What Is The Bible And What Does It Contain?

[minsocal]

There appears to be some reluctance in the understanding of "history". That there are different interpretations is undoubtedly true. Many of the differences lie in our presuppositions. However we view history, the differences need to be reviewed and a determination made as to which one can prove to be true; that is, which one sufficiently explains how we arrived where we are- now. The Jewish writers understood by what they could reasonably conclude was by reasoning from what has been made known by God, all that was created and was God-breathed (verbalized, propositional, factual revelation).

--

 

In regard to history, may I ask these questions:

 

What history would the writers have to change in order to come to the conclusion that the universe and all that is in it, is there? Is it not true that the universe truly exists?

 

What history would the writers have to change in order to come to the conclusion that man behaves in noble fashion, as well as a cruel one? Is it not true that man's behavior truly exhibits both?

 

What history would the writers have to change in order to come to the conclusion that man can know truthfully of the universe, and himself? Is it not true that truth can be known?

 

If we can't answer 'yes' to those secondary questions, if we fail to understand the Jewish concepts that led to Gen 1:1, then we have no basis from which to be critical of anything they wrote.

--

The distinction of man against non-man, is in the area of language, with man the verbalizer. The way we think is in language. God made us to be language communicators. There is a correlation between language and knowledge.

 

DavidK,

 

As I have already noted in prior exchanges with you, your thesis that "the way we think is in language" is not universally true. Einstein is one of the best counterexamples. If you look at any modern measure of intelligence, you will discover that the tests include both verbal and nonverbal subscales.

 

In the first post of this thread you claim that science has a "reliable" understanding of gravity. This is not true. Gravity, it turns out, is one of the major stumbling blocks in the effort to form a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) of physics. Also note that science is now grappling with the existence of "dark matter" and "dark energy" in the universe, but have no clue as to what it is or where it comes from. God, apparently forgot to explain it so I guess we will have to wait, won't we?

 

minsocal

[minsocal]

The view that humans are NOT set apart from animals (read nature) is part of the sacred tradition of more than one culture. Many people, myself included, find these kinds of divisions to be counterintuitive.

[tariki]

Sometimes, maybe, the answers we seek determine our questions. I would be inclined to ask questions such as what more could the Biblical writers have written to preclude the awful history of Christianity in term of intolerance, bigotry, Crusades, Inquisitions, witch-hunts....because the answer I seek is a Divinity that goes beyond any particular creed or faith.

 

Well, yes, the Universe is certainly there - or here? - yet in what sense does it "exist"? Considering the God of the Philosophers we have the concept of God given by the Catholic Gibson, based upon the latin word aseitas, meaning the power of a being to exist absolutely in virtue of itself(i.e. a se), not as caused by itself, but requiring no cause, no other justification for its existence except that its very nature is to exist.

 

Given such, with the Divine as such a "being", only "God" can be - or exist - in such a sense. And if God is not to be just "a" being among other beings, then it seems to follow that the Universe exists in another way entirely. What way? And so the philosophy goes on, and the religions and faiths spread their wings.

 

At the heart of the Buddhist Scriptures, those of the Theravada, rooted in the historical word of the Buddha, we have the declaration that there is, indeed, a not born, a not bought to being, a not made, a not conditioned for if it were not so then there could be no escape from what is born, brought to being, made, conditioned. (See Udana 8:3)

 

 

It seems to me that at some point, if we find ourselves as human beings with the capacity to reflect - and many live and suffer beyond my own comprehension in ways that preclude any such reflection - then, as Pascal once said, we need to go beyond the God of the Philosophers to the God (or Divinity) of true existential awareness.

 

This seems to me what the Bible contains. Human beings seeking to know truly. And this to me is what the various other Holy books of the world contain. Nothing that has been said in this debate gives any indication that the Bible is exclusively the "word" of God. In fact, given the acknowledgement that myths, legends and suchlike can point to what is rooted in space and time, I can now turn back to the various Jataka tales of the Buddhas previous lives with renewed vigour.......(yes, I am indulging in my playful sense of humour)

 

All the best

Derek

[minsocal]

Sometimes, maybe, the answers we seek determine our questions. I would be inclined to ask questions such as what more could the Biblical writers have written to preclude the awful history of Christianity in term of intolerance, bigotry, Crusades, Inquisitions, witch-hunts....because the answer I seek is a Divinity that goes beyond any particular creed or faith.

 

I would be inclined to ask what was redacted and why.

[minsocal]

Derek,

 

As defined by the Dalai Lama, Buddhism does not make a distinction between emotion and cognition. This, I believe, is one of its strengths. As I understand the story, Buddah lived a sheltered, priviledged life in his youth. The key to the story rests in the fact that the Buddah became aware of the death and suffering of others even though he had been sheltered from these 'facts'. Now, as much as this revelation affected the Buddah (emotionally), I would then place myself in the position of the newly 'discovered' suffering and dying population and ask whether it was any great revelation to them? Not likely. It seems to me this is where Davidk's argument persistently fails.

 

minsocal

[davidk]

Happy Father's Day.

 

Joseph,

 

#1: Ok! "The question seems mute (sic) in that no history, whether biblical or otherwise, needs to be changed to conclude that the universe and all that is in it , is there." You've come to a conclusion that agrees with the premise that the Jewish writers wrote on what they observed, and had observed, in real time- that it is evident the universe is there.

 

#2. Ok! Again, you've come to a conclusion that agrees with the premise that the Jewish writers wrote of man's behavior by what they observed, and had observed, in real time- that man's behavior is evident in their observations. They are not unique in seeing this, but unique in their interpretation of the cause.

 

#3. Propaganda is revising history with an ulterior motive. Unrevised history is the topic. The Jewish writers observed in real time that all that was around them could be understood, and even predicted, because of what had historically happened; i.e.; the sun 'rising' the next morning. History cannot be manipulated, and we do agree the reporting of history can.

 

"These things seem to me are not the direct result of verbal communication but rather observation and personal subjective experience."

In my experience these things are tightly interconnected. Observation is an act of recognizing and noting a fact or an occurrence (history); a created record or description; a judgment on or inference from what one has observed (history). All of this requires language to assimilate and so be able to call it, even subjectively, an observation, or know it as an experience.

[tariki]

Derek,

 

As defined by the Dalai Lama, Buddhism does not make a distinction between emotion and cognition. This, I believe, is one of its strengths. As I understand the story, Buddah lived a sheltered, priviledged life in his youth. The key to the story rests in the fact that the Buddah became aware of the death and suffering of others even though he had been sheltered from these 'facts'. Now, as much as this revelation affected the Buddah (emotionally), I would then place myself in the position of the newly 'discovered' suffering and dying population and ask whether it was any great revelation to them? Not likely. It seems to me this is where Davidk's argument persistently fails.

 

minsocal

 

minsocial,

 

Just drifting a little off-topic for a moment..............Yes, the comment you make regarding emotion and cognition and their unity within Buddhism is a pertinent point as far as a Pure Lander is concerned, as many in the Buddhist community see Pure Land Buddhism as just an "emotional" expression of the "deeper" insights of "real" Buddhism. This is the sort of thing found in Sangharakshita's monumental work "A Survey of Buddhism", and is in my view - and experience - far wide of the mark. But enough of Buddhist infighting!

 

I'd also just like to say that the "revelation" of the Buddha was never the existence of suffering as such (which you seem to imply), but its cause and its resolution.

 

All the best

Derek

[minsocal]

minsocial,

 

Just drifting a little off-topic for a moment..............Yes, the comment you make regarding emotion and cognition and their unity within Buddhism is a pertinent point as far as a Pure Lander is concerned, as many in the Buddhist community see Pure Land Buddhism as just an "emotional" expression of the "deeper" insights of "real" Buddhism. This is the sort of thing found in Sangharakshita's monumental work "A Survey of Buddhism", and is in my view - and experience - far wide of the mark. But enough of Buddhist infighting!

 

I'd also just like to say that the "revelation" of the Buddha was never the existence of suffering as such (which you seem to imply), but its cause and its resolution.

 

All the best

Derek

 

Derek,

 

My purpose here is to demonstrate cause and effect. Compassion requires the capacity to feel the suffering of others. Where Davidk assigns primacy to verbal propositions, my point here is that the verbal propositions are, in some cases, the result of secondary cognitive processes after the fact. My motive is to merge two bodies of thought (introverted and extraverted) to explore "the third". The Buddah captured half of the truth in elegant simplicity. The counter come from none other than Charles Darwin himself. He said that, if in the end, we discovered that the cause of all suffering was our own institutions, then that would be our greatest sin.

 

As for myself, I see "universals" in quite a different manner than Davidk. All life dies, suffering is universal, and we have the common capacity to do something about it.

 

All the best,

 

minsocal

[JosephM]

Happy Father's Day.

 

Joseph,

 

#1: Ok! "The question seems mute (sic) in that no history, whether biblical or otherwise, needs to be changed to conclude that the universe and all that is in it , is there." You've come to a conclusion that agrees with the premise that the Jewish writers wrote on what they observed, and had observed, in real time- that it is evident the universe is there.

 

#2. Ok! Again, you've come to a conclusion that agrees with the premise that the Jewish writers wrote of man's behavior by what they observed, and had observed, in real time- that man's behavior is evident in their observations. They are not unique in seeing this, but unique in their interpretation of the cause.

 

#3. Propaganda is revising history with an ulterior motive. Unrevised history is the topic. The Jewish writers observed in real time that all that was around them could be understood, and even predicted, because of what had historically happened; i.e.; the sun 'rising' the next morning. History cannot be manipulated, and we do agree the reporting of history can.

 

"These things seem to me are not the direct result of verbal communication but rather observation and personal subjective experience."

In my experience these things are tightly interconnected. Observation is an act of recognizing and noting a fact or an occurrence (history); a created record or description; a judgment on or inference from what one has observed (history). All of this requires language to assimilate and so be able to call it, even subjectively, an observation, or know it as an experience.

 

 

Happy Fathers Day to all fathers.

 

Coming to a conclusion that the Jewish writers observed and wrote these things questioned above obviously doesn't speak for all the writings included in the Bible. Unless of course one is inclined to believe that one truth from a persons pen makes all that he writes true. Therefore, I fail to see logic or rationally between the statements made above and the conclusions presented in any propositions that the writings are all factual or "God-breathed". This thread is concerning the Bible, mostly a record of Jewish history by Jewish writers. It is a recording by men and as such logically and rationally is subject to our observation and your observation of men (which includes these writers) that their behavior by your own admission can be observed as less than perfect. There has been no proof offered that these men (writers and those responsible for transmission) were any more infallible to the weaknesses of mankind than that real time and historical observation concerning behavior.

 

Furthermore, concerning observation, observation does not require language or notation. It can be noted and languaged but that is not a requirement. I am aware that i exist regardless of the presence or absence of a language ability. I can observe the earth without language and it is still an observation. Likewise with the behavior of mankind. I do not need to language or even know of the word "cruel" to experience what it refers to.

While no one will deny the benefits of the communication of knowledge by language, the knowledge that those on a spiritual journey seek, IMO, is beyond the communications possible with words. It is more of an experience that words at best can only point to.

 

Just something for readers to consider.

 

Joseph

 

This post has been edited June 20, 2010 2:17PM by JosephM

[minsocal]

"Innovation can also be stimulated more directly by modeling unconventional responses to common situations. In this case, observers may already possess strategies that are effective in solving a problem, but the model teaches bolder, more unconventional problem-solving strategies.

With the possible exception of modeled creativity, the use of modeling to convey information has been criticized for stimulating only a response mimicry or imitation. That this is not the case is clearly demonstrated by abstract modeling, in which people observe models performing various responses that have a common rule or principle. For example, the models could solve problems by using a certain strategy or generate sentences that embody a certain grammatical style. It is found, under these circumstances, that observers typically learn whatever rule or principle is being exemplified in the diverse modeling experiences. Furthermore it is found that after the rule or principle is learned by the observer, it can be applied to situations unlike any involved during the modeling. For example, once a problem-solving strategy is extracted from a number of modeling experiences, it can be used effectively to solve problems that are unlike any experienced before. Thus abstract modeling has three components: (1) observing a wide variety of situations that have a rule or principle in common; (2) extracting the rule or principle from the diverse experiences; and (3) utilizing the rule or principle in new situations (Hergenhahn, 2001, p. 335)."

 

Because humans constantly encounter a wide variety of modeling experiences, it seems safe to conclude that most of the principles and rules that govern human behavior are derived from something like abstract modeling. Bandura (1977) says, "On the basis of observationally derived rules, people learn, among other things, judgmental orientations, linguistic styles, conceptual schemes, information-processing strategies, cognitive operations, and standards of conduct (ibid, p. 42)."

[minsocal]

Point 5

 

By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who know that the way we behave toward one another and toward other people is the fullest exp​ression of what we believe.

 

The notion being that we model the teachings and and wisdom found in the Bible. Wisdom does not require a factual story to be wisdom.

[tariki]

Derek,

 

My purpose here is to demonstrate cause and effect. Compassion requires the capacity to feel the suffering of others. Where Davidk assigns primacy to verbal propositions, my point here is that the verbal propositions are, in some cases, the result of secondary cognitive processes after the fact. My motive is to merge two bodies of thought (introverted and extraverted) to explore "the third". The Buddah captured half of the truth in elegant simplicity. The counter come from none other than Charles Darwin himself. He said that, if in the end, we discovered that the cause of all suffering was our own institutions, then that would be our greatest sin.

 

As for myself, I see "universals" in quite a different manner than Davidk. All life dies, suffering is universal, and we have the common capacity to do something about it.

 

All the best,

 

minsocal

 

minsocial, thanks for the explanation. I must admit I was unable to actually see where your words and the views of David "collided".

 

All the best

Derek

[tariki]

Propaganda is revising history with an ulterior motive. Unrevised history is the topic. The Jewish writers observed in real time that all that was around them could be understood, and even predicted, because of what had historically happened; i.e.; the sun 'rising' the next morning

 

David,

 

Sorry to be contentious, but given all that has passed in this thread I find the above incredible. "Unrevised history is the topic" ???

 

As I have understood it, the Biblical record as it is now is the result of various revisions (redaction?) and minsocial did say at one point that he would be inclined to ask just just what was redacted and why. So just what "propaganda" was involved? And to give the fact of the sun rising as some sort of example of the Jewish writers observations of what historically happened seems astonishing to me, given that we have spoken up until now about myth, legends, oracles and suchlike.

 

All the best

Derek

[JosephM]

Davidk wrote above....

#3. Propaganda is revising history with an ulterior motive. Unrevised history is the topic. The Jewish writers observed in real time that all that was around them could be understood, and even predicted, because of what had historically happened; i.e.; the sun 'rising' the next morning. History cannot be manipulated, and we do agree the reporting of history can.

 

Tariki,

 

Likewise, I am also at a complete failure of understanding on the above referenced quote. Perhaps the word history has a different definition to some and I certainly was not aware that our topic is "unrevised history" unless of course that is just another personal proposition or assertive name for the Bible and what it contains. I also do not understand how "the sun 'rising' the next morning" is Jewish history and makes it unrevised??? Surely some other culture must have observed and written such things in a book.

 

History to me by definition is always 'reported history' because it the past transmitted and someone had to report it for me to read it now. Therefore it is very difficult for me to understand how history cannot be manipulated unless history has a life of its own separate from that reported in a book??? And if it did then no book written and reported by men could be considered that life. Perhaps that is why some must claim the Bible as 'God-breathed' to defend the assertion that one has that life and it is truth ?

 

Just thinking out loud....

Joseph

[Neon Genesis]

The Jewish writers observed in real time that all that was around them could be understood, and even predicted, because of what had historically happened; i.e.; the sun 'rising' the next morning. History cannot be manipulated, and we do agree the reporting of history can.

 

How could the Jews have observed the origins of the universe? Nobody was there to witness the creation of the universe nor was anyone expect Adam and Eve and the serpent were there in the Garden of Eden to report the events in real time. Most fundamentalist Christians believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch but how could Moses report these events that occurred before he was born if he lived at all? Who was alive to write down the events that occurred on day one of creation?

[tariki]

The speech of God is silence.......everything else is fiction, half-hiding the truth it tries to reveal.......we are travellers from the half-world of language into solitude and infinity.....

 

(From Thomas Merton's Journals, Jan 11, 1950)

 

Just posted this on another thread, and then thought how appropriate it would be here.

 

 

Good night.........

[minsocal]

At this point I will interject a question that has been circulating through several fields of inquiry for the last two decades. It goes like this:

 

In the pursuit of a moral principle is it ethical, even necessary, to tell lies?

[Neon Genesis]

Yes, I think sometimes telling lies is necessary. If you were living in Nazi Germany and you were hiding Jews from the Nazis, it in fact would be considered unethical for you to tell the truth and sell the Jews out. It would be ethical in that situation to lie to the authorities because your lie will save lives from being tortured. Not all lies are bad and sometimes you have to tell good lies if it saves people but in general you should tell the truth and only tell lies if telling the truth results in an even worse fate than if you had lied.

[minsocal]

Yes, I think sometimes telling lies is necessary. If you were living in Nazi Germany and you were hiding Jews from the Nazis, it in fact would be considered unethical for you to tell the truth and sell the Jews out. It would be ethical in that situation to lie to the authorities because your lie will save lives from being tortured. Not all lies are bad and sometimes you have to tell good lies if it saves people but in general you should tell the truth and only tell lies if telling the truth results in an even worse fate than if you had lied.

 

Do you think then that the authors of the Biblical text faced a similar dilema? They must have faced a number of moral dilemas when attempting to explain the world to others.

[davidk]

"universe exists

man behaves

I believe that the rest of the story is what I add because of my worldview and framework. In this I am just like the Jewish writers"- GOP

Yes, they do. We and the writers are perfectly free to hold whatever worldview we wish to explain 'why' they exist as they do.

 

The Jewish writers understood the universe exists and that man is noble yet also cruel. And they insisted that, in reality, history supports those observations. Because they understood that truth, they understood there was a reasonable answer for "why".

-

 

-"If the Hebrew bible was intended to be read as literal history, is the book of Job a literal historical story that really happened or is it a book of poetry?"

-How could the Jews have observed the origins of the universe?-Neon

Let's begin with Gen 1:1. Is that literal history?

They didn't. Moses knowledge of the origin of the universe was through verbal, propostional revelation. Do you believe Gen 1:1 is true?

-

 

"..."the way we think is in language" is not universally true."- minsocal

Well, it is. Cognition is knowing, and knowing is what can be spoken.

"...science has a "reliable" understanding of gravity. This is not true."- minsocal

Well, yes it is. How do you suppose we can launch a rocket? I also said our knowledge of gravity was not exhaustive, but is true as to what we do know about it.

" It seems to me this is where Davidk's argument persistently fails."- minsocal

Do you suppose recognizing man's cruelty ignores man's suffering?

"I see "universals" in quite a different manner than Davidk"- minsocal

No, I don't think so. We both see 'universals' as truths which answer for the particulars. You've just chosen one somewhat different from mine. And it doesn't seem to see the uniqueness in man that he has always observed of himself.

 

 

"Sometimes, maybe, the answers we seek determine our questions."- Derek

Of course. If we seek answers that assumes there are questions. How did everything begin? The answer to this sets the stage for everything else that happens. Are the answers sufficient enough to explain what truly exists today?

Is it reasonable to begin with such as Gen 1:1?

"This seems to me what the Bible contains. Human beings seeking to know truly." - Derek

Thank you.

Whether it can be determined that the Bible is the exclusive Word of God depends on how well the other Holy books conform to what is there. Right now we are not comparing other books but trying to find the foundation upon which the Bible should be read.

"Unrevised history is the topic"

Propaganda was a topic not introduced by me.

Yes, unrevised. Genuine, authentic in real time, unmolested. The sun 'rises' is unrevised historical truth. The existence of the universe is unrevised historical truth. Hitler was anti-semitic is unrevised historical truth.

Again, this not about how we WANT to read the Bible, but how we SHOULD read the Bible. It should be read in the understanding of how they wrote it, by boiling all down to the beginning, by understanding there is unrevised historical truth for existence.

-

 

"Coming to a conclusion that the Jewish writers observed and wrote these things questioned above obviously doesn't speak for all the writings included in the Bible." - Joseph

To understand how we should read the Bible we must begin with Genesis 1, and with the early Jewish writers and their view of truth. Whether anyone else believes God created everything is obviously not important. It's important that the Jewish writers believed it? Since they did, then this is the basis on how we should at least read the early chapters of Genesis.

Man observing is man taking notice, which is man thinking, the way man thinks is in language. Think about it.

"..., the knowledge that those on a spiritual journey seek, IMO, is beyond the communications possible with words." - Joseph

Lest I be rude for reminding you of something, Jesus said, when speaking to a 'spiritual minded' Nicodemus; "If I told you of earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?"

It's astonishing to me that understanding that early Jewish writers wrote with an insistence upon history, is controversial. We don't necessarily have to agree with what we read to see that it was theirs, nontheless.

[minsocal]

The Bible contains observations by Jewish religious leaders and does not cover a large body of Jewish secular thought. Thus the Bible cannot be a complete Jewish history.

[Neon Genesis]

Do you think then that the authors of the Biblical text faced a similar dilema? They must have faced a number of moral dilemas when attempting to explain the world to others.

Yes, I think they did. One of the most famous examples is in the story of Rahab the prostitute. Rahab hid the Israelites from their enemies and lied to the authorities to protect them and in turn, she and her family were saved by God. I think the bible teaches both moral absolutes and moral relativism. Like there are some authors like the Hebrews author which teach God is the same god always but other authors teach moral relativism like Paul taught the commandment for women to wear veils was only culturally relative.

[tariki]

"This seems to me what the Bible contains. Human beings seeking to know truly." - Derek

 

David, you responded...

 

Thank you.

Whether it can be determined that the Bible is the exclusive Word of God depends on how well the other Holy books conform to what is there

 

Yes, the operative word in my quote is "seeking". (Your "conform to what is there", in the context of this thread, seems to beg the question just a bit!)

 

One of the prime verses of the Hindi Vedas is "Thou art formless, Your only form is our knowledge of You".

 

As intuition of the Divine, one of the forms of the Divine that the ancient Hebrews pictured was that of God as some sort of Commander in Chief who orders the killing of all men, women and children of each city His army passes through. Personally I would see this as a false "finding", a false "form".........like so much else found in the Bible.

 

And not just the OT. Once again, the Hindus have their own "form" of the Divine declaring..."Those who in faith worship any other God, because of their love they worship Me, though not in the correct way." Once again, compare this to the "intuition/seeking" of the Divine found in St Marks Gospel..."He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Words that I would say were - and still are - at the heart of all "Inquisitions", ancient or modern, "God Breathed" or not.

 

 

"Sometimes, maybe, the answers we seek determine our questions."- Derek

 

David, you replied..."Of course". For me, there is no "of course" about it.

 

Anyway,

 

All the best

Derek.

[minsocal]

Yes, I think they did. One of the most famous examples is in the story of Rahab the prostitute. Rahab hid the Israelites from their enemies and lied to the authorities to protect them and in turn, she and her family were saved by God. I think the bible teaches both moral absolutes and moral relativism. Like there are some authors like the Hebrews author which teach God is the same god always but other authors teach moral relativism like Paul taught the commandment for women to wear veils was only culturally relative.

 

I have observed Jewish Rabbis work with adolescents who are struggling with difficult moral decisions. As a rule, the Rabbi does not dictate, but simply interjects Biblical stories at approprite points in the discussion to provide a framework from which the young person is able to make their own decisions. The process works very well. In other words, they treat the Bible as a decision guide and allow the individual to make the final choices. Over time, I have found the same approach in many cultures.

 

From a broader perspective, adaptation is both global and local. My understanding is that some cultures openly claim that sacred scriptures are intentionally written to accomodate both.

[JosephM]

To understand how we should read the Bible we must begin with Genesis 1, and with the early Jewish writers and their view of truth. Whether anyone else believes God created everything is obviously not important. It's important that the Jewish writers believed it? Since they did, then this is the basis on how we should at least read the early chapters of Genesis.

 

This topic is not about how we should or shouldn't read the bible but rather "what is the bible and what does it contain". Perhaps you missed that and are on a different track altogether?.

 

Man observing is man taking notice, which is man thinking, the way man thinks is in language. Think about it.

"..., the knowledge that those on a spiritual journey seek, IMO, is beyond the communications possible with words." - Joseph

 

Obviously you are not familiar with observing without thinking. God is not found in thought but in presence.

 

 

Lest I be rude for reminding you of something, Jesus said, when speaking to a 'spiritual minded' Nicodemus; "If I told you of earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?"

It's astonishing to me that understanding that early Jewish writers wrote with an insistence upon history, is controversial. We don't necessarily have to agree with what we read to see that it was theirs, nonetheless.

 

I could appropriately quote the same words to you but there is no need.

 

It is not at all astonishing to me that Jewish history is so controversial. Of course it was their reported history but nonetheless you seem to me to be hung up on a word called history as if it is synonymous with truth itself. I have tried my best to read and re-read your posts but am just still unable to grasp any point you are trying to make in support of the Bible being "God-breathed" other than to say that since some of the things that we all agree are true (the sun rises and sets, etc) and were recorded by Jewish writers we should read it as if it must all be true?

 

So i leave you with my best wishes before you start quoting more of the Bible at me

Joseph