Example of how Bibllical History is contrived (made up)

[foreigngirl]

Non sequitur. I was addressing Lestats original post, which attributes the legend of David killing Goliath to the editors of the King James Bible. Since only ENGLISH SPEAKING Christians use that bible, or its descendents, then clearly the bibles of other languages would not include this supposed error.

ok, I looked it up in my macedonian translation of the Orthodox Bible.

The Myth: And the Philistine [i.e., Goliath] came on and drew near unto David; and the man that bare the shield went before him. And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance. And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field. Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied. This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give you into our hands. And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose, and came and drew nigh to meet David, that David hasted, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine. And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David. Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled. (1 Sam. 17:41-51.)

The Reality: The real killer of Goliath was Elhanan, who belonged to “The Thirty,” King David’s elite fighting cadre.

The story of how young David armed with only a slingshot and stones defeated a well-armored giant Philistine warrior named Goliath has become one of the most famous tales in all the bible. The slain enemy’s name has become a synonym for “huge” and the phrase “David and Goliath” has become a literary cliché for a confrontation between opponents of unequal strength. Unfortunately, David didn’t kill Goliath, and he wasn’t a youth when Goliath died.

According to the King James translation of 2 Sam. 21:19,

And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

Although this translation says Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath, the words “the brother of” do not appear in the Hebrew text. The actual wording of the passage says that Elhanan slew Goliath, not his brother.

ok, in the "Story of David and Goliath" 1 Sam 17 the name of Goliath is mentioned only once, the rest of the time he is reffered to as the philistine. In 2 Sam 21.19, it does say that there was a battle in Get and thjat Elhanan, the son of Ariorgima from Betheheem killed the Goliath Gittite. There is no mention of the word "brother". Its said - And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

In the version crediting David, after Goliath is slain, Saul says,

Whose son is this youth? And Abner said, As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell. And the king said, Inquire thou whose son the stripling is. (1 Sam. 17:55.)

this is the same

And David came to Saul, and stood before him: and he loved him greatly; and he became his armourbearer. And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, Let David, I pray thee, stand before me; for he hath found favour in my sight. (1 Sam. 16:21-22.)

the same

Another indication that the pro-David version of the story borrowed from the Elhanan source comes from the contextual appearance of Goliath’s name. Throughout the David story, the name Goliath only appears twice. The several other references to this warrior simply describe him as “the Philistine” or “the Philistine of Gath.” The manner in which Goliath’s name appears suggests that it was a later insert into the story. For example, in 1 Sam. 17:23, the text reads,

And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the armies of the Philistines, and spake according to the same words: and David heard them.

same again

 

[JonPee]

It didn't say that, it said they came after SEA ANIMALS. If you would read what was there, you would see that science DOES agree.

Really? Then how come
Under Geology/Biology you said:

7. Creation Of Small Sea Animals And Birds: Gen 1:20
Scientists agree these were the first animals.

Again, it didn't say that, it said the hydrological cycle put it there by God's hand. You made a strawman argument.

Are you serious? Number 6 CLEARLY STATES WORD FOR WORD

Plants gradually created 21% Oxygen level

Yet now you deny that it even says that? Maybe you should re-read your own post because you don't seem to have any clue on what it says.

I didn't put that either.

You don't like to look at facts. Apparently you skim and then argue. Genesis never states anywhere that man was created first. -And no new unique CREATURE was created, nowhere did it or I say species.

Well what did you mean then if you didn't mean creature? What is a species but a type of creature?

Of course not. He wasn't accurate, and some of his stuff never happened.

That's exactly my point. In over 1000 pages of text, you found a handful of things that kind of sound like stuff that happened. You really don't see the connection? If you write enough, it's going to happen. There was a special on TLC about the 'Bible Code'. They tried the same method of finding codes with 'Moby Dick' and found similiar codes that would have seemed to predict future events, which just goes to show if you look hard enough you can see whatever you want.

Wrong again. -And before you start down that path, might I suggest we discuss:

1. Macro and Micro evolution vs DNA and LOSS of data, not CREATION of data through generations.

2. Mutation vs Evolution

3. Carbon 14 inaccuracies beyond 2000 years

4. ANY dating method used for fossils as they do not account for a hydrological cycle changing things.

5. The fact no fossil dating systems account for loss of gasses in diamond structures which make all the methodology irrelevant when dating diamond, -a carbon substance.

Ah the 'old carbon dating is inaccurate after long periods of time therefore the universe is 10000 years old arguement'. Too bad scientists never claimed it was perfect, although it is pretty damn close up to around 30,000 years. Also, it's too bad scientists have other, more accurate, testing methods than carbon dating so that kind of kills your whole arguement.

And your arguement against evolution was that since people didn't smarter, they weren't evolving. Evolution DOES NOT mean getting stronger, smarter, faster, etc. Your claim that evolution = progress means you really need to learn more about it before you try tearing it down.

I bet you don't buy a soloflex because some guy told you you could look good if you use it. You went to the source to find out what it was like and PROVED it by either research or experience.

This is no different.

Yeah cause soloflex and the origin of the universe are basically the same thing.

 

[krishna]

You lose.



Which shows you didn't read my post all the way, NOR Biblical text.

I never said when you read it, it all becomes clearer. -However when one looks at the prophetic content, one has no other choice but to accept it as fact or deny it on basis of chosen blindness.

My post I linked to clearly deals with this beyond any doubt.



That too is laughable. Since when is "conquer by the sword" a rehash of "love your enemies"?

Do you read ANYTHING through?

I lose? Why because you say so? I spent nearly 4 years away from the outside world with nothing to do except read the bible throughout each day (my choice to read it of course). I know you never said when you read it it becomes clearer, that's what I said. I said it becomes clearer that it's illogical nonsense. Not sure what your point was on that one. I don't deny it out of "blindness", I deny it because I've spent a large part of my life studying it and looking for the truth. The bible just isn't it my friend. And you are obviously an ignorant idiot who has never even read the koran. The koran does not teach war and hate as most people think it does. It does allow muslims the right to stand up for themselves. Should they just sit there and let us kill them and take over their countries? They have the right to fight just like us, and they do it the only way they know how. There has been more bloodshed and terror throughout history in the name of christ then there has with any other religion. The only reason it's such a big religion is because it was forced upon the people by the romans, and if they didn't convert, they were executed. You call that love????????? The very nature of how christianity rose into power should put up a red flag in ones soul. Let us also not forget the fact that a savior king born of a virgin mother was a pagan theme of that time. When christianity was forced on the people, they were forced to worship jesus, so they simply replaced jesus into their traditions. Interesting that December 25th was originally Zeus's birthday also. You don't know anything about religious history. I am providing facts, which clearly shows that yours is the one that is an opinion.

 

[heatherrae]

I lose? Why because you say so? I spent nearly 4 years away from the outside world with nothing to do except read the bible throughout each day (my choice to read it of course). I know you never said when you read it it becomes clearer, that's what I said. I said it becomes clearer that it's illogical nonsense. Not sure what your point was on that one. I don't deny it out of "blindness", I deny it because I've spent a large part of my life studying it and looking for the truth. The bible just isn't it my friend. And you are obviously an ignorant idiot who has never even read the koran. The koran does not teach war and hate as most people think it does. It does allow muslims the right to stand up for themselves. Should they just sit there and let us kill them and take over their countries? They have the right to fight just like us, and they do it the only way they know how. There has been more bloodshed and terror throughout history in the name of christ then there has with any other religion. The only reason it's such a big religion is because it was forced upon the people by the romans, and if they didn't convert, they were executed. You call that love????????? The very nature of how christianity rose into power should put up a red flag in ones soul. Let us also not forget the fact that a savior king born of a virgin mother was a pagan theme of that time. When christianity was forced on the people, they were forced to worship jesus, so they simply replaced jesus into their traditions. Interesting that December 25th was originally Zeus's birthday also. You don't know anything about religious history. I am providing facts, which clearly shows that yours is the one that is an opinion.

Clearly, Christianity does borrow a great deal from the pagans. Anyone who does not see the correlations, just has not studied the history of each. I try not to take much of the religious allegories too literally. Just because Christianity has borrowed from pagan stories, themes, etc doesn't make either the Pagans or the Christians wrong. We are very limited creatures with very little ability to understand the nature of God. We must apply human stories and analogies and allegories to try to get our minds around these concepts. I think when we get to heaven and are before God/Allah/Baphomet/etc there will be Christians, Muslims, etc. When we ask God which religion was right, he/she is likely to say, "whichever one brought you to love and peace" which is the essence of God. Tolerance and love is what it is all about.

Debating inconsistencies in allegories just doesn't seem helpful to me.

 

[Mr. dB]

They tried the same method of finding codes with 'Moby Dick' and found similiar codes that would have seemed to predict future events, which just goes to show if you look hard enough you can see whatever you want.

Herman Melville was clearly a prophet! But you need to decode "The Scrivenor's Tale" to find the key.

 

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted by [email protected]
It didn't say that, it said they came after SEA ANIMALS. If you would read what was there, you would see that science DOES agree.

Really? Then how come
Under Geology/Biology you said:

Originally Posted by [email protected]
7. Creation Of Small Sea Animals And Birds: Gen 1:20
Scientists agree these were the first animals.

So what you are trying to tell me is that because I list sea animals and then birds, you insist that I am only saying birds were first? This is getting incredibly dumb.

Originally Posted by [email protected]
Again, it didn't say that, it said the hydrological cycle put it there by God's hand. You made a strawman argument.

Are you serious? Number 6 CLEARLY STATES WORD FOR WORD

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Plants gradually created 21% Oxygen level

Yet now you deny that it even says that? Maybe you should re-read your own post because you don't seem to have any clue on what it says.

I took you for someone who would read what the text said. Clearly I was mistaken.

The whole ORDER is what we are discussing. 1 comes before 2 and 3 comes before 4, etc. -When #3 indicates a hydrological cycle is put into place and that INCLUDES H2O, most people realize the O is oxygen. Most people also realize that the hydrological cycle IS A CYCLE and as such will PRODUCE OXYGEN.

# 6 clearly comes AFTER and by taking things in context, one EASILY sees that the plants RAISE Oxygen levels. -#6 couldn't even exist without 3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I didn't put that either.

You don't like to look at facts. Apparently you skim and then argue. Genesis never states anywhere that man was created first. -And no new unique CREATURE was created, nowhere did it or I say species.

Well what did you mean then if you didn't mean creature? What is a species but a type of creature?

I see you just want to argue with no thought. You didn't care to mention Genus, just species. Heck, you even skipped THE REST of the filing tree. A unique creature is just that. Is a zebra just like a man? Is a sparrow just like an eagle? All are unique creatures. No UNIQUE CREATURES were created after man. How is that so tough?

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Of course not. He wasn't accurate, and some of his stuff never happened.

That's exactly my point. In over 1000 pages of text, you found a handful of things that kind of sound like stuff that happened. You really don't see the connection? If you write enough, it's going to happen. There was a special on TLC about the 'Bible Code'. They tried the same method of finding codes with 'Moby Dick' and found similiar codes that would have seemed to predict future events, which just goes to show if you look hard enough you can see whatever you want.

That is pretty funny.

First, there is no code.

Second, any one of those points has no vagueness to it. They CLEARLY say what they say and can be taken no other way. -And they had the knowledge thousands of years in advance.

Third, I like how when faced with overwhelming facts, you chose not to read anymore and then argue against odds with no facts.

Call it for what it is: You see it, but do not WANT to believe it for personal reasons. That is fine.

We both know, though, what I posted is 100% accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Wrong again. -And before you start down that path, might I suggest we discuss:

1. Macro and Micro evolution vs DNA and LOSS of data, not CREATION of data through generations.

2. Mutation vs Evolution

3. Carbon 14 inaccuracies beyond 2000 years

4. ANY dating method used for fossils as they do not account for a hydrological cycle changing things.

5. The fact no fossil dating systems account for loss of gasses in diamond structures which make all the methodology irrelevant when dating diamond, -a carbon substance.

Ah the 'old carbon dating is inaccurate after long periods of time therefore the universe is 10000 years old arguement'. Too bad scientists never claimed it was perfect, although it is pretty damn close up to around 30,000 years.

-Ummm......Up to 30000 years? Did you miss a few of those things on that list?

Also, it's too bad scientists have other, more accurate, testing methods than carbon dating so that kind of kills your whole arguement.

-No, you didn't read anything in that list past the word "carbon".

I DID mention DNA chains. I assume you either missed that or didn't want to face that which proves you wrong.

And your arguement against evolution was that since people didn't smarter, they weren't evolving. Evolution DOES NOT mean getting stronger, smarter, faster, etc. Your claim that evolution = progress means you really need to learn more about it before you try tearing it down.

When evolution says that if you need it to survivive, you will get it and when you do not use it, you lose it, I think I understand it pretty well.

-I don't see anything you have posted as evidence against ANY ONE POINT I posted, and you can't even read anything I post all the way through. I have to accept this means that you have nothing for evidence to prove your point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I bet you don't buy a soloflex because some guy told you you could look good if you use it. You went to the source to find out what it was like and PROVED it by either research or experience.

This is no different.

Yeah cause soloflex and the origin of the universe are basically the same thing.

Apparently you do not do well reading analogies either.

I was illustrating that you ought to prove facts to support or deny both sides to anything before you accept it as fact.

Obviously I am wasting my breath here, because you refuse to do even that.

 

[Frisky]

I am 2 seconds away from sinning... I'll repent though.

there lessy .... ya happy?

 

[[email protected]]

I lose? Why because you say so? I spent nearly 4 years away from the outside world with nothing to do except read the bible throughout each day (my choice to read it of course).

You stated you were pretty sure you have read it more than I and implied that you knew more about it because of that.

My point that you lose is because if you knew about it, you would know more than 1/3 of it is prophecy, and much of which modern scientific and historical experts AGREE is fact. They discover MORE of it is fact every day. Taken at that alone, you do not need to be a scholar to know the Bible is what it claims.

When you argue against that point, it shows you have not done very much investigating at all, or you have chosen to deny it. In either case, that is not a position of knowledge.

I know you never said when you read it it becomes clearer, that's what I said. I said it becomes clearer that it's illogical nonsense. Not sure what your point was on that one. I don't deny it out of "blindness", I deny it because I've spent a large part of my life studying it and looking for the truth. The bible just isn't it my friend.

Well, it certainly isn't fulfilling the role it is supposed to when you deny its validity.

And you are obviously an ignorant idiot who has never even read the koran. The koran does not teach war and hate as most people think it does.

Then maybe you can explain the Hadith which must be taken with the Koran to understand the context. Maybe you can also explain the Surahs. Do we need to go into that?

I love being an ignorant idiot.

Show me how you can enlighten me when no Jew is allowed into islam's capital: Saudi Arabia. Show me why they behead someone for carrying a Bible in most muslim countries.

Show me how stupid I am.

It does allow muslims the right to stand up for themselves. Should they just sit there and let us kill them and take over their countries? They have the right to fight just like us, and they do it the only way they know how.

Oh, I see. And when it says to kill all infidels, as that is the only way of assurance into paradise, (because even Muhammad's successor said that if he did eveything right, he didn't even have assurance because Muhammad might kick him out of paradise), then we assume "infidels" to be warriors? "Infidels" is further defined as all those who do not submit in worshipping Allah. -A PAGAN MOON GOD.

There has been more bloodshed and terror throughout history in the name of christ then there has with any other religion.

Really? And where are your numbers?

-And when "Kill by the sword" is the entire theme of islam? -And history proves it. If you want to condemn Christianity for bloodshed, you must shift that to catholicism and the persecution of Jews under Hitler whom they put in power.

The only reason it's such a big religion is because it was forced upon the people by the romans, and if they didn't convert, they were executed. You call that love?????????

No, that is called CATHOLICISM.

Biblical Christianity is not catholicism. Catholicism says MEN are God's authority, Biblical Christianity says Jesus is God's authority.

One follows men and the other follows the Bible. Hence, one is a cult and the other is not. -By definition.

The very nature of how christianity rose into power should put up a red flag in ones soul.

Spoken like a muslim.

Christianity is not a "power". -It is merely a personal relationship with God (Yahweh) and a philosophy of loving your neighbor.

Islam, by contrast, is about serving a pagan moon god by ritual to try to enter heaven, killing all neighbors who do not also do the same as COMMANDED.

Let us also not forget the fact that a savior king born of a virgin mother was a pagan theme of that time. When christianity was forced on the people, they were forced to worship jesus, so they simply replaced jesus into their traditions.

Laughable.

Christianity was forced on the people? Ummmm.....how does one prove they worship Jesus Christ?

They CANT. All they can do is worhip MEN who follow Jesus, as THERE IS NO COMMANDED RITUALS to follow Jesus, and therefore be a Christian.

Catholicism is another matter. Like muslims, they do rituals all over the place.

Interesting that December 25th was originally Zeus's birthday also. You don't know anything about religious history. I am providing facts, which clearly shows that yours is the one that is an opinion.

Yeah.

Ok.

I am stupid and you know all. I think we made that clear.

 

[Lestat]

That's pretty funny.

The only real bashing going on is FROM them. -And the only reason THAT is happening is because they do not read the Bible to understand it themselves, but instead take another person's synopsis. Which is exactly what you are accusing others of.



By the same argument, nobody not familiar with the Bible has no right to speak against it either.

Yet, in America, freedom of speech is a right no matter what you know or don't know.



Yet, matters of opinion are not matters of fact. When considering if or where life after this will be spent, it behooves us to figure out what is the right or proper answer. If we CHOOSE NOT TO, we end up with matters of opinion so we can dodge fact.

I prefer to prove and determine fact. Therefore, I have become familiar with Mormonism, Jehovas Witnesses, Cathiolicism, Islam, Wicca, and a few others FROM THEIR SOURCE MATERIAL. -Then made decisions as to which was fact based on PROOF.

I would urge others to not merely prove to themselves simple things of Earthly ramifications, but simply prove from the source which things pertaining to afterlife are true. 100 years on Earth ain't nothin' compared to eternity.

I've read the bible more than once, and certain passages hundreds of times. Who are you to tell me what I have and have not read?

 

[Lestat]

im not even reading through all these posts...
but ill be damned if David didn't kill Goliath... this is no argument...

lol. bro you'll be damned? Why do you believe that David Killed goliath? for all we know it could be a myth, like the sword in the stone, or rapunzel letting someone climb up her hair to save her. The bible is full of allergories and parables right? Couldn't that story just be one of them?
What evidence do you have that David actually killed goliath? a few verses in a REALLY old book, the source and authors of which cannot be fully comfirmed? Or are you one of those types that just has to hear something enough and then you start believing?