're just learning to be priests or to help the priest industry in some other way. In other ways, practicing their faith.
They're as much theologians as a BA graduate is a historian.
>I haven't heard of atheist theologians actually.
There are plenty of them. It is an academic discipline with set rules.
>>481385
>Get a subscription to a peer reviewed journal or 10
The same information gets regurgitated on social sites. Not to mention I can easily pirate any documents contained within.
>No, the disciplines of history and archaeology RULE OUT THE DIVINE AT A DISCIPLINARY LEVEL
Okay buzzword boy.
>And for someone who claims to have read theology, I bet you're busy looking up what eisegetic means, aren't you? Fucking cunt.
It's drivel like you who applauds their own perceived intellect that is the cancer for any meaningful form of discussion.
>You know nothing about theology or the history of the people who would claim to be Israel.
>You are a shitposting baptist cunt.
find a new hobby/10
and fuck off to your own thread
>>481416
A high standard of discourse is expected.
You are unaware of central problems in the historical religions of the levant.
You are unaware of central concepts of reading divine texts.
You reject scholarship out of hand.
You do not belong here, go find some other board. >>>/b/ would be on topic for you.
>>481436
cool strawman bro you really told me. since you're so acquainted with b perhaps you should stay there.
your tangent is neither interesting nor compelling what's worse if you're a mental midget. now gtfo
>>481454
A high standard of discourse is expected.
You are unaware of central problems in the historical religions of the levant.
You are unaware of central concepts of reading divine texts.
You reject scholarship out of hand.
>>481469
A person who knows nothing about me making baseless accusations is surely the type of person whom I think holds superior knowledge!
A person who can't even use a basic discussion topic for its intended purpose is also the exact kind of person I suspect to be of superior intellect.
Truly, whatever the fuck you're droning on about is what we should be talking about. And having a vocab that proves you graduated high school means ain't nobody here got shit on you.
Really, why won't you start your own thread? Mine isn't for you. Discussion boards, how do they work?
>>481485
Did you look up what eisegesis is?
Your thread is rule 6 mate.
>>481488
I couldn't be more specific to the topics of my interest. Devolving the topic into specifics about your own personal way of thinking is of no interest to me. Goodbye.
>>481436
We're all here to learn, you fucking cunt. Discussion doesn't have to be between two highly educated theologians such as you. If you know shit the OP doesn't, go and tell him (and us) about it instead of going "how DARE you try to discuss something you don't know as well as me?" and masturbating.
>>481335
>Being a theologian =/= offering compelling arguments.
If they work for a secular institution such as Yale School of Divinity then you would want to remove the /
Why don't you try the Yale OCWs in the Old & New Testaments? Did you do any research before opening this thread? Do you even have the Oxford Annotated Bible?
>>481521
An intelligent person would always assume the other person may be not be as well versed as they are but also be capable of capitulating their viewpoints without even needing their to know their knowledge level to do so.
It's obvious that the bible isn't telling the truth
Do you believe everything you read?
>>481561
>would always assume
No, an intelligent person would observe from the composition of the text who their interlocutor was.
In OP's case they're a pathetic back water baptist who doesn't even know the documentary hypothesis (Graf).
>>481566
I would wonder why anybody with such esoteric interests would waste their time blabbering on about a topic they know nothing of in fact it's almost like you have to start questioning the person who is making apples to oranges comparisons and goes in head first with insult tier debate.
>>481566
I haven't seen OP "attacking" anything. His worst crime is trying to talk about something he doesn't know much about.
Besides, /his/ is much more open than /sci/, since it covers humanities. You can't go and get offended at everyone who posts without being knowledgeable enough on a French gastronomy board.
>>481596
I can expect that someone who claims to have read [social media] as their source on theology because [this is equivalent to reading peer reviewed theology journals] so much so that they claim that theology as a discipline is utterly irrelevant to reading the bible in contexts is a stupid fucking cunt who doesn't belong here.
>>481604
it seems more to me like the term social media is a trigger for you and you didn't consider the possibility OP was referring to social media in a generic context, which would include discussion boards such as the one you're on or any other platform for discussion online where social media is present.
>>481604
I'd say that not replying in an informative way to prevent OP from going on about shit he doesn't even understand is being a bigger cunt. Shit like
>I bet you think...
is being an arrogant ass regardless of how correct you are. There's enough shitposting on /his/, leave your poison for other boards.
>>481611
OP's belief that any form of social media is a substitute for reading scholarly texts and their dismissal of the scholarly discipline of Theology, the appropriate Humanity and the reason why this would not be off topic, is what gets to me mate.
>>481617
If OP was able to answer the two shibboleths I posed, then I would consider them an anti-disciplinary baptist theologian who is an autodidact. It was, in fact, a generous test.
But they weren't. They don't even have a basic interest in the theology of christianity to know two core shibboleths.
>>481620
>OP's belief that any form of social media is a substitute for reading scholarly texts
OP doesn't believe that. Discussion boards are where you...discuss topics of interest. Interest stems from already reading various texts. You're putting the cart before the horse. For a person who believes they're worthy of having a discussion with, you have a remarkable inability to comprehend what you're reading.
The very fact you must question OP's knowledge is a very proof of the topic. A good piece of text would be understood and compelling even to those with little knowledge on the subject, not even needing scholarly level insight to form a discussion with.
>>481635
What if they're just a random dude trying to inform himself about interesting shit but not looking at the right places? Why do they have to belong to a specific denomination and be tested by you?
I fucking swear, I've gotten violent with smart dumbasses (or dumb smartasses) like you. Fucking arrogant. But I'm done arguing since I understand your side better. But stop that shit, we're all here to learn and basically telling people "you're not the kind of people who deserves to be informed, fuck off" is making you a piece of crap of a person as far as discussing simple things goes.
Fuck I can't even spellcheck myself. I'm buttmad, congratulations.
>>481635
The fact is you're so bad at conveying what you know that you can't do so without those around you being of an extremely esoteric field of knowledge.
To compare what you're doing to another topic I know very well: I can discuss anything technology related with anyone regardless of their intelligence level and make it palpable to them. Whereas you can't even begin to form a basic discussion with jumping straight to insults.
>>481650
>>OP's belief that any form of social media is a substitute for reading scholarly texts
>OP doesn't believe that.
>>481416
>>Get a subscription to a peer reviewed journal or 10
>The same information gets regurgitated on social sites.
Do you enjoy demonstrating that you are illiterate, idiotic or a liar?
>For a person who believes they're worthy of having a discussion with
You're OP. You display the same ad hominem approach as previously :
>A person who knows nothing about me making baseless accusations is surely the type of person whom I think holds superior knowledge!
The language and phrasing is very close, as is the gender neutral 2nd person.
Most telling is the idea that you believe I care what you think of me.
OP: you are a liar, a cad, a falsifier.
>>481668
Are you a teacher?
>>481660
>What if they're just a random dude trying to inform himself about interesting shit but not looking at the right places?
If OP were looking to inform himself, he wouldn't have such a poor opinion of scholarly theology. My experience of people who look to learn is that they don't start by pissing all over the structured ways of knowing that exist in a field like a naughty puppy.
>Why do they have to belong to a specific denomination and be tested by you?
They don't have to, they just do, because of their anti-theological, anti-scholarly, biblical literalist bent.
Why do they have to be tested? Because maybe I'm generous enough, and willing to, talk with insane autodidacts from sterile cults; but I'm unwilling to talk to fucking idiots, so I inserted an idiot test. Maybe because anti-disciplinary practices when advanced by a thoughtful autodidact are sufficiently powerful challenges to disciplinarity to represent an "on-topic" post rather than a rule 6.
>I fucking swear, I've gotten violent with smart dumbasses
I will cut off your big toes and feed them to you. Give me an address.
>we're all here to learn
OP isn't. OP has attacked the discipline, refuses the literature, and holds a belief beyond argument. OP is here to smear ignorant shit on the walls.
>>481665
>being of an extremely esoteric field of knowledge.
Hey, let's talk about theology. The standard of knowledge required is any knowledge what-so-ever about theology.
Esoteric like a fox.
>I can discuss anything technology related with anyone regardless of their intelligence level and make it palpable to them.
While someone is shouting at you that technology doesn't exist with their fingers in their ears?
>>481685
>Are you a teacher?
Yes.
But I'm not being paid to be one here am I? My going rate for short run pick-up contracts is $2700 an hour.
>>481700
>Hey, let's talk about theology. The standard of knowledge required is any knowledge what-so-ever about theology.
>Theology is the narrow set of questions I posit!
The problem is that you believe you need to create a litmus test before having a discussion with anybody. A compelling discussion would need no such thing.
>While someone is shouting at you that technology doesn't exist with their fingers in their ears?
It's time to stop posting.
>>481723
>The problem is that you believe you need to create a litmus test before having a discussion with anybody.
OP's post was the first test. It was pig fucking ignorant. There is nothing "compelling" in OP.
>A compelling discussion.
>>481091
>making compelling arguments for the truth and accuracy of the bible?
>>481700
>If OP were looking to inform himself, he wouldn't have such a poor opinion of scholarly theology. My experience of people who look to learn is that they don't start by pissing all over the structured ways of knowing that exist in a field like a naughty puppy.
I'm not saying OP isn't a fucking idiot. But he is curious enough to try and discuss and ask questions. It's by learning that you stop being a moron, not the other way.
>>481715
>Yes.
You act just like those stuck-up teachers I've known, who act intellectually superior to people they deem to be idiots because they can't help but be proud of their knowledge.
As I said above, if OP was a complete bumbling retard unworthy of discussion, he wouldn't even have bothered making a thread or starting with a question and would go straight to shitposting on other threads instead. You don't stop being stupid toward learning information by being told you're too fucking stupid when trying to discuss it. This is an imageboard about humanities, not a class lesson or an exercise.
I've gotten into violent run-ins with every teacher I've had who acted like you so I'm just going to quit posting, go to bed and cherish my toes. Have a nice day and please don't shit up threads like that when they could be an occasion for the OP to realize his opinions are uneducated.
>>481754
>You act just like those stuck-up teachers I've known, who act intellectually superior to people they deem to be idiots because they can't help but be proud of their knowledge.
Like I said, $2700 an hour and you get me while teaching rather than me on my own time.
>As I said above, if OP was a complete bumbling retard unworthy of discussion, he wouldn't even have bothered making a thread or starting with a question and would go straight to shitposting on other threads instead.
Instead OP went straight to shitposting.
>This is an imageboard about humanities
Really? I thought it was an imageboard for uninformed backwater cretins to shit all over the humanities in their cultivated ignorance.
>Have a nice day and please don't shit up threads like that when they could be an occasion for the OP to realize his opinions are uneducated.
OP got that chance, and proceeded to attack disciplinary theology.
>>481744
> There is nothing "compelling" in OP.
you've made it clear you don't find my topic compelling but keep posting in it. how...ironic.
>>481804
Listen Jimmy. You're on the internet right now. What that means is that no matter how much you value your unique snowflake opinion, anything you say can be easily researched by anyone at any time, provided they're willing to put in the effort. Now Jimmy I know you're an intelligent man, you seem to seek like minded discussion but
Jimmy I just can't for the life of me figure out why you're so utterly unaware of you're surroundings. Now Jimmy I know not everyone here was privy to growing up in an era pre-internet so all I can tell you is I very much so delight in being able to have a discussion on any given topic, knowing nothing of it from the beginning and then feeling like both the person I have had a discussion with is satisfied in being able to articulate their ideas to a lesser informed person while that person also able to utilize the technology we all here have available to us in order to learn something. I know because I have been on both sides of this coin.
Jimmy I'm telling you no matter how important you think the things you know are, it just isn't important in knowing beforehand to this topic we're discussing. Or rather the topic is about the lack of people doing a compelling job of tying all the major points of interest together in a way that even people who have no clue about it could understand whereas you want to dismiss the topic entirely, your best bet would probably been to not come here.
>>481870
Go read some Aquinas
>>481921
already have through and through
>>481091
>making compelling arguments for the truth and accuracy of the bible?
"Truth and accuracy" of what, exactly?
>>482160
The bible as word of god.
>>482410
Regarding the Bible and the claim of God:
If you claim the existence of an all powerful god, you are actually making the biggest claim conceivable by a human being. You literally can not make a more extravagant claim.
To back up such claim you would need the strongest proof conceivable. As god's power is infinite, I could make any claim I can dream of and still it would be infinite more likely than the existence of an infinite powerful god.
It is akin as people saying they can right down the biggest number possible. You would just need to add 1 to the number to refute the claim.
Unfortunately most people do not realize what such claim entails.
There is not much else to it.
>>482570
>To back up such claim you would need the strongest proof conceivable
You say this but then,
>It is akin as people saying they can right down the biggest number possible. You would just need to add 1 to the number to refute the claim.
And it becomes clear you've predetermined that god can't exist, based upon your own predefined set of circumstances.
If you've already made such a determination, you're not seeking anything to do with my topic but rather came here to convince me that what I'm seeking can't be, which I have no desire to dispute as I have a greater interest in refining the understanding of archaeology, history and prophecy as a means of understanding bible as the word of god than debating what you feel constitutes proof of god.
>>481091
Not really.
>>482630
History demonstrates that the bible is not a historical source useful for history.
Archaeology demonstrates that timing and claims of settlement and worship process do not accord with the settlement and worship process of the levant or their timing.
Stick to fucking theology.
>>482642
>History demonstrates that the bible is not a historical source useful for history.
Well there you have it. You have predetermined everything yourself. So what are you doing here?
>>482633
Great, yet here you are.
>>482661
I haven't fucking predetermined anything mate.
History and archaeology are academic disciplines that reject the divine's intervention in the world and act as if the world is mundane. Their evidence is that the bible's claims to represent mundane reality are not correct.
In contrast there's this lovely fucking academic humanity called Theology wherein divine claims are appreciated as meaningful and discipline significant.
Read more, post more, theology.
>>482630
Again by defining the Bible as the world of god you need to first claim that this god exists which you can not.
The holiness of the Bible comes from the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus. That miracle is backed by eye witness from 2k years ago.
Eye witness is not even enough to convict someone of a crime in our human flawed current justice system.
If you want to study the Bible as a work of literature have at it.
>>482689
Leave >>>/his/ then.
Humanities. A high level of discourse. History.
There's a perfectly acceptable humanity for your concerns, it is called theology, it is well respected. Your problems with the humanities are disinteresting because they aren't of an adequate standard. Go elsewhere. I don't care where.
>>482672
>History and archaeology are academic disciplines that reject the divine's intervention in the world and act as if the world is mundane. Their evidence is that the bible's claims to represent mundane reality are not correct.
History and archaeology both use the bible to cross reference findings.
>>482673
>Again by defining the Bible as the world of god you need to first claim that this god exists which you can not
Or maybe that's your own words and I never made a claim to seek an absolute proof of god but rather seek to examine archaeology, history and prophecy in the bible as such.
>Eye witness is not even enough to convict someone of a crime in our human flawed current justice system.
We also have historical evidence that Jesus existed and there was in fact a historical figure Pontius Pilate, both of these points previously unaccepted by scholars.
>>482689
you are confusing spirituality with religion.
You can be spiritual without believing in a god.
Would you seek to understand the Lord of the rings as the word of Sauron or as the word of Tolkien?
>>482714
>We also have historical evidence that Jesus existed
No. We don't. You're about to bring up the obvious insertion in Josephus aren't you?
>>482714
>History and archaeology both use the bible to cross reference findings.
Not since the 1820s. Since then they've used it as a text to provide interesting hypotheses to falsify. And falsify they have.
>>482726
>No. We don't. You're about to bring up the obvious insertion in Josephus aren't you?
Josephus and Tacitus. Many people claim the testimonium flavianum to be an interpolation but then explain the arabic and greek sources found by shlomo pines which almost undeniably corroborate Jesus as a historical figure, interpolation not withstanding.
>Since then they've used it as a text to provide interesting hypotheses to falsify. And falsify they have.
In which case you're no longer looking at findings from a historical or archaeological perspective, now are you? And I don't know what findings you think falsify what but the bible is open to interpretation, it's highly unlikely whatever the fuck you think it is you're talking about disproves anything I agree with.
>>482714
I don't think you get it, having historical evidence of the existence of a human being is possible.
Having the evidence of the existence of Gd is impossible.
If today some guy came down from the sky with the powers of superman we could still not accept him as God as he is not infinitley powerful.
>>482749
It disproves your ability to talk about the bible "historically." Feel free to talk about it theologically.
Fucksake mate.
>>482750
>I don't think you get it, having historical evidence of the existence of a human being is possible.
>Having the evidence of the existence of Gd is impossible.
Again, you wish to degrade the discussion purely into a god exists, doesn't exist which I have no real interest in only how it pertains to archaeology, history, prophecy and the bible.
>>482761
Based on what? I just gave a specific historical reference and you completely dodged it. You're utterly clueless.
>>482410
>The bible as word of god.
The bible proves just the opposite. It clearly shows that the attributes assigned to "god" are NOT reflected by the behaviors attributed to "god", and that those actions attributed to him are far more similar to the actions that any jackass human would take.
God is a fuck up from genesis, until the final chapters of the old testament. His incompetence and lack of forethought is clearly indicative of a fictional character created by man, rather than any kind of all powerful, all knowing being.
In short, the best evidence one could use to disprove the entirety of Abrahamic religions is the very text said religions are based on.
>>482771
You gave two references. One to the existence of Christians in Rome, which is dubious, and well after the imputed dates of Christ. And another to a well fucking known insertion.
Two dubious sources.
Great fucking work.
Start talking fucking theology.
>>481091
The biblke is only important because dudes in cool hats 10 centuries ago said it was. And all of western civilization is now based on its tropesits not even a compelling read and frankly is about an utterly unimportant band of bronze age tribes who's claim to fame is not catching a full genocide after being conquered so many times . some of the imagery is cool though and Jesus had plenty of good ideas
>>482784
>Two dubious sources.
They aren't dubious. They're entirely credible.
>Start talking fucking theology.
Or how about we talk about the dead sea scrolls instead?
>>482867
I enjoy talking about Thomas, do you?
>>482875
yeah, just not right now.
>>481240
>Start reading the archaeology of the ancient levant and some serious theological works on the redactive process of the torah.
Not him but got any book recommendations?
>>481091
>The historical accuracy of the bible from an archeological perspective, the divine prophecy of the bible being accurately fulfilled, the historicity of figures in the bible.
Kek is this a protestant thing?
