Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I just found this surfing around and wonder what everyone thoughts are on this.

http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/pagan-symbols.html

Regardless of the claims on the site, Temples were always described extremely detailed in the scriptures. Their structure was important. During the wandering the Temple was simple and easily moved, following this the Temple was structured with great care, using items that are held precious as materials and decorations for the Temple.

As to the rest of the page it seems interesting, although heavily biased and in need of a more objective stance. I personally am rather skeptical of the claims made.

I think it actually presents some decent ideas, although the Amen thing was pretty badly argued. I believe some of it is true, some of is not (like what Regret said). It wasn't too badly biased, and did explain the reasonably logic behind some customs.

Amen Brother!!


The root of the word comes from Hebrew aman, which means to nourish and make strong. Emunah (faithfulness) also comes from aman. The ancient Greeks used the word (AMHN) from Hebrew to mean 'truth', 'surely', 'absolutely'. It is one of just a few Hebrew words which have been imported unchanged into Church liturgy. The current meaning of Amen and its pronunciation is pretty much the same in any modern language and religion...and Egyptian..Christians
Christians say either 'Ahh-men' or 'Ay-men'.

The 'Ahh-men' pronunciation tends to be a bit more formal and used in liturgy, choral music, etc. An example can be heard in the closing part of Handel's Messiah 'Worthy is the Lamb'2. The Ahh-men in the final chorus is repeated dozens of times, runs to six pages in a typical choral score, and usually takes around 3 minutes 40 seconds to sing.

The 'Ay-men' pronunciation is often associated with evangelical Christians and gospel singing. Unlike Handel's Messiah, the gospel chorus 'Amen' has only five words, all the same (Ay----men, Ay----men, Ay----men, Ay-men, Ay--men.) yet can take much longer to perform as it is repeated over and over again, bringing the congregation into harmony.

Jews
For Jews, Amen is also an acronym for El Melech Ne'eman, which means "Mighty, Faithful King".

Muslims
Muslims use Amen (Amin or Ameen) in the same way as Christians and Jews, even though the word does not appear in the Qur'an. Muslims say it after reciting Surah al-Fatihah, after completing their prayers, at the end of letters, etc.

Buddhists and Hindus
Many Buddhists and Hindus also use Amen at the end of prayers and as concurrence in the same way as the other religions.

But where did it all begin?

Pagans
From old Egyptian texts we can see that people believed the Sun was the emblem of the Creator. They called the Sun Ra, and all other gods and goddesses were forms of the Creator. One of these gods was Amen; a secret, hidden and mysterious god named variously Amen, Amon, Amun, Ammon and Amounra. For the first eleven dynasties (c. 3000-1987 B.C.) Amen was just a minor god, but by the 17th dynasty (c. 1500 B.C.) he had been elevated to be the national god of southern Egypt. This position gave Amen the attributes and characteristics of the most ancient gods, and his name became Amen-Ra, that is, a supreme form of God the Creator. By the 18th Dynasty (1539-1295 B.C.) a college had been established to study Amen-Ra and as a focal point for worship.

"Finally, we may note that the word Amen occurs not infrequently in early Christian inscriptions, and that it was often introduced into anathemas and gnostic spells. Moreover, as the Greek letters which form Amen according to their numerical values total 99 (alpha=1, mu=40, epsilon=8, nu=50), this number often appears in inscriptions, especially of Egyptian origin, and a sort of magical efficacy seems to have been attributed to its symbol."

(Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 1; 1907)




If it quacks like a duck ands walks like a duck......

Originally posted by debbiejo
If it quacks like a duck ands walks like a duck......
it must be a toad

Certainly must be.....lol


http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/fish/fish.html

This page is pretty good too...

Originally posted by debbiejo
http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/fish/fish.html

This page is pretty good too...
I like the original meaning of the fish symbol at the end of the page.

Oh and I believe that Amen may have come from the Egyptians, however, the meaning is far more important than the origin.

Yes, but I am sorry, I know a girl named Venus, and I must assume it to be an error because she is not the planet Venus. And she was Christian, so her parents must have been pagans and worshipped the Goddess Venus. Her name as I knew it must have been in error, as she was a Christian, and her name was first used in reference to the Goddess Venus and not just a name. I will have to refer to her as female offspring number two of the Smith family down the street, because obviously her parents greatly respected the beliefs of those worshipping the Greek Goddess Venus...Please

Language is merely language, similarities are merely similarities. There is no need to infer some sort of derivation from other beliefs, it could easily be said that pagan similarities are actually aspects influenced by Christianity and not vice versa.

Originally posted by Regret
Yes, but I am sorry, I know a girl named Venus, and I must assume it to be an error because she is not the planet Venus. And she was Christian, so her parents must have been pagans and worshipped the Goddess Venus. Her name as I knew it must have been in error, as she was a Christian, and her name was first used in reference to the Goddess Venus and not just a name. I will have to refer to her as female offspring number two of the Smith family down the street, because obviously her parents greatly respected the beliefs of those worshipping the Greek Goddess Venus...Please

Language is merely language, similarities are merely similarities. There is no need to infer some sort of derivation from other beliefs, it could easily be said that pagan similarities are actually aspects influenced by Christianity and not vice versa.

It is a question of assimilation I believe. As said in the US Constitution mentions Jesus thread - the fact it is mentioned is not indicative of religious belief. Just like "act of God" isn't in an insurance document.

However words, virtually all words have a history, and a good many can be traced back. When I did my English extension we got tables of the evolution of English, showing the links and dead ends - how a hand full of proto languages spread out into most moder languages. The noun Venus has a history and a meaning. But it can be used as a name without subscribing to the meaning. However that doesn't deny its history.

Similar with anything.

The word Amen was in use long before Christianity. Christianity was a religion base in classical language which itself had a long history derived from as far a field as the Mycenaean, Etruscans and Egyptians. I think it is perfectly valid to think that the word "amen" has a history prior to Christianity, and that Christianity assimilated it from elsewhere. Certainly the history and meaning of the word doesn't have to be recognised by those using it (just like the name Venus doesn't mean the parents recognise its astronomical of mythological past.) But ignoring it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A name, a word, a festival, a symbol - originally pagan in origin assimlated into another religion and made their own.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
It is a question of assimilation I believe. As said in the US Constitution mentions Jesus thread - the fact it is mentioned is not indicative of religious belief. Just like "act of God" isn't in an insurance document.

However words, virtually all words have a history, and a good many can be traced back. When I did my English extension we got tables of the evolution of English, showing the links and dead ends - how a hand full of proto languages spread out into most moder languages. The noun Venus has a history and a meaning. But it can be used as a name without subscribing to the meaning. However that doesn't deny its history.

Similar with anything.

The word Amen was in use long before Christianity. Christianity was a religion base in classical language which itself had a long history derived from as far a field as the Mycenaean, Etruscans and Egyptians. I think it is perfectly valid to think that the word "amen" has a history prior to Christianity, and that Christianity assimilated it from elsewhere. Certainly the history and meaning of the word doesn't have to be recognised by those using it (just like the name Venus doesn't mean the parents recognise its astronomical of mythological past.) But ignoring it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A name, a word, a festival, a symbol - originally pagan in origin assimlated into another religion and made their own.
Exactly.

Originally posted by Regret

Language is merely language, similarities are merely similarities. There is no need to infer some sort of derivation from other beliefs, it could easily be said that pagan similarities are actually aspects influenced by Christianity and not vice versa.

Not when the pagan mythology preceded christian mythology

Originally posted by Nellinator


Oh and I believe that Amen may have come from the Egyptians, however, the meaning is far more important than the origin.

So you're open to the probability that Amen came from Egyptian customs, and therefore Paganism has worked its way into the Bible ?

Wow....that's thinking more rational than I thought you were capable of being

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So you're open to the probability that Amen came from Egyptian customs, and therefore Paganism has worked its way into the Bible ?

Wow....that's thinking more rational than I thought you were capable of being
Yes. But I'm 100% positive that amen was no longer a reference to the Egyptian sun god when it entered the Bible. The Jews lived in Egypt for a long time and the word was probably used a lot. The French use English words, the English use French words, it happens.

But those words still reference the same things.

I hope the people here realise that the Bible was written in 1000 AD...In Greece.

Got proof?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
It is a question of assimilation I believe. As said in the US Constitution mentions Jesus thread - the fact it is mentioned is not indicative of religious belief. Just like "act of God" isn't in an insurance document.

However words, virtually all words have a history, and a good many can be traced back. When I did my English extension we got tables of the evolution of English, showing the links and dead ends - how a hand full of proto languages spread out into most moder languages. The noun Venus has a history and a meaning. But it can be used as a name without subscribing to the meaning. However that doesn't deny its history.

Similar with anything.

The word Amen was in use long before Christianity. Christianity was a religion base in classical language which itself had a long history derived from as far a field as the Mycenaean, Etruscans and Egyptians. I think it is perfectly valid to think that the word "amen" has a history prior to Christianity, and that Christianity assimilated it from elsewhere. Certainly the history and meaning of the word doesn't have to be recognised by those using it (just like the name Venus doesn't mean the parents recognise its astronomical of mythological past.) But ignoring it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A name, a word, a festival, a symbol - originally pagan in origin assimlated into another religion and made their own.

I agree. Not sure about the assimilation portion though, depends on how you are using it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Not when the pagan mythology preceded christian mythology That is only an assumption, not a surety. If Biblical claims are true, a religious tradition has existed since the beginning of man. It follows that all other religions could be derived from the original Adamic religion, if such were the case then all common religious traditions could be derived from an extremely early Biblical religion in some form. From a Mormon stance Egyptian mythology was probably influenced by Abraham.

Some of the items on this site are no doubt trrue. Others seem like quite a stretch.



...You're kidding, right? (Among other things, the "Age of Pisces" only began with Christ's birth according to Neil Mann; other people put it around 200 years before his birth, or around 400 after). But even if that wasn't true ... my God! "Jesus was born in a stable, with the types of animals you'd expect to find in a stable surrounding him; this can only be a reference to the Zodiac!" Uh huh.

Then they go on to list religion that have fish as symbols. What the heck? It's not as if the Japanese fish symbol (for example) has anything in common with the Christian fish symbol, other then the "fish" part ... and honestly, "fish" isn't such an obscure symbol that you wouldn't expect to see it in more then one religion.

"Jesus made his disciples fishers of men; his main disciples were fishermen; one of Jesus' best known miracles was to feed people with fish and loaves. So when the fish became a symbol of Christianity, we immediately leapt to the logical conclussion that it must have come from astrology." That's ... that's ... honestly, what do you say to something like that?

Christianity is a sect of Juddaism? You don't really believe that, do you?

And even if it is, what you say doesn't follow. Mormomism is a sect of Christianity, so it claims the same starting date as the Roman Catholics; confirm/deny?

Originally posted by Gregory
Christianity is a sect of Juddaism? You don't really believe that, do you?

And even if it is, what you say doesn't follow. Mormomism is a sect of Christianity, so it claims the same starting date as the Roman Catholics; confirm/deny? Christianity claims such, the New Testament claims such. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, the Mormons) believe that iff the Catholic Church began with Jesus followed by the leadership of Peter and the Apostles, then yes the early Catholic Church would be the early Christian religion. We believe the early Christian Church, Catholicism, became apostate and taught many improper doctrines very quickly following the death of the Apostles. Christians believe in the Old Testament, they believe it to be God's word, it is by definition a sect of Judaism, or perhaps more correctly Judaism and Christianity are sects of the original Hebrew religion.

"Christianity" claims that Christianity is a sect of Juddaism? "The Bible" says so. So all those letters where Paul talks about non-Jewish Christians...?

Originally posted by Gregory
"Christianity" claims that Christianity is a sect of Juddaism? "The Bible" says so. So all those letters where Paul talks about non-Jewish Christians...? Religion is not a racial concept. Jewish as you have used it refers to familial or racial heritage, not to religion. There are genetic Jews. Jew is a reference to race or religion, not necessarily both.

Originally posted by Regret
That is only an assumption, not a surety. If Biblical claims are true, a religious tradition has existed since the beginning of man. It follows that all other religions could be derived from the original Adamic religion, if such were the case then all common religious traditions could be derived from an extremely early Biblical religion in some form. From a Mormon stance Egyptian mythology was probably influenced by Abraham.

Of course the problem with that is the Biblical beginning of man doesn't fit in with the scientific one.

The spread of man if believed, scientifically, to have begun in Africa before tribes spread out. And there is no sign of anything approaching Judean or Christian religion there - nothing but the oldest forms of animism and the like. Nor anything comparable to the claims the OT made. So either the Bible is wrong but based upon something real or it is just pure myth.

They spread up into the Middle East where they were able to leave behind hunter/gatherer necessities and became settled, thus religion then became far more representative/natural - nature gods, gods of natural cycles etc.



No, they accept there is some doubt, but there is a reasonably firm consensus that Judaism was predated by Ancient Mesopotamian religions, potentially by Australian aboriginal ones and certainly by Ancient African ones.

As it is in terms of becoming the first organised religion Hinduism holds that title. Judaism is undoubtedly old, but there were religions before it, beside it and after it.



Which began first? Christianity is dependant on Jesus - Christianity didn't exist before Jesus - that was there starting point in terms of history. That they believe the OT is all well and good but their religion didn't come about until Jesus. Judaism predates Christianity without any doubt in terms of historical narratives. There were no Christians before Jesus, only Jews and all the other religions.

Originally posted by Regret
Religion is not a racial concept. Jewish as you have used it refers to familial or racial heritage, not to religion. There are genetic Jews. Jew is a reference to race or religion, not necessarily both.

Judaism is a religion, not a race. Just like Hinduism is a religion, NOT a race....

Isreali is the "genetic Jew" just the way Indian is the "genetic hindu"

Well for one, the Chirstmas tree is pagan in origin.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Judaism is a religion, not a race. Just like Hinduism is a religion, NOT a race....

Isreali is the "genetic Jew" just the way Indian is the "genetic hindu" A Jew would be an Israeli of descent from the Israeli tribe of Judah.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Of course the problem with that is the Biblical beginning of man doesn't fit in with the scientific one.

Time frame in the Bible is only in conflict if all time concepts presented therein are taken literally.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The spread of man if believed, scientifically, to have begun in Africa before tribes spread out. And there is no sign of anything approaching Judean or Christian religion there - nothing but the oldest forms of animism and the like. Nor anything comparable to the claims the OT made. So either the Bible is wrong but based upon something real or it is just pure myth.

They spread up into the Middle East where they were able to leave behind hunter/gatherer necessities and became settled, thus religion then became far more representative/natural - nature gods, gods of natural cycles etc. This is only an assumption. Nomadic lifestyles are presented in early Biblical text. Hebrew religion could have been present in the African Region and lacking material components may not have left historical markers.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
No, they accept there is some doubt, but there is a reasonably firm consensus that Judaism was predated by Ancient Mesopotamian religions, potentially by Australian aboriginal ones and certainly by Ancient African ones.

Consensus does not make something fact. Given the verbal tradition and lack of material components the date of Hebrew origin could be a few thousand years prior to Moses. Also, the Biblical account does not describe events outside the Garden of Eden, and there is no reason to believe that there was no existence outside the Garden. Another issue is duration of the Garden period, this period could have been any number of years.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
As it is in terms of becoming the first organised religion Hinduism holds that title. Judaism is undoubtedly old, but there were religions before it, beside it and after it.

Religions before it are questionable. Hinduism's earliest documentation is ~1500 BCE. Only a short time before Moses, ~1400 BCE. Abraham would have been ~1800 BCE, placing Abraham earlier and Adam much earlier. Animism is assumed to have existed prior to this, but there is no conclusive evidence that such is the case.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which began first? Christianity is dependant on Jesus - Christianity didn't exist before Jesus - that was there starting point in terms of history. That they believe the OT is all well and good but their religion didn't come about until Jesus. Judaism predates Christianity without any doubt in terms of historical narratives. There were no Christians before Jesus, only Jews and all the other religions. A common misconception. Christians believe Judaism is the pre-Christ manner of the Christian religion, in the exact same manner that the Hebrew religion was the pre-Judaism manner of Judaic religion. Yes, there are earlier forms, but they are considered the same religion by adherents.

Originally posted by Regret
Time frame in the Bible is only in conflict if all time concepts presented therein are taken literally.

How so? The Bible makes some fairly big claims regarding the beginning of the earth and humanity, none of which gell with the current one believed accurate by archaeologists, anthropologists and the rest.

How unliterally should the claims in genesis and the OT as a whole be taken? Seem to me either it is completely wrong, greatly exaggerated, or absurdly symbolic. All of which raise valid questions about the accuracy of the claims.



Yet miraculously despite the flow of time there is still evidence that turns up of singularly non-Judean belief in Ancient Africa. There is no evidence however that Judea beliefs were ever there before the Jews themselves went to Africa thousands of years later. It is stretching the limits of probability to imply... or perhaps hope... that Judea religion originated with the Ancient African tribes and somehow miraculously failed to leave a single bit of evidence while the far more fragile nature of African belief left traces.



Do you know that consensus isn't just a bunch of people sitting down and going "I say we claim these religions came before Judaism."? That it is the gradual cohesion of the views held by thousands of experts based upon facts? There is usually as reason why many historians works are so similar - because they are coming to the most accurate history possible with the available sources. It isn't an argument to say "consensus does not make something fact" when the reason for the consensus is the amount of evidence supported the claims that form it. Unless you can attack the history historians have a consensus on then it stands.

Mesopotamian myths can be traced back to long before the Egyptians - they do not reference anything remotely Biblical (though the Bible references things Mesopotamian - proof it would seem of the OT coming after it), the Aboriginals are believed to have been in Australia for up to 20,000 years - acceptance of the African origin theory would mean that there would have been people spread through Asia as well then. Africans - more then 20,000 years. Are you saying the "Garden Period" lasted for more then 20,000 years? And if so that flies in the face of the claim God had made himself known to all people as there were a lot apparently existing outside the garden completely unaware of him as their religion and culture attest.



What do you mean questionable?

Organised religion. Hinduism predates Judaism as the first organised religion. Judaism existed before it, but was not classified as organised until after it.

And 1800 BCE? Then Abraham is still predated by the Egyptians (3000+ as a unified kingdom), Mesopotamians (4000+) and Africans (30,000+)as well as others. There is no evidence to my knowledge that Judaism is older then Mesopotamian myth, nor Animism. Animism is not assumed to anything. Experts no when it was in existence, and the fact there is no sign of Judaism existing with it indicates that Judaism didn't exist at that point.

It seem very unlikely the "true religion" would manage to exist for as long as all these other yet show absolutely nothing for it until BANG suddenly they are recording, despite the fact other cultures had been doing so for some time.



Since Christianity is defined by historians starting with the belief in Christ then logically Christ is needed to be classified as Christian - which happened long after Judaism. However I am aware of claims made by groups that Christ came about before the time most Christians recognise in the Bible.

The problem with such claims is the historical problems. The claims made in the Book of Mormon for example, regarding the coming to America of followers is an interesting claim - but one not actually accepted by the wider historical community. If the plate book was still about then that would be a valid artifact supporting the claim - but it isn't. A claimed translation of the plates is (The Book of Mormon) - but that is a whole different kettle of fish.

Originally posted by ThePittman
I just found this surfing around and wonder what everyone thoughts are on this.

http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/pagan-symbols.html

And there are so any more. At least in the East (and I HATE when people don't want to admit it) pagan rituals of food, animal slaughter for festivals, chanty type thingys...etc. All pagan.

Pagan is the platform for a lot of religions.

After discovering that people were more reluctant to give up their holidays and festivals than their gods, some pagan practices were simply incorporated into Christian festivals.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And there are so any more. At least in the East (and I HATE when people don't want to admit it) pagan rituals of food, animal slaughter for festivals, chanty type thingys...etc. All pagan.

Pagan is the platform for a lot of religions.

Very true.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And there are so any more. At least in the East (and I HATE when people don't want to admit it) pagan rituals of food, animal slaughter for festivals, chanty type thingys...etc. All pagan.

Pagan is the platform for a lot of religions.

Its the same globally.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
How so? The Bible makes some fairly big claims regarding the beginning of the earth and humanity, none of which gell with the current one believed accurate by archaeologists, anthropologists and the rest.

How unliterally should the claims in genesis and the OT as a whole be taken? Seem to me either it is completely wrong, greatly exaggerated, or absurdly symbolic. All of which raise valid questions about the accuracy of the claims.



Yet miraculously despite the flow of time there is still evidence that turns up of singularly non-Judean belief in Ancient Africa. There is no evidence however that Judea beliefs were ever there before the Jews themselves went to Africa thousands of years later. It is stretching the limits of probability to imply... or perhaps hope... that Judea religion originated with the Ancient African tribes and somehow miraculously failed to leave a single bit of evidence while the far more fragile nature of African belief left traces.



Do you know that consensus isn't just a bunch of people sitting down and going "I say we claim these religions came before Judaism."? That it is the gradual cohesion of the views held by thousands of experts based upon facts? There is usually as reason why many historians works are so similar - because they are coming to the most accurate history possible with the available sources. It isn't an argument to say "consensus does not make something fact" when the reason for the consensus is the amount of evidence supported the claims that form it. Unless you can attack the history historians have a consensus on then it stands.

Mesopotamian myths can be traced back to long before the Egyptians - they do not reference anything remotely Biblical (though the Bible references things Mesopotamian - proof it would seem of the OT coming after it), the Aboriginals are believed to have been in Australia for up to 20,000 years - acceptance of the African origin theory would mean that there would have been people spread through Asia as well then. Africans - more then 20,000 years. Are you saying the "Garden Period" lasted for more then 20,000 years? And if so that flies in the face of the claim God had made himself known to all people as there were a lot apparently existing outside the garden completely unaware of him as their religion and culture attest.



What do you mean questionable?

Organised religion. Hinduism predates Judaism as the first organised religion. Judaism existed before it, but was not classified as organised until after it.

And 1800 BCE? Then Abraham is still predated by the Egyptians (3000+ as a unified kingdom), Mesopotamians (4000+) and Africans (30,000+)as well as others. There is no evidence to my knowledge that Judaism is older then Mesopotamian myth, nor Animism. Animism is not assumed to anything. Experts no when it was in existence, and the fact there is no sign of Judaism existing with it indicates that Judaism didn't exist at that point.

It seem very unlikely the "true religion" would manage to exist for as long as all these other yet show absolutely nothing for it until BANG suddenly they are recording, despite the fact other cultures had been doing so for some time.



Since Christianity is defined by historians starting with the belief in Christ then logically Christ is needed to be classified as Christian - which happened long after Judaism. However I am aware of claims made by groups that Christ came about before the time most Christians recognise in the Bible.

The problem with such claims is the historical problems. The claims made in the Book of Mormon for example, regarding the coming to America of followers is an interesting claim - but one not actually accepted by the wider historical community. If the plate book was still about then that would be a valid artifact supporting the claim - but it isn't. A claimed translation of the plates is (The Book of Mormon) - but that is a whole different kettle of fish. The major disagreement here stems from my belief that the Bible is a true book. Given this, anything that is not a fact, that is only inference, is questionable. I will concede probability, and likelihood, of the accuracy of the inference, but not that such inferences are absolute and/or conclusive, if they do not mesh with the Bible in some manner of interpretation. I am biased in my view, and so I will err on the side of caution when conflict comes between my religious views and inferred beliefs about scientific matters.

I don't have time at the moment, but I will attempt to address some of the points you present that do not find my view as the source of our debate some other time.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
How so? The Bible makes some fairly big claims regarding the beginning of the earth and humanity, none of which gell with the current one believed accurate by archaeologists, anthropologists and the rest.

How unliterally should the claims in genesis and the OT as a whole be taken? Seem to me either it is completely wrong, greatly exaggerated, or absurdly symbolic. All of which raise valid questions about the accuracy of the claims.

One extremely off concept is the six day concept. The term day is relative. The term day does not necessarily refer to 24 of our hours. Our day is in reference to a rotation of the Earth, or a reference to the rising and setting of the sun, or perhaps even the presence of light on the level of the sun's. Also, time is relative, Einstein pointed this out. Mormon's believe that God resides in this universe, and that this residence is far away. Mormons believe that God told Christ and those helping him to go to Earth and "create" a portion (a day as described in Genesis), following this "creation" God looked it over and states that it is good, created properly, then they travel back and recieve further instructions. Traveling of those aiding that were not God would require time, there is no method for describing the exact length of time that passed on Earth during this period. Thus time can not be held as absolute in this.

Mormons do not believe in a "poof there it is" creation. There are infinite possible methods that could have been employed. As well as infinite possible time requirements on the creation.

Mormons believe God works within the bounds he creates. Natural laws are bounds he may have created, or if not created, they may be intrinsic to all existence, including God's.

Mormons believe that religion should not conflict with science. Although, scientific fact and scientific inference must be understood and discriminated exactly. Mormons are skeptical of inference. Inference does not constitute fact, it constitutes a highly probable explanation for observations made, which is not the same as fact.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yet miraculously despite the flow of time there is still evidence that turns up of singularly non-Judean belief in Ancient Africa. There is no evidence however that Judea beliefs were ever there before the Jews themselves went to Africa thousands of years later. It is stretching the limits of probability to imply... or perhaps hope... that Judea religion originated with the Ancient African tribes and somehow miraculously failed to leave a single bit of evidence while the far more fragile nature of African belief left traces.

Mesopotamian myths can be traced back to long before the Egyptians - they do not reference anything remotely Biblical (though the Bible references things Mesopotamian - proof it would seem of the OT coming after it), the Aboriginals are believed to have been in Australia for up to 20,000 years - acceptance of the African origin theory would mean that there would have been people spread through Asia as well then. Africans - more then 20,000 years. Are you saying the "Garden Period" lasted for more then 20,000 years? And if so that flies in the face of the claim God had made himself known to all people as there were a lot apparently existing outside the garden completely unaware of him as their religion and culture attest.
It is stretching the limits of probability to imply such. I understand this, it is only a low level probability. I have never heard of any evidence that is conclusive as to beliefs of historical peoples that did not write. The conclusion is made from inferential assumptions.

As to the Garden period, there is no need to assume he did not make himself known at some point to anyone that may have existed outside of the Garden. Also, between Adam and Noah, individuals that believed in God can be assumed to be minuscule in comparison to those that did not. These non-believers may have lived a normal span of life, while Adam and the descendants following him are claimed to have lived to phenomenal ages. This would provide an enourmous amount of evidence to other beliefs and minimal, if any, evidence to an Adamic belief system.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Do you know that consensus isn't just a bunch of people sitting down and going "I say we claim these religions came before Judaism."? That it is the gradual cohesion of the views held by thousands of experts based upon facts? There is usually as reason why many historians works are so similar - because they are coming to the most accurate history possible with the available sources. It isn't an argument to say "consensus does not make something fact" when the reason for the consensus is the amount of evidence supported the claims that form it. Unless you can attack the history historians have a consensus on then it stands. History is fiction. Attacks on many religious claims, particularly Bible based claims, stem from the historians presenting the history being biased, and falsifying an account. If any historian can be attacked based on this, all historians must be scrutinized in a similar manner.

Understanding priming in psychology, one must assume that many historians are primed for a specific manner of interpretation of fact. It has also been shown that reporting archaeological or historical evidence conflicting with the concensus can be, at times, a career ending choice.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
What do you mean questionable?

Organised religion. Hinduism predates Judaism as the first organised religion. Judaism existed before it, but was not classified as organised until after it.

And 1800 BCE? Then Abraham is still predated by the Egyptians (3000+ as a unified kingdom), Mesopotamians (4000+) and Africans (30,000+)as well as others. There is no evidence to my knowledge that Judaism is older then Mesopotamian myth, nor Animism. Animism is not assumed to anything. Experts no when it was in existence, and the fact there is no sign of Judaism existing with it indicates that Judaism didn't exist at that point.

It seem very unlikely the "true religion" would manage to exist for as long as all these other yet show absolutely nothing for it until BANG suddenly they are recording, despite the fact other cultures had been doing so for some time. It is only unlikely if there was a large group of people believing in this religion, the Bible does not describe a large group of believers until the period of captivity in Egypt.

As to animism, I believe I addressed this above, but provide some evidence that cannot be interpretted in some other manner. There is none.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Since Christianity is defined by historians starting with the belief in Christ then logically Christ is needed to be classified as Christian - which happened long after Judaism. However I am aware of claims made by groups that Christ came about before the time most Christians recognise in the Bible.

Christ believed in the Bible (Jewish Scripture of the time). His teachings, he claimed, were extensions of the Jewish religion and not something else. The inception of the term Christianity is irrelevant, Christianity is a sect of the Hebrew religion and can claim the same origin.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The problem with such claims is the historical problems. The claims made in the Book of Mormon for example, regarding the coming to America of followers is an interesting claim - but one not actually accepted by the wider historical community. If the plate book was still about then that would be a valid artifact supporting the claim - but it isn't. A claimed translation of the plates is (The Book of Mormon) - but that is a whole different kettle of fish. I addressed historians and history above. I won't get into Book of Mormon evidence and such, as I understand the weakness within arguments for support of it, and there is a thread for it. Also, its claims are not within our the discussion at hand.

Originally posted by Regret
One extremely off concept is the six day concept. The term day is relative. The term day does not necessarily refer to 24 of our hours. Our day is in reference to a rotation of the Earth, or a reference to the rising and setting of the sun, or perhaps even the presence of light on the level of the sun's. Also, time is relative, Einstein pointed this out. Mormon's believe that God resides in this universe, and that this residence is far away. Mormons believe that God told Christ and those helping him to go to Earth and "create" a portion (a day as described in Genesis), following this "creation" God looked it over and states that it is good, created properly, then they travel back and recieve further instructions. Traveling of those aiding that were not God would require time, there is no method for describing the exact length of time that passed on Earth during this period. Thus time can not be held as absolute in this.

Which seem to be something of a justification of either a false or completely metaphorical claim. The OT was written in a period when times were well established - there is no reason for the Israelites to be using "day" if it wasn't applicable. The could have used cycles or years or lunar cycles - but then without the sun to judge by there was nothing to judge time.

Why not merely say "God created over a long period" - instead they use a pretty much established unit of time (a solar cycle.)



But isn't that simply a way of insuring that no matter what turns up one can still say "ah, but that might very well still fit in with what we believe." Certainly I admire open mindedness to the fact we are always learning and might be wrong, but it seems to go a bit to far to be open minded to the point that says "there may have been infinite methods of creation thus will take any possible method as proof we are correct."

Still it is a much better world view then the "poof, there it is" creation.



Once again it seems to be extremely hopeful thinking - and if one accepts God is correct, and the claims many make that "all people are searching for him" it is hard to believe his religion could fail to take off so profoundly outside the garden in a time when religion was a vital part of the ancients world view - the way they explained the world.

And that still suggests that millions of people throughout history lived and died without having any knowledge, nor opportunity, to know of the "correct faith."



How is history fiction? History is distinctly non-fiction. History is a narrative built upon textual and artefactual evidence - and history in the modern world is far more stringent - hence the rise of historiography.

Once again I fail to see it as an argument in defense of Biblical claims to say "history being fiction" and that historians "attacks" on the Bible stem from "being biased" I have studied a lot of history, and the reason I see history not agreeing with the Bible is because there is little to agree about. If the Bible doesn't fit in with the evidence then the Bible is wrong. Civilisations didn't go around organising themselves on the principal "3000 years in the future this will really confuse historians as our civilisation totally disagrees with the Bible" - it simply didn't work like that.



Correct - hence historiography - understanding the motives and world view of a historians. And then differentiating - ancient from modern. A ancient historian, writing contemporary to events, will reveal further social context in regards to how he writes.

And it is a gross oversimplification to imply that disagreeing with the concensus is career ending. History doesn't work like that. It encourages new views - hence why the Biblical, romanticised view of the Crusades has fallen out of favor. Hence why we are looking at other cultures in a fairer light rather then simply comparing them with the classical civilisations - a view promoted by Eurocentric dark ages thinking. And so on.

I have never seen a report that saw a historian cast down for his views -unless those views are justifiably bad - like claiming "Blacks were to primitive too build the African monuments of such and such - clearly white people came and did it in an Ancient time" - and you leave out the treatment of historians who disagreed with the Church 100, 200, 500 years ago - they were harmed because they, rightfully, disagreed with the popular Church endorsed view.



Yet we know there were large groups of people believing other things long before.



Animism gets debated as to whether it qualifies as a religion or not a lot. From memory it is believed to have originated stone age prehistory era groups (Africa, Asia) as evidenced by cave art. Now, the art is thought to be about 30,000+ years old. These are found in Europe, which means occurred some long after the exodus from Africa. However while theories have been put forward regarding the likelihood of religious significance (such as the appearance of animal skulls placed within the caves) and how in every culture up till a certain point art had a religious purpose this is not proof (yet, just very promising theory)

Thus the oldest examples are contentious as in what they really refer to. As such while it is possible (and who can rule it out?) we shave away years till we get to more certain times:

The Laas Gaa'l cave art - put at between 8,000 and 9,000 years old are believed to show examples of some of the earliest animist expression - the apparent worship of animals (cows I think.)

Then we get down to Bushman cave paintings - examples dated to 3,000+ and indicated to have religious significance. Originally mis dated at only 1000 years a test of many thousands of pieces of rock art reveal the 3000 year mark as accurate.

Australian cave art - Australian Aborigines have a profound spiritual religion - believed animistic. Aboriginals are thoughts to have been in Australia for at least 20,000 years (though everything points to them having been here for closer to 40,000, coming over on land bridges.) They used, in there rock painting, a non-organic paint (thus a problem for radiocarbon dating) - however other direct, absolute dating methods have produced results putting certain images at 20,000 years - hence why some believe Australian rock art is some of the oldest in the world. Those examples with direct and clear religious imagery (mythological spirit beings) can be put at 4000+ years.

Burial mounds in N.E Thailand - dated between 3,000 and 3,500 BC. Archaeologists noted these mounds do not show the tell tale signs of being a new belief and so have links going back further - links to animism found in grave goods and the like.

These are the examples I found by typing "early animism" into my university journal finder. However you can debate interpretation. The dates given are the conservative ones (since it is possible they are older, but thought near impossible they are younger.) Likewise you could debate - "what is religion" - which many do, in a why I believe to try and exclude animism from the religious classification as it is a by product of outdated, discomfort that ancient cultures may have had strong religious beliefs before the Egyptians and Israelites and all the rest.



Which is not something many Christians believe. Not many theological historians. They see Christianity more as a child of Judaism - but a separate entity none the less. Despite the inclusion of the OT there are enough differences - both technical and doctrinal and practical to make them two separate religions, not different versions of the same.

However it is true Christians worship the same God as the Jews - but they do so from a different religion. Jesus, his birth and death, are the point at which they split. Most Jewish people remained with Judaism, and Christianity went of of as an independent and separate religion. Christianity did not exist prior to this point Judaism did. And Judaism is not Christianity.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which seem to be something of a justification of either a false or completely metaphorical claim. The OT was written in a period when times were well established - there is no reason for the Israelites to be using "day" if it wasn't applicable. The could have used cycles or years or lunar cycles - but then without the sun to judge by there was nothing to judge time.

Why not merely say "God created over a long period" - instead they use a pretty much established unit of time (a solar cycle.)

The event of creation did not occur in a period when these cycles were necessarily established. Also, given location, and various other possibilities, perhaps where God resides only a day had passed while a longer period passed on Earth. Given that no man witnessed the creation, we do not know exactly how or even what God gave the person that originally was given the account of the creation. It is possible that this individual was given a visual and audible experience from the position of God, thus all we have is what occurred on his end. There are other possibilities, there is no information as to how the account in Genesis came to be.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
But isn't that simply a way of insuring that no matter what turns up one can still say "ah, but that might very well still fit in with what we believe." Certainly I admire open mindedness to the fact we are always learning and might be wrong, but it seems to go a bit to far to be open minded to the point that says "there may have been infinite methods of creation thus will take any possible method as proof we are correct."

Still it is a much better world view then the "poof, there it is" creation.

Yes. I do not believe the Bible to be the end all of God's interaction with man, and I do not believe that it is definitive on most subjects. I believe that the Bible teaches people how to behave morally and in line with God's purpose, not how biochemistry, physics, geology, or any other science works. Science is the area that has purview over these things, and the Bible is not intended to answer these types of questions. I believe that whatever science discovers as fact is how it happened. I don't believe religion should be threatened by science, they are studies in different things.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Once again it seems to be extremely hopeful thinking - and if one accepts God is correct, and the claims many make that "all people are searching for him" it is hard to believe his religion could fail to take off so profoundly outside the garden in a time when religion was a vital part of the ancients world view - the way they explained the world.

And that still suggests that millions of people throughout history lived and died without having any knowledge, nor opportunity, to know of the "correct faith." Yes. Agreed. Mormons believe everyone will have an opportunity to learn these things. If someone has not learned it, they will have an opportunity prior to Judgement, in the spirit world. That is one of the two main purposes of Mormon temples. Mormon temples are a place where the physical ordinances that are a part of our faith are performed in proxy for the dead. These ordinances can then be accepted or rejected by the individual, and thereby be valid or invalid depending on their choice. We do not believe everyone has the opportunity to learn the truth, as we see it, in this life, but they do have the opportunity at some point.

The truth isn't always what people want it to be. "All people are searching for him" is true, imo, if an individual is searching for peace, happiness, etc. that individual is in search of the truth, if God is the source of truth, they are searching for him. The problem is preconceptions as to what truth is, or how it should look, or how living in line with that truth should be. If you don't know what truth is, you should not expect to know how one would need to live to be in line with truth.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
How is history fiction? History is distinctly non-fiction. History is a narrative built upon textual and artefactual evidence - and history in the modern world is far more stringent - hence the rise of historiography.

Once again I fail to see it as an argument in defense of Biblical claims to say "history being fiction" and that historians "attacks" on the Bible stem from "being biased" I have studied a lot of history, and the reason I see history not agreeing with the Bible is because there is little to agree about. If the Bible doesn't fit in with the evidence then the Bible is wrong. Civilisations didn't go around organising themselves on the principal "3000 years in the future this will really confuse historians as our civilisation totally disagrees with the Bible" - it simply didn't work like that. Historians try to be unbiased, such is impossible. When referencing peoples in the past and inferring their behaviors, beliefs, etc. one must draw from what one knows, it is biased and not necessarily true. Biblical history, if attacked, is attacked by the same attacks that must hold true for all historians.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Correct - hence historiography - understanding the motives and world view of a historians. And then differentiating - ancient from modern. A ancient historian, writing contemporary to events, will reveal further social context in regards to how he writes.

And it is a gross oversimplification to imply that disagreeing with the concensus is career ending. History doesn't work like that. It encourages new views - hence why the Biblical, romanticised view of the Crusades has fallen out of favor. Hence why we are looking at other cultures in a fairer light rather then simply comparing them with the classical civilisations - a view promoted by Eurocentric dark ages thinking. And so on.

I have never seen a report that saw a historian cast down for his views -unless those views are justifiably bad - like claiming "Blacks were to primitive too build the African monuments of such and such - clearly white people came and did it in an Ancient time" - and you leave out the treatment of historians who disagreed with the Church 100, 200, 500 years ago - they were harmed because they, rightfully, disagreed with the popular Church endorsed view. I am not stating that religious people do not have the same problems as other historians. I am stating that religious historians have the same problems as other historians and historians have the same problems as religious historians. History is a fiction based on events that occur and are then recorded, history is much less fiction than most other works, but historians are unable to describe exactly how things occur, and error occurs due to this and biases.

"hence historiography - understanding the motives and world view of a historians. And then differentiating - ancient from modern. A ancient historian, writing contemporary to events, will reveal further social context in regards to how he writes." This understanding is entirely drawn from personal interpretation of text. It is assumed as to motives and world view, based on incomplete information that exists, or history that has errors no matter the attempt at accuracy, and translation and interpretation compound these errors.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yet we know there were large groups of people believing other things long before. Yes, we know that before Moses other people believed various things. But, we don't "know" that Abrahamic or Adamic religion did not precede many of these.



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Animism...

These are the examples I found by typing "early animism" into my university journal finder. However you can debate interpretation. The dates given are the conservative ones (since it is possible they are older, but thought near impossible they are younger.) Likewise you could debate - "what is religion" - which many do, in a why I believe to try and exclude animism from the religious classification as it is a by product of outdated, discomfort that ancient cultures may have had strong religious beliefs before the Egyptians and Israelites and all the rest. These examples do not necessitate belief. They are merely drawings on walls that may be artistic expression, creative fantasy, fictional narrative, etc. We also, have little information as to who made these paintings, was it a child, an adult, were people that drew on walls considered insane at the time or possessed of demons? There are alternate possible explanations, animism is assumed or inferred in these, but not necessarily fact nor conclusive.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which is not something many Christians believe. Not many theological historians. They see Christianity more as a child of Judaism - but a separate entity none the less. Despite the inclusion of the OT there are enough differences - both technical and doctrinal and practical to make them two separate religions, not different versions of the same.

Theological historians are individuals indoctrinated in a belief prior to making statements and assertions. Their views are most frequently biased and probably in error due to their beliefs, especially if such beliefs are false.

I realize that many Christians do not believe this. It is sad that they cannot accept the simple fact. Christianity is a sect of the Hebrew Religion (Hebrew religion being pre-Moses, or at least pre-Judaean separation) by definition. It is the same as Protestantism, Mormonism, Evangelism, Catholicism, etc. are all sects of Christianity. They have the same origin, but believe differently about the meaning and intent of that origin.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
However it is true Christians worship the same God as the Jews - but they do so from a different religion. Jesus, his birth and death, are the point at which they split. Most Jewish people remained with Judaism, and Christianity went of of as an independent and separate religion. Christianity did not exist prior to this point Judaism did. And Judaism is not Christianity. You are confusing Judaism with Hebrew religion, Judaism is a "child" of the Hebrew religion, it is not necessarily the Hebrew religion.

Originally posted by Regret
The event of creation did not occur in a period when these cycles were necessarily established. Also, given location, and various other possibilities, perhaps where God resides only a day had passed while a longer period passed on Earth. Given that no man witnessed the creation, we do not know exactly how or even what God gave the person that originally was given the account of the creation. It is possible that this individual was given a visual and audible experience from the position of God, thus all we have is what occurred on his end. There are other possibilities, there is no information as to how the account in Genesis came to be.

Still historically uncomfortable though - one agrees that it didn't take place in the accepted 24 hour period that constitutes a modern day. Nor a solar cycle, yet the author felt justified claiming it was "a day" - tell me, do you think in the ancient world preachers would have stopped to explain "But it isn't really a day like you or I know it" - but rather have run with the impressive claim of "day" - and without sciences to speak against it people would have accepted the claim "day" as meaning "day"?



An admirable view. I think if a person can reconcile religion and science that is fine - providing the one with the evidence is not suppressed to warped unnaturally to fit in with a religious frame.



How do you know the dead are accepting or not? Is it just dead in general, or specific dead (which would be hard, what with the names and knowledge of the majority of past humans lost to time) And if Christianity is true wouldn't it have made more sense for God to insure people everywhere had a chance in life to accept it, rather then live in ignorance and then spend thousands of years in a stop over place waiting for a ceremony to teach them? Isn't that a bit like missing out on a reward due simply to bad luck on where one was born?



The thing I have seen is truth is often subjective. There may be broad themes, but at a personal level? People throughout history don't appear to have been searching for the Christian God. When it came to religion they often simply seemed to be searching for an understanding of the world. And with science most of those questions are answered. There is no real theme they are looking for a moral truth derived from God - after all without God they still had them.



Naturally, but bias does not mean something can not be recorded accurately. I dislike SUV's, I see an accident involving one. Is my bias going to necessarily mean I can't give an accurate report to the police based on what I saw? Bias effects tone, bias effects intent - but the materials a historians works with remain what they are. Granted a textual source might be open to interpretation, but it isn't a wild stab in the dark as you imply. Making a history is a complex thing, and a modern historian often endevours to put aside personal things. It might not be completely possible, but that doesn't actually mean a history is incorrect - as with the SUV example - a person can still give an accurate report based on what they see before them.

And as to attacks on the Bible - could this not be because the Bible doesn't show accuracy? A historians dealing with the flood will likely criticise the Bible on that respect simply because it is in no way accurate. Either it is completely wrong, completely blown out of proportion or reveals complete ignorance on the behalf of the author. Is the historian wrong for using critical analysis of something that does not stand well with the evidence?

No - criticism and analyses are an important part of history. A person doesn't just "attack" the Bible out of bias - if the need arises to use it as a source then it gets a fair deal, but none, bar the most oblivious Christians historians, will wave away its flaws or utlra-religious reasoning and claim it is right.

Originally posted by Regret
I am not stating that religious people do not have the same problems as other historians. I am stating that religious historians have the same problems as other historians and historians have the same problems as religious historians. History is a fiction based on events that occur and are then recorded, history is much less fiction than most other works, but historians are unable to describe exactly how things occur, and error occurs due to this and biases.

What a remarkably post modern view, and one that I see no reason is accurate. History is far more like a police report based upon evidence and testimony. It is the historians job to put together a case based upon these two things. It is in no way fictional. Historians can, and do, reveal accurate reports. Some are easier to verify then others - for example WWII history as opposed to history of Sumeria.

And once again this does not defend historical problems with the Bible. If a historian digs through the evidence, reads the testimonies, and puts together a history that does not fit in with the Biblical claims it does not mean he is inaccurate. It means that the evidence supports his history, not the Biblical claims. It is disingenuous (but sadly all to frequent) that the claim arises that when history or science or anthropology or whatever doesn't fit in with a popular view a cry goes up about how "subjective it is" and how history is fundamentally flawed and all the rest. But strangely enough it never happens when history is supporting their view.



Tch, tch, tch. Once again - fair and valid understanding of past world views can be seen by a modern person. Humanity is not trapped in the present unable to understand the past. I study Tacitus, I can see the motives stemming from his displeasure at the Emperor of his time, detect it in his writings, the things he includes and doesn't. Once again, to say such a thing about history would virtually render the majority of the humanities invalid "since it is simply our translation." I have heard it before, and I have seen the counterargument - there is a reason why post modern historians are often passed over - simply because the only thing they have conviction in is the certainty it is impossible to know anything. God I hated Jenkins.

He didn't even write history, he simply criticised historians on everything from language to education. "The past is in the past, our eyes are in the present. It is impossible to prevent anything but conjecture and theory." And just like science - theory.



Simply because the lack of evidence fails to support this claim. Is the claim that aliens built the pyrimids justified? Is the claim we were seeded by lizard men justified? Or anything else? One can claim till the cows come home but without evidence these claims are just that. Claims. We know religions existed before Judaism. It is not an argument that "we don't know that Adamic religion" didn't exist before them" because there is no evidence to support it. Nothing found that even slightly indicates Adamic religion existed up to 8,000 years before. Nothing to suggest is isn't in its accurate place now on the time line of religious evolution.




See - there you go. The things, even things historians agree upon as signs of animist beliefs dating to 8,000 years of more are not valid in your eyes. Historians look at questions like those: Children? Have you ever seen how high of the ground they are and the complexity of them? Likewise since the knowledge of children in hunter/gatherer tribes is known, as is the way in which the painting materials aquired this is not even remotly likely.

Insane person? Are you implying thousands of examples of cave art were drawn by insane people? Especially when evidence exists these places were of significant tribally?

And once again - when cave art depicts acts of a religious nature, or depicts supernatural beings (Aboriginal) then it is likely they are indicative of belief. To debunk history a person has to come up with a valid and evidenced counter theory. Simply saying "but maybe an insane child possessed by demons made them" is not a counter argument, especially when historians have found no reason to doubt the images and funerary items are indicative of spiritual belief. Likewise concepts of "fantasy, fictional narratives" - a lot of credit going to the most ancient there. And it is interesting to suggest they wouldn't have had religious belief in their lives but could come up with ones in "fictional images on a cave wall."

As for artistic expression - we know it is artistic expression - expression with a spiritual nature. Study of hunter/gatherers shows that they are not subject to thinking "hmmm, how about some art in between the constant day to day struggle to survive." As I mentioned - up to a certain point in time art was almost always religious in some way or another.



Um? A theological historian is just like a Roman historian or an Egyptologist - their field of expertise is religion in and off history. Some might be religious themselves, some might not be. They still have to use texts and artifacts in their history. Not just whatever belief they might have.




I don't think that works. A sect is still a part of a religion. There is no way in terms of definition that Christianity is a sect of Jewish religion. They are two separate entities. They may have had a common ancestor, but they are separate now.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Still historically uncomfortable though - one agrees that it didn't take place in the accepted 24 hour period that constitutes a modern day. Nor a solar cycle, yet the author felt justified claiming it was "a day" - tell me, do you think in the ancient world preachers would have stopped to explain "But it isn't really a day like you or I know it" - but rather have run with the impressive claim of "day" - and without sciences to speak against it people would have accepted the claim "day" as meaning "day"? I don't know the reason for the language used. I don't attempt to say I do. I also do not know whether the language is the exact communication the author received from God, I do not know the manner of the communication, there are too many variables to consider. If the Bible is true, then it must agree with scientific fact. Given this, the length of the creation process was not a literal six day period as relative to our days. Regardless of the text, scientific evidence states that the creation period was not six days. So either the communication used "day" in reference to a longer period, or the term "day" was an error by the author. Either one works for me, but scientific fact is still fact.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
An admirable view. I think if a person can reconcile religion and science that is fine - providing the one with the evidence is not suppressed to warped unnaturally to fit in with a religious frame. And science is not construed as fact when it is inference and not absolute in many cases. This is merely warping science to fit a paradigm belief.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
How do you know the dead are accepting or not? Is it just dead in general, or specific dead (which would be hard, what with the names and knowledge of the majority of past humans lost to time) And if Christianity is true wouldn't it have made more sense for God to insure people everywhere had a chance in life to accept it, rather then live in ignorance and then spend thousands of years in a stop over place waiting for a ceremony to teach them? Isn't that a bit like missing out on a reward due simply to bad luck on where one was born? Names are gleaned through genealogy, members research their families and temple work is done for them. We do not need to know if they accept the work or not, that is between that individual and God. They must only have the opportunity. Agency is important, forcing the possibility would be forcing belief on those that would need to share the information with them. The Millennial reign of Christ will be filled with temple work for those that have not yet had it completed, those whose names have been lost. Spirit world will continue to be as it is now until all have been resurrected, thus not offering an unfair advantage of knowledge to those needing temple work still, an event that will continue until the end of the Millennium.

Mormons believe the spirit world to be much like here. They are not in a state of inaction, they are still existing, still learning, just in a state prior to Judgement. I would wager, if I were a wagering man, that there are religions that have sprung up in the spirit world about existence, philosophies probably abound, it isn't a position of greater knowledge than here other than the knowledge that physical death did not end existence.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The thing I have seen is truth is often subjective. There may be broad themes, but at a personal level? People throughout history don't appear to have been searching for the Christian God. When it came to religion they often simply seemed to be searching for an understanding of the world. And with science most of those questions are answered. There is no real theme they are looking for a moral truth derived from God - after all without God they still had them.

Naturally, but bias does not mean something can not be recorded accurately. I dislike SUV's, I see an accident involving one. Is my bias going to necessarily mean I can't give an accurate report to the police based on what I saw? Bias effects tone, bias effects intent - but the materials a historians works with remain what they are. Granted a textual source might be open to interpretation, but it isn't a wild stab in the dark as you imply. Making a history is a complex thing, and a modern historian often endevours to put aside personal things. It might not be completely possible, but that doesn't actually mean a history is incorrect - as with the SUV example - a person can still give an accurate report based on what they see before them.

And as to attacks on the Bible - could this not be because the Bible doesn't show accuracy? A historians dealing with the flood will likely criticise the Bible on that respect simply because it is in no way accurate. Either it is completely wrong, completely blown out of proportion or reveals complete ignorance on the behalf of the author. Is the historian wrong for using critical analysis of something that does not stand well with the evidence?

No - criticism and analyses are an important part of history. A person doesn't just "attack" the Bible out of bias - if the need arises to use it as a source then it gets a fair deal, but none, bar the most oblivious Christians historians, will wave away its flaws or utlra-religious reasoning and claim it is right. I believe all history to be under the same skepticism. I do not reserve it to the religious aspects. I am a behavior analyst, and my philosophical stance as to psychology is also my general stance on life. You should study the view of the behaviorist, particularly Skinnerian Behavior, before leading into accusations that are to my view of subjectivity.

Like I said, the Bible is not infallible. One must read the text from the perspective of the author. To Noah, what was the whole world? We don't know for sure, thus the text must be open to facts and not to interpretation being held as fact, any one of all possible interpretations may be accurate. I don't claim that any of the Bible is necessarily without some error.

I won't respond to each section of the second post you made, I believe history to be based in various personal interpretations of events. I believe history in general has all the same holes as the Bible. I believe the Bible to be held with more skepticism due to the "supernatural" (hate that word, supernatural things don't exist, God or anything else, everything that exists exists in the same nature we do) content. I see a problem in not accepting that all history is merely a collection of personal interpretations of events, and thus subject to great errors. No matter the attempt at being unbiased and accurate, for a man such is impossible. Man will err to the side of his view of reality.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Sorry used the same post link, didn't feel like getting the real one since this came from the immediately following post.
I don't think that works. A sect is still a part of a religion. There is no way in terms of definition that Christianity is a sect of Jewish religion. They are two separate entities. They may have had a common ancestor, but they are separate now. Which makes them both sects of the Hebrew religion in the exact same manner that Catholicism and Protestant religions are sects of Christianity, but Protestant beliefs are children of the Catholic religion.

Originally posted by Regret
I don't know the reason for the language used. I don't attempt to say I do. I also do not know whether the language is the exact communication the author received from God, I do not know the manner of the communication, there are too many variables to consider. If the Bible is true, then it must agree with scientific fact. Given this, the length of the creation process was not a literal six day period as relative to our days. Regardless of the text, scientific evidence states that the creation period was not six days. So either the communication used "day" in reference to a longer period, or the term "day" was an error by the author. Either one works for me, but scientific fact is still fact.

"If the Bible is true" - that is the crux of the issue. I think it is a work of historical fiction. Ergo it isn't scientific fact for me. As a result I don't thing science has to fit the Bible. In fact I thin there is far to much out there that doesn't fit with it - and evidence is evidence. The Bible doesn't have that much for it bar its own claim.

As for the language - that is exactly what linguists and historians do - workout why what is use is. And at the surface, cynically perhaps, the reason why "day" is used is because the Hebrew religions mythology held that their deity created the world in six days. Just as Mesopotamian myth holds a chap carved the world from the corpse of a primordial god or in Egyptian myth where Atum-Re emerged from a flower on the primordial mound and masturbated.



I am not simply talking about people whose names you can find.

What about an Australian aboriginal in the dream time at 21.000 years ago? Or an Egyptian pot makes out in a desert village who lived and died never hearinga thing? Or of those deep Amazonian villages who have lived in isolation for, well, forever? How does it work for such people? Has it ever been done for Caesar or Socrates?



I know that, and I was not referring to you alone. I have seen the ethics conundrums and the balances. There is alot of debate, including on subjectivity. The fact a persons world view exists does not mean they can't operated impartially as a physician or a historian or a politician. They can still present accurate outcomes based upon relevant date.

A historian is not a fictional author. They are reporters and researchers, presenting with evidence. They study it, and put together the most accurate report they can based upon what the evidence is saying. This is in no way a fictional work. And if it doesn't agree with the Bible then it is likely because the Bible simply doesn't work with history. Despite what you might think many historians don't set out to attack the Bible. However when a history of the world is written and the Bible doesn't figure highly it isn't because of bias - it is because the Bible doesn't fit. So either most history is wrong and the evidence all misleading, or the Bible is farm from a perfect or accurate work.



Which is wise as it certainly isn't. And it is something of a cop out when things are reduced such. When the Bible speaks in absolutes which don't rash with history we get a "to Noah what was the whole world" - it doesn't change the fact it means the Bible was wrong. And if we accept the claim "God was speaking to them" - well, clearly he isn't very good at seeing things recorded accurately.



I studied a historical texts from the Christian period. Mad - real events in a supernatural setting. People riding on clouds, eyes falling out, out telling conquerers to go here, do that. This is supernatural stuff that exists in Christian texts. It exists in Greek and Egyptian myth - and there is nothing to show it is true. Unless you are suggesting Greek myth get a higher validity rating as true history the criticism of the Bible and other Christian texts stance. When world events are wrongly attributed to divine action.

And history is a constant thing. It changes as we learn. But it is a gradual process. History is not nearly as wrong as you make out, nor nearly as prone to great errors. The fact remains interpretation of evidence can only lead to so many outcomes. Some will be more right then others certainly. But the fact is there will certainly be truth. As I keep saying it is not a defence of the Bible or religious claims to simply say "The history that isn't supporting the Bible is based upon personal interpretation and likely filled with errors." Without evidence to debunk a historical claim it doesn't float. The Bible itself can't debunk them, and ultimately there is more evidence for the current historical views then there is for Christian ones.

Either this is because a. Historians are way off the mark (unlikely) or b. the evidence they use that doesn't fit with the Bible is that way because the Bible isn't an accurate historical text (far more likely.)



Ah huh. Theoretically then since Mani of the Manichean's drew largely on Christian mythology that means the Manichean's are also Hebrew. It doesn't work

The difference in the examples you gave is that Protestants and Catholics still share the fundamental defining features that put a religion in the Christian catagory. Hebrew and Christianity do not. The fundamental and most basic difference between the two - Jesus - means they are two separate religions. This isn't a question of doctrinal differences (as with Protestants and Catholics) it is a profound difference in the very nature of the two. The holy texts, the Christ, the practices. Hebrew and Christianity are two separate religions. They most certainly have common ground in the past (OT) but that alone is not enough to mean they are both the same religion when one has a defining feature (The Christ) in conflict between the two.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

A few snippets from the link:

About Yeshua of Nazareth: He is commonly referred to as Jesus Christ, although Joshua would be a more accurate translation of his first name. "Christ" is not his last name; it is simply the Greek word for "Messiah," or "anointed one." Theologians have discovered about 50 gospels which were widely used by Jewish, Pauline and Gnostic groups within the early Christian movement. Only four of these were chosen by the surviving group, Pauline Christianity, and were included in the Bible. Those four Gospels describe Jesus as a Jew who was born to a virgin in Palestine circa 4 to 7 BCE. He is portrayed as a rabbi, teacher, healer, exorcist, magician, prophet, and religious leader who had a one year (according to Mark, Matthew and Luke) or a three year (according to John) ministry in Palestine, starting when he was about 30 years old. Most Christians believe that he was executed by the Roman occupying army, visited the underworld, was resurrected, spent 40 days with his disciples, and then ascended to heaven. Most Christian denominations view Jesus as God, and as the Son of God, the second person in the Trinity.|

Conservative Christians view the Gospels as being inerrant whose authors were inspired by God. The Gospels and other passages in the Bible are mostly interpreted literally. Muslims revere Jesus as a great prophet -- next only to Muhammad in importance. They regard the assertion that Jesus is God to be blasphemy.

About Horus: Various ancient Egyptian statues and writings tell of Horus, (pronounced "hohr'-uhs;"
a.k.a. Harseisis, Heru-sa-Aset (Horus, son of Isis), Heru-ur (Horus the elder), Hr, and Hrw), a creator sky God. He was worshipped thousands of years before the first century CE -- the time when Jesus was ministering in Palestine. 2 Horus was often represented as a stylized eye symbol, symbolizing the eye of a falcon. He was also presented "in the shape of a sparrow hawk or as a man with a hawk's head." 3 He is often shown as an infant cradled by his mother Isis. He was considered to be the son of two major Egyptian deities: the God Osirus and and the Goddess Isis. In adulthood, he avenged his father's murder, and became recognized as the God of civil order and justice. Each of the Egyptian pharaohs were believed to be the living embodiment -- an incarnation -- of Horus. 4

The comparison section is especially interesting. Almost carbon-copyishly interesting.

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo

Someone should terminate Shakys pm system....lol....

Yes horus is everywhere especially the Bible...

spam

Originally posted by TRH
spam
?

weeeeeeeeeeee

Somebody should post a list or a link to Jesus' similarities with Horus father, Osiris.

...all just forest for the trees fellas (and ladies).

Horus isn't alone. Neither is Osiris. This is common knowledge to a lot of people (except Christians, apparently). Krishna, Shiva, the Buddha ( ), Horus, Dionysius, Orpheus, Socrates, Odin, etc.

All of those and more share loads in common with the Jesus myth. And it's not so much that "Christianity stole all of that" so much as they all influenced one another, to the point where it's possible to see similar stories, teachings, and motifs in all of them.

So yeah, Jesus wasn't the first to be crucified for the sake of mankind, to walk on water, turn water to wine, be tempted by Satan, be born in a manger, etc. And we have probably 5 dozen threads here to prove as much. But if you see it simply as a metaphor, rather than historical fact, it becomes a healthy model for emulation rather than an obsessive idol for irrational faith.

Christianity is deeply in debt to older mythologies for a lot of its beliefs and ideas - not that you' d ever hear that admitted. Most Christians don' t even seem to realize it at all.

God is really the SUN. Get used to it. It's true..

jacope-owns-xyz

Originally posted by debbiejo
God is really the SUN. Get used to it. It's true..

jacope-owns-xyz

No God is the son . . . shifty

hmmmm the sun got a few billion yrs left, so i'm guessing that's when god will die too????

Yeah..

I see we got merged....good call.

Anyway, this sort of thing fascinates me (comparative mythology and such). It went from something that made me bitter toward christianity to something that helped shape my current worldview.

Odin nailing himself to a tree, for example, to be sacrificed to his divine half when he came to earth to walk it as a mortal for a time.....is only threatening to us if we make it such.

And there's even modern mythologies that adhere to these same tenets (though most seem to only think it's christian tradition they borrow from). But it's essentially many of the same elements of the hero story, told throughout time.

William Blake, famous for "prophetic" writings, hits upon the metaphoric meanings of Christianity in a way that mainstream churches could only hope, in a way that unifies all existence and calls it to something greater than words can do justice....and he was a "threat" to the religious order of England at the time.

...

I'm probably rambling now. I've been reading Borges. He makes me wistfully poetic, but the result of it (in writing, most times) usually sucks.

Originally posted by fini
hmmmm the sun got a few billion yrs left, so i'm guessing that's when god will die too????

Without man kind God has no purpose so yes when the human race is destroyed God is going with it.