Comments by J.C. Samuelson
1. Council ban on atheist websites
Comment #222699 by J.C. Samuelson on July 31, 2008 at 6:16 pm
@ DrDoctor...
The point isn't that they should or should not set up additional filters to block religious sites or open them for atheists, Wiccans, etc.. The point is that the National Secular Society weakly asserts that the city council's policies are discriminatory because it purchased network filtering product that comes set up with specific filters already in place. As the product is a well-known and effective product, their defense already has its cornerstone.
In any case, having experienced this filtering product firsthand, let me point out first that it is a learning product in the sense that it "learns" where people go and logs it. While it has some default filters, they are not as specific as the article (or even Bluecoat) might lead one to believe. For the most part, they block personal websites (i.e., angelfire, geocities, that sort of thing), social/dating sites, most blogs, and many types of forums out of the box. Thus, those atheist websites that are privately hosted, or are "known" to be blogs and forums, will be blocked outright. But then, so will those of a similar type on the religious side. However, sites like this one, which are more difficult to classify (from a programming perspective), will be left alone until the network administrators have time to review the traffic and determine what, if any, additional filters should be set up.
My organization has had it for over a year, and they're still refining the filters. The learning curve, even for network security/boundary protection professionals, can be quite steep, especially when you consider the diversity of the Internet. Up until recently, I've had no difficulty whatsoever visiting this site, Christopher Hitchens' site, Sam Harris' site, or others unfriendly to religion like ExChristian.net. When sites like the latter were finally blocked (in the last month or so), the filter classified this site as "Social/Daily Living," not atheist or any other alleged "bad" word. Oh, and incidentally, I also cannot access most explicitly religious websites either. Hell, I can't even access some forums and blogs that contain information that would help me do my friggin' job!!
I don't think I need to worry about the fine folks here telling my boss I've occasionally been surfing, do I? :)
The bottom line is that this is a tempest in a teacup, and I'm in full agreement with Irate who said it far better than I that this is a non-issue. Until it can be shown that the city of Birmingham is intentionally discriminating against atheists, and/or favoring religious types, there is nothing really to see here. There are bigger fish to fry.
@ squareroot...
Apples and oranges, mate. This is not about data protection as such, and the city can easily afford to adopt a "wait-and-see" attitude to determine who is visiting which websites, how often, and for what purpose before spending the manhours necessary to setup additional filters (or take others down). In fact, their concerns are likely to be more pragmatic if the product blocks any sites the city needs to conduct business, which is not at all unlikely. I could give you some fine examples, such as when I couldn't access a stinkin' public U.S. Government website from which my organization previously ordered its supplies! It took almost two weeks just to clear up this malfunction, and it wasn't for lack of competent support staff!
In other words, whether or not the filters are "fair" to all is going to be somewhat lower on the list of concerns. It has to be when an organization first has to conduct business.
2. Council ban on atheist websites
Comment #221735 by J.C. Samuelson on July 30, 2008 at 3:47 am
FYI...
I'm familiar with the Bluecoat software in question. It is used by my organization to filter web content so as to discourage surfing, and comes configured by default with the filters discussed in the article.
In other words, the article is pure crap, and the National Secular Society is either ignorant of Bluecoat software, spoiling for a fight, or both. In any case, their allegations are essentially baseless, and the city of Birmingham could quite easily win any lawsuit.
Now, I fully agree that Bluecoat's choice of keywords for its default filters is frustrating, but that's an issue to be taken up with Bluecoat. The best the city can do is change the default configuration, assuming this can even be done in a precise enough way to be equitable to all concerned without having some sort of negative impact on how the city does business. If not, the city still has an "out" in that the software itself isn't set up to acknowledge diversity of belief.
I don't personally care if my organization blocks "atheism" or "witchcraft" sites as long as they also block "christian" and "muslim" sites.
3. Bush Bureaucrats at Dept. of Health and Human Services Redefine Contraception as Abortion
Comment #213230 by J.C. Samuelson on July 18, 2008 at 10:13 am
This has been in the offing for some time. Regardless of the nature of the objections - and not all concientious objections are on religious grounds - the question is whether a medical professional's rights (i.e., freedom of conscience) trump the rights of those requesting care.
Does a physician or pharmacist have the right to use conscience as a guide to giving treatment? The Hippocratic Oath seems to allow it:
Classic Hippocratic Oath
I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.
Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
Hippocratic Oath - Modern Version
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.
(NOTE: I thought it interesting that the classic oath included abortion. Supposedly this was composed ca. 400 BCE)
From the opposite end, does a patient have a right to expect a physician or pharmacist to dispense care that they deem unwise based on the leanings of their conscience (or professional estimation)? I don't know. It seems that this may lead somewhere we may not want to go, really. Naturally, all patients should expect to be treated in the case of life-threatening injuries regardless of genetic or cultural issues (e.g., race, religion, etc.), but is it so clear when it comes to contraception (in this case, sterilization)? The latter is usually an elective. How about abortion? Sometimes a necessity, but not always.
Although religious reasons are profoundly bad ones, inevitably we have to confront ourselves if we value freedom of conscience. Or do some feel that physicians are exempt from this freedom once they begin practicing?
Just some food for thought, though I could be off-base here.
For the record: I am pro-choice.
4. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS
Comment #208989 by J.C. Samuelson on July 11, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Don't know if anyone has made this observation yet (and not going to read 9 pages of comments to find out) but I wonder if all the well-meaning folks who sent email effectively initiated a completely unintentional Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack against the U of M's email server?
I mean, between PZ's supporters and the Catholic League, that's gotta be a HUGE increase in email traffic.
The U of M president may not want to fire PZ, but the IT department may just decide to lynch him.
Comment #208195 by J.C. Samuelson on July 10, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Hey, er, Hail Lord Quetz! All is well and just beginning to get back to normal in my house after months of absolute mayhem. Finally getting time to read a few posts and comment on them here. Hopefully will get back to visiting you and the Atheist Crew over at your place, and probably post a bit on my blog again finally.
How've you been?
Gotta fly. The mayhem still has some sway here.
Comment #207885 by J.C. Samuelson on July 10, 2008 at 8:58 am
@ mixmastergaz (and others who agree with him)...
Three things, with all due respect to you and yours. First, the guy says he didn't attend Mass in order to intrude upon it and steal the wafer, so there was no "intrus[ion]" or "decept[ion]," or intent to molest anyone, according to him:
Cook claims he planned to consume it, but first wanted to show it to a fellow student senator he brought to Mass who was curious about the Catholic faith.
"When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show him," Cook said. "I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they'd leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth."
A church leader was watching, confronted Cook and tried to recover the sacred bread. Cook said she crossed the line and that's why he brought it home with him.
Second, there are two possibilities with respect to his having even received the wafer in the first place: a) it's a liberal Catholic church that lets everyone have a wafer, which doesn't seem likely given their reaction; or b) it's a church that kept to canon law, and Mr. Cook is (or was) a Catholic in good standing who, in the process of taking Communion, decided to break canon law to show a curious classmate who was in the church with him. The fact that he put it in his mouth when first challenged shows that he at least knows about the canon law. In other words, it need not have been a "stunt" at all. It looks instead like a case of making a decision on the spot in reaction to the physical intervention of others.
Third, it's really amazing how some here are quick to blame Mr. Cook. As PZ said, IT'S ONLY A GODDAMNED CRACKER AND THEY PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED HIM OVER IT, HAVE CALLED FOR HIS EXPULSION, AND HAVE POSTED ARMED GUARDS TO PROTECT WHAT? GODDAMNED CRACKERS!!!!
Geez...
Comment #207788 by J.C. Samuelson on July 10, 2008 at 7:17 am
Another evidence in favor of Poe's Law.
BTW, for those who did not know, the remark about gay people being responsible for the holocaust can be traced to a specific work by a couple of pseudo-historians who, like the AFA, are utterly delusional. It's called The Pink Swastika
I read it once when someone I used to work with made a similar remark and suggested I learn the "real" history of the Third Reich as it related to homosexuality. The book epitomizes over-the-top bigotry in print, even moreso than the Bible, and is so full of falsehoods and logical fallacies it's not actually worth cataloging them.
Comment #201515 by J.C. Samuelson on June 29, 2008 at 7:01 pm
More information in re: education. This time for the Army.
Stats current as of 2005:
Education Level
Officer 0% GED (General Educational Development)
<0.1% High School Diploma
1.3% Some College/Associates Degree
58.4% Bachelor's Degree
40.3% Masters / Doctorate
<0.1% Other/unk.
Warrant <0.1% GED (General Educational Development)
8.4% High School Diploma
61.3% Some College/Associates Degree
24.9% Bachelor's Degree
5.2% Masters / Doctorate
<0.1% Other/unk.
Enlisted 6.9% GED (General Educational Development)
76.0% High School Diploma
7.2% Some College/Associates Degree
4.7% Bachelor's Degree
0.6% Masters / Doctorate
4.6% Other/unk.
Source: Army Profile: FY05, pg. 4
Chris Davis
Well said!
Comment #201048 by J.C. Samuelson on June 28, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Having been a member of the U.S. military for over 15 years, I can attest to the fact that evangelism goes on. In fact, prayers in connection with various ceremonies are commonplace. Still, I've never personally felt pressured to join in or conform to any particular spiritual model as a part of being in the military.
Currently, I'm in the Air National Guard, and can honestly say there is more of that sort of thing (evangelism, that is) going on in my present unit than I ever experienced in the Army or on active duty with the Air Force. Interestingly, according to a Christianity Today article from 2006, the proportion of those who claim "no religious preference" (i.e., unaffiliated and/or secular) is greater in the Air Force than among the general populace:
A survey conducted by the Air Force in June [2006] reveals that 0.6% of the 275,457 current enlistees describe themselves as "atheist" and that 17.8% have "no religious preference."
This is more than a full percentage point higher than the current Pew Forum estimate for the general populace (16.1% unaffiliated), although the percentage of atheists in the Pew Forum study is higher (1.6%).
As for intelligence, my initial, knee-jerk reaction is to rise to the defence of my fellow airmen. Of course, I am but 1 of 5.1% of my enlisted fellows who have a Bachelor's Degree or higher, so my perspective is somewhat skewed. Having said that, I believe that one has to look at the overall educational picture before one judges any group to be less well-educated or intelligent. Here is the current picture of the educational demographics of the U.S. Air Force:
Officer academic education
- 52 percent of the officers have advanced or professional degrees
-- 41.1 percent have master's degrees, 9.5 percent have professional degrees and 1.4 percent have doctorate degrees
-- 25.8 percent of company grade officers have advanced degrees, 18.7 percent have master's degrees, 6.8 percent have professional degrees and 0.3 percent have doctorate degrees
-- 85 percent of field grade officers have advanced degrees, 69.3 percent have master's degrees, 12.9 percent have professional degrees and 2.7 percent have doctorate degrees
Enlisted academic education
- 71.3 percent have some semester hours towards a college degree
-- 76 percent of Airmen
-- 78 percent of NCOs
-- 28 percent of senior NCOs
- 17.6 percent have an associate's degree or equivalent semester hours
-- 1.7 percent of Airmen
-- 17 percent of NCOs
-- 50 percent of senior NCOs
- 5.1 percent have a bachelor's degree
-- 1.7 percent of Airmen
-- 3.8 percent of NCOs
-- 18 percent of senior NCOs
- 0.8 percent have a master's degree
-- .02 percent of Airmen
-- .4 percent of NCOs
-- 4 percent of senior NCOs
- .01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree.
SOURCE: Air Force Demographics (current as of April 30, 2008)
It's important to point out, I think, that all Chaplains are officers, not enlisted. All of them. Furthermore, most of those "caught" in these types of scandals are officers (e.g., the Air Force Academy, the Christian Embassy debacle at the Pentagon, etc.). As it's more common for officers to be well-educated than it is for enlisted, that may well damage the idea that education has very much to do with this. Not only that, but we all know about compartmentalization. So, why would we ascribe lesser intelligence or education as a contributing factor to the willingness of these men & women to believe, when in fact we blame compartmentalization when someone of obviously high intelligence (such as a scientist) professes the same belief?
There are other comments here too that speak of an ignorance of the inner workings of the military, but as I've already digressed enough, I won't address those.
To get back on topic, I'll simply say that as the only professed atheist in my unit, it is difficult to stomach the somewhat infrequent occurrences of spiritual expression. However, as most everyone knows my affiliation, it's been a pleasant surprise to have had very few run-ins with religious members. In fact, soon I'll be petitioning the wing commander to allow some freethought pamphlets and secular-oriented (meaning no mention of god(s)) self-help materials to be posted next to similar, but religiously flavored materials already available in our wing diversity office. This will happen as soon as I've gathered/produced the materials. Quite frankly, I doubt there will be any resistance. It might surprise some, but free speech isn't that uncommon in the military (and is, in fact, supported by regulation - with some reasonable limitations due to our status as government employees), and I've never had the impression that the military wants automatons who simply follow orders.
I guess what I'm saying is, is that the American military isn't quite as religious (or stupid) as the article might suggest, and that while the activities of groups like Campus Crusade for Christ are alarming, the problem has not reached (and likely will not reach) epidemic proportions.
Just my two cents.
{Edit: For comparison, from the 2000 census:
21% of Americans had taken some college courses but had not earned a degree in 2000
15.5% had earned a bachelor's degree but no higher
8.9% earned graduate or professional degrees
Thus, speaking only for the Air Force, it is made up of people slightly better educated than the general populace.}
Comment #198607 by J.C. Samuelson on June 24, 2008 at 9:49 am
@ MikedubB, bugaboo, and mordacious ---
The 40% figure is based on a 1997 study published in Nature in June, 1998. According to my notes it was by Edward J. Larson & Larry Witham, and titled, "The More They Learn The Less They Believe" which was mostly geared toward showing how religious belief has decreased.
I can't find the original article anymore, but you can read about it here, here, here (under "Unbelief Among Top Scientists Growing"), and here.
That was probably the last time anyone did any kind of serious study on the topic of religious beliefs among scientists. As it's over 10 years old, it's probably somewhat dated. In any event, with compartmentalization at one's disposal, it isn't that hard to reconcile the conflicting beliefs.
This article leaves much to be desired, but it'll do, I suppose. Not to be negative, but I guess I'm somewhat jaded by the fact that a) this is a Canadian, not U.S. publication, and b) it's an opinion piece rather than being presented as a factual news item. I'd much rather see an item in the "Science" section of a major newspaper (if there is one) that thoroughly debunks "Expelled" as nonsense for the lay person. Unfortunately, debunkings of this kind are usually only found in the blogosphere, scientific/skeptical publications, and fine sites like this.
* EDIT: Correction. There were two studies by the same researchers. The Nature article I mentioned is the wrong one. The correct one was published in April, 1997
11. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief
Comment #97140 by J.C. Samuelson on December 11, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I think Quetz said it best:
Say WHAT???
12. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #78522 by J.C. Samuelson on October 13, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Mark,
Well, as Quine observed, you've had a very good run. You've demonstrated a much better knowledge of scripture, history, and logic than most of the theists I've debated, though I do feel your arguments share many of the same characteristics. Couched in the language of scholarship, of course. You've definitely been far more civil than most, and though we've occasionally traded barbs, I really appreciate the overall absence of personal attacks. Moreover, as your arguments were better informed than most, you too have challenged me to dig as I've not done in quite some time. No doubt this seems foolish or wasteful to some here, to debate a theist at all, especially to the lengths that we have. Yet I've enjoyed our exchanges more often than not. Thank you for them.
As you've probably guessed, I disagree with your assessment of the recently posted evidence concerning whether Tyre was an island city during Ezekiel's time. Actually, I think there's been somewhat of a breakdown in communication of those ideas. If you're willing, I'd like to PM you with a few points of clarification. Not to continue the debate, mind you. I think we're both pretty tired. Just as a bit more food for thought, as it were. To be consumed when convenient.
Whether you're agreeable to that or not, I hope you have a long and happy life, Mark. Take care.
13. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #78245 by J.C. Samuelson on October 12, 2007 at 8:48 am
SRWB,
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I've found that some here express the same sentiments far more economically than I do. More often than not, it takes someone like me many more words to convey the message than is really necessary, and sometimes it's very hard for me to tell that it's been communicated effectively. Mark expresses my own concerns when he suggests that some of the topics I take up appear diversionary.
Philip,
Don't be silly! Your opinions are never "daft." I rather enjoy reading them because they express your straightforward and patently honest views. Just don't stop drinking tea! ;)
irate_atheist,
Fucking idiots like you...
Maybe it's my own sensitivities, but I'm having a hard time with this. Theists aren't necessarily "fucking idiots," and it strikes me as counter-productive to rail against generically by merely spewing epithets. Maybe it makes you feel better, but it plays right into stereotypes. Mark has always struck me as quite intelligent, but seems to have a hard time drawing connections between points A and B when it comes to equitably applying reason to his beliefs. I suspect this is an example of something called compartmentalization.
If theists are "fucking idiots" in general, then I humbly accept that I was once a "fucking idiot." In fact, there are several people here at this site who would have qualified as deserving your label at some point. Maybe I'm still a "fucking idiot," but of the atheistic variety. Clearly, fucking idiot-ism isn't confined to theists. :/
Mark,
You have abstracted that paragraph from my earlier comment, and taken it on its own without reference to the context in which it is set. Thereby you have substantially lost the overall point I was making. Yes, my tone was deliberately chosen, precisely because I was highlighting the error of Farrell Till's argument.
Yes, I did abstract your statements, but it's not clear to me that my doing so was misplaced. The context was in reference to steven (?) bringing up Farrell Till, yes, but surely your remarks are more broadly applicable? Your (what I would call) extreme resistance to rather solid evidence here has demonstrated that whether it applies to discussions of science or of the Bible, you cling to your beliefs in the face of that evidence. That is what you're admitting to in that paragraph, isn't it?
And, I'm glad you agree with the "Palsetyrus" thing. Many of my own books are still in boxes (no room), and somewhere buried in there is a copy of Whiston's translation which I haven't looked at in some time, so I couldn't be sure that it wasn't just a typo. A good amount of the same material is online, of course, so I've been relying a lot on memory to help find what I'm looking for. Google is a godsend! Figuratively speaking, of course. ;)
Lee,
May I second Philip's encouragement to you to keep shouting the physics! I'm in much the same boat as he, with "old dog-hood" approaching more rapidly than I would like.
steveroot,
I don't see many minds being changed.
Rather obvious, isn't it? :)
Billy,
I am in the process of making incontinent lesbian seagulls for Quetz as we speak. When he takes delivery of these, I shall start work on the ferret - bombadeer beetle hybrids. They will run up the inside of enemies trouser legs, sink their teeth into something and detonate Bwaha ha ha. Then I'm going to make mice with boobs on their backs - but that's another story.
What's the minimum order to qualify for delivery? Might start a petting zoo. I suspect the booby-mice would be rather popular. ;)
14. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #78028 by J.C. Samuelson on October 11, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Goldy, Steveroot, and Lee,
Thanks for the kind words, but as Goldy observes, there will always be something that Mark will pick up on that seems to discredit the evidence. Sorry, Steve, for mangling your name. I was writing rather quickly (frustration - see below), and didn't double-check spelling or anyone's postings except Mark's. Lee, glad you're getting your "fix" discussing science with some Bible-believers.
Mark,
And you seem to be getting desperate. I made or implied no claim that my questions were themselves evidence.
Not desperate. Frustrated. I agree that my first criticism was probably spurious. I do apologize. What I meant to refer to is that your questions imply an underlying foundation which has not been established. See below.
Another mighty effort to distract from the point, but equally faulty. The text is unambiguously prophetic – it is making a prediction about future events – "they will", "he will", etc. That of itself does not make it true or false, or prevent meaningful discussion of it (what have you been doing here these past several months?!). The same could equally be said about the speech of Zedekiah and the other prophets in 2 Kings 22:10-12; though unambiguously prophetic in nature, both it and they were in that case proved false. So I do not require anyone to accept that the prophecy is actually given by God, or that it is true, in order to be able to answer my straightforward questions about it.
Perhaps a better way of putting it would have been to say that they are complex questions, based on questionable assumptions and which are designed to elicit answers that affirm your premises. While I agree that the language of the passages themselves is intended to be prophetic (Ezekiel arguably did fancy himself a prophet), the questions assume that Ezekiel knew something ahead of time, thereby implying prophetic inspiration. In other words, that he was, in fact, a prophet. To be more specific, your questions assume that Ezekiel knew how Tyre would fall, that he knew in advance what Nebuchadnezzar would do, and that Neb would ultimately fail. The questions thus assume other questions, such as "What did Ezekiel know," and "When did he know it," as having already been answered favorably with respect to your position.
The problem, I think, lies in your retroactive knowledge of events rather than Ezekiel's alleged foreknowledge. Crediting Ezekiel with having the same knowledge of events as you, the only question remaining in your mind is how did he know it? This is the question you want to lead us toward, isn't it? How did Ezekiel know in advance what would happen except through divine inspiration?
Virtually any response to your questions as they're written would reflect favorably on your position. If one answers that, well, Neb couldn't have done any of it you can smugly reply, "Exactly my point! Obviously, Ezekiel wasn't talking about Neb, but someone else." If one answers that Neb simply didn't do any of it, you can just as easily respond with, "Precisely! Since Neb didn't do what Ezekiel said, obviously Ezekiel meant someone else." If one goes on to describe how Neb might have accomplished those tasks, you can simply say, "None of that matters, because he didn't do any of it. Obviously, someone else was meant to fulfill the prophecy." Naturally, I would expect your answers to be more detailed, but they would still amount to the same thing. In short, by asking these questions you are attempting to make room for your argument that Alexander et. al. fulfilled the requirements set by Ezekiel, and that they are the parties he was actually writing about. I don't begrudge you the effort, only the means.
It's worth remembering that Ezekiel, being only human, was as limited in his day as we are in ours. Comparing our knowledge base to his, however, we have a distinct advantage over him. This is not, as C.S. Lewis might say, chronological snobbery. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that humanity has amassed a great deal of information over the past 2,500+ years that simply wasn't available to people in Ezekiel's day. Does this mean we're any smarter? Absolutely not. Every age merely draws on the experiences of ages past. What's important is that Ezekiel's perspective was vastly different from ours, but correspondingly limited, and crediting him by default with having knowledge of ages to come leads to distortions. Instead, ask yourself, what information might Ezekiel have had access to as a captive Jew in the 6th century BCE? Who were his contemporaries and what did he learn from them? His culture, what was it like? What about his beliefs, assumptions, and prejudices? Do they match ours and, if so, in what ways? If not, why not? Many other questions might be asked, some of which we might not find answers to, some of which we would, but they all begin with the mundane assumption of Ezekiel's humanity.
Starting with mundane assumptions first as a baseline, any significant deviation from the norm for a 6th century Jew should instantly be apparent, even to someone hostile to the text. We've briefly discussed before how Ezekiel, had he been privy to specific knowledge of the future, could have identified the players that he thought would eventually have a role in prophetic fulfillment, even in terms he would understand. He could have named the Greeks (in reference to Alexander), for example, by referring to the Javanites. Or, even more specifically, the king of the Javanites. Even those I would accept as provisionally supportive. But instead, he vaguely refers to an unqualified "they" (and that's granting "they" refers to "many nations" rather than a quirk of the author, or reference to the many plural antecedents). Similarly, he could easily have identified Ushu, or only Tyre's "daughters in the fields," or Palaetyrus as the actual target of his prophecy. Instead, he writes that "Tyre" is to be destroyed. He could have at least given a rough timeframe for the events, but he doesn't, writing only that X "will" happen. This could mean X "will" happen (from Ezekiel's perspective) within days, weeks, months, seasons, years, centuries, or millenia! Put simply, there is nothing that can clearly be labeled a deviation from a 6th century norm in the text, and much that is vague.
As for the specifically detailed description of a siege, others have pointed out (I think correctly) that it could apply to almost any siege of a major, walled city. Yes, even to one on an island, as long as an innovative General could conceive of a way to do it, as Alexander demonstrated. What did Ezekiel know about Nebuchadnezzar? Having witnessed his army firsthand, what might he have assumed about the capabilities of Neb and his army? Ezekiel is not known as a military tactician, so might he have generically assumed Neb to be clever and determined enough to find a way to reach the island after conquering the mainland? If not, why not? Was Ezekiel familiar enough with Tyre to know of the extreme difficulty its position on the island had posed to previous attackers? If he was familiar, might he have thought that, since people did get to the island somehow, so too would Neb and his army? Isaiah certainly believed it was possible to conquer the island in spite of the difficulty. Why not Ezekiel? Could it be some combination of these? Could it be none of these, and instead be hyperbolic (i.e., "trash talk) as a few of us have suggested? These too are mundane questions, and don't assume more than is warranted.
What I'm trying to say with all this is that a difference in our underlying assumptions plays a major role in our disagreements. Your questions are an expression of your assumptions, and my resistance to them as written is an expression of mine. Can I suspend my assumptions to see your point of view? I think I have, and have frequently acknowledged that what you've argued could be true. I just don't see that the evidence supports it. Not as a prophecy that was literally fulfilled, as you've maintained. In fact, my impression has been that with every equivocation, every deviation from a plain reading so as to support the idea of literal fulfillment subtracts from the historical value of the text.
You demonstrated the stark difference between the character of our conflicting assumptions when you write:
Because in the face of all the evidence that atheistic evolutionists throw at me day by day, and especially on this web site, I continue to stick with my (to you) peculiar beliefs. I believe that in fact this world was created, complete with complex lifeforms, by God, not over billions of years but in six days, and that only a few thousand years ago. Consider all those sceptics of the text of Genesis 1, who in all the science books, articles and TV programmes I have read and watched, present evolution as a solidly established "scientific fact". Between them they have conveyed to me far more words than the Bible contains (and vastly more than just the Genesis creation account itself). Surely by now they should have convinced me of the truth of their ideas, and I would have stopped believing the Bible? But I have not.
What immediately jumps out at me is the tone of defiance here. What this amounts to is a confession that you refuse to give up your cherished beliefs. The evidence that favors evolution is overwhelming. So much so that even creationists have been forced to acknowledge that it does happen. Sometimes. On a small scale, of course. The age of the Earth and that of the universe is also so overwhelmingly supported that to deny it is ludicrous to the same magnitude as denying that the Earth is spheroid rather than flat, or that it orbits the Sun. You've paid lip service to the idea that evidence is what matters, but repeatedly have ignored it, twisted it, equivocated on it, and subjected it to absurd standards that even the best scientific theory couldn't possibly meet. That is, when it challenges your precious beliefs. You did, of course, reverse your course on one issue, but with your recent replies, I now somewhat suspect that had more to do with a desire to maintain the alleged continuity and integrity of the Bible in your mind, rather than any argument of ours.
So far as I can see, people are seeking to take attention away from the primary points I make, because they don't want to tackle them head-on. Billy has certainly done that in the past, and JCS more than once, including some recent examples.
What primary points are those? That you think the word Tyre means Ushu or Palaetyrus? We are addressing this claim as a part of the current discussion. That "BThVK" always refers to a path through something? We have addressed that claim. That the island city didn't exist or was new in Ezekiel's time? Currently under discussion. I do hope you're not referring to the list of evidential quotes provided. They are most certainly relevant to the last point, though I'm sure you'll make an attempt to dodge them. Always with you there's something missing or wrong with a translation, or something historians and archaeologists missed or ignored, or that atheists simply don't understand. You present possibilities, Mark, not probabilities, yet expect us to accept them almost without argument.
And why, may I ask, can't we also discuss the secondary and tertiary issues that contribute to our disagreements? In many cases, they seem relevant. How is it diversionary to be critical of a method for delivering an argument, such as with your questions? Methods seem relevant to me, but maybe I'm wrong.
Now, with all of us ganging up on you it does seem unfair. But maybe that says something about your Bible instead of we humans. If the Bible was authored by those with a divine connection, shouldn't we expect it to be more explicit? Surely, the divine source could have infused the Bible with such clarity that no one could deny its unusual nature. Instead, we have a book that bears all the markings of being a set of writings in dead languages that were translated imperfectly and cobbled together over hundreds of years, chosen in such a way as to give the appearance of vague consistency. That is, it looks just as we'd expect it to as the product of mundane human effort.
Anyone please chime in and tell me where I've gone wrong?
15. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #77717 by J.C. Samuelson on October 10, 2007 at 9:22 am
Mark,
Gah!! I can't....stop....somebody...help!!!
...as my earlier comments illustrate (3 questions to stevencarrroot), the weight of evidence from Ezekiel alone is that he was referring to Tyre as a mainland city.
You truly are a piece of work. First, it should be readily apparent (even to you) that questions are not evidence. Second, the questions you posed to stevecarrwork are based entirely on the presumption that the text is, in fact, a prophecy. In other words, you expect stevecarrwork to accept first your premise that it is a supernaturally-informed, long range prophecy. Then, if he can answer the questions (which he plainly couldn't, if he accepted your premise), maybe you'll entertain his arguments further. You acknowledge as much in your remarks just prior to posing them. You write, "[u]ntil you respond to these with specific answers consistent with the prophetic text..." Can we speculate as to a reasonable answer to the questions you pose? Certainly! It is not worthwhile doing so, however, because your deeply entrenched assumptions about the nature of the text do not permit you to entertain them.
[W]hich "facts", in respect of ancient documentary evidence, do you have to support your claim? Simply quoting modern writers' accounts of its history (by Katzenstein, Jidejian, the Wikipedia article, or whatever), which usually say the same thing, is not enough. The ancient source texts are what matter. Of those in or before Ezekiel's day, I know of only one which might be used to support the idea of Tyre as an island...
First, we must deal with your contention that Josephus doesn't really say what he seems to. Following your advice, I went to PACE and checked the translations (thanks for the link). As it turns out (and as suspected), the materials there do not support your position on the text. In fact, I have not found a single translation that does (though I rely heavily on Whiston, usually). Here are the two alternate readings offered by PACE (with notes in brackets):
283 "Now the king of the Assyrians went up to make war on Syria and all Phoinike. The name of this king is recorded in the Tyrian archives, for he campaigned against Tyre when Eloulai [Eluleus, ca. 729-694 BCE] was its king. Menander also attests to these matters (he made a chronicle-record and translated the Tyrian archives into the Greek language). He relates this:
284 "And Eloulai, who was surnamed Puas, reigned as king for thirty-six years. When the Kitieis revolted, he sailed there and made them subject again. In his time Selampsas [Shalmaneser V, c. 726-722 BCE], the king of the Assyrians, came up, making war on all Phoinike; once he had concluded peacewith all of them, he went back home.
285 Then Tyre, Sidon, and Arke, as well as old Tyre [Palaetyrus, as distinct from Tyrus] and many other cities that had handed themselves over to the king of the Assyrians revolted. Given the Tyrians' insubordination, the king returned against them again. The Phoenicians provided him with 60 ships and 800 rowers [obviously, Shalmaneser required ships for his assault].
286 Sailing against them with twelve ships, the Tyrians scattered the ships of their adversaries and took 500 men captive. However, the prices of everything in Tyre went up on account of this.
287 But when the king of the Assyrians withdrew, he posted guards at the river and the aqueducts to prevent the Tyrians from drawing water [a common strategy used against the island city of Tyre previously]. Although this went on for five years, they prevailed by drinking from the wells they had dug."This then is what is written in the Tyrian archives concerning Salmanasses [confirms the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, c. 726-722 BCE as the king referred to], the king of the Assyrians" ~ Niese
...and...
283 And now the king of Assyria invaded all Syria and Phoenicia in a hostile manner. The name of this king is also set down in the archives of Tyre, for he made an expedition against Tyre in the reign of Eluleus; and Menander attests to it, who, when he wrote his Chronology, and translated the archives of Tyre into the Greek language, gives us the following history: "One whose name was Eluleus reigned thirty-six years; this king, upon the revolt of the Citteans, sailed to them, and reduced them again to a submission. Against these did the king of Assyria send an army, and in a hostile manner overrun all Phoenicia, but soon made peace with them all, and returned back; but Sidon, and Ace, and Palsetyrus [Palaetyrus] revolted; and many other cities there were which delivered themselves up to the king of Assyria. Accordingly, when the Tyrians would not submit to him, the king returned, and fell upon them again, while the Phoenicians had furnished him with threescore ships, and eight hundred men to row them; and when the Tyrians had come upon them in twelve ships, and the enemy's ships were dispersed, they took five hundred men prisoners, and the reputation of all the citizens of Tyre was thereby increased; but the king of Assyria returned, and placed guards at their rivers and aqueducts, who should hinder the Tyrians from drawing water. This continued for five years; and still the Tyrians bore the siege, and drank of the water they had out of the wells they dug." And this is what is written in the Tyrian archives concerning Shalmaneser, the king of Assyria." ~ Whiston [same bracketed notes of the previous section apply throughout this one]
The only (extremely minor) issue I can see is the awkward spelling, Palsetyrus, in the second translation. Hopefully, you would agree. In any event, overwhelmingly this spelling is accepted in scholarly circles as referring to old Tyre, aka Palaetyrus.
To address whatever significance this account in Antiquities might have, it is simply to point out that if Josephus did, in fact, extract this from the archives of Tyre (or from Menander, who we must also perhaps rely on), and the archive records these events in the time of Eluleus, then obviously the island city of Tyre existed at least a century prior to Ezekiel's work. The two cities were distinct enough from one another for the Tyrians to call it something else, old Tyre. Furthermore, if Tyre, rather than old Tyre, sent ships to fight, then obviously it was a well-developed port city at that time.
Presumably, you would also not want to question Josephus' integrity as an historian, for that casts doubt equally on his other passages that many Christians say constitute external evidence of Jesus' existence. But then, maybe that's no problem for you. Selection bias is so characteristic of apologists that it wouldn't surprise me at all.
Oh, and not that it matters, but it is also amusing that you should suggest a site that, when one clicks on the name of Tyre, a pop-up window appears with the following as the first line: "Tyre was built on an island." What a card, you are!
Moving on, I quite agree with you that it is the source materials that are important. It is unfortunate that all the material isn't presently available to we amateur scholars. But as I said, we'll be moving on now.
Second, we must deal with your avoidance of Isaiah 23, which happens to be rather inconvenient to your position. Although the entire chapter discusses Tyre, the most pertinent text reads as follows (KJV), with notes in brackets:
23:1-2 "The burden of Tyre. Howl, ye ships of Tarshish; for it is laid waste, so that there is no house, no entering in: from the land of Chittim it is revealed to them. Be still, ye inhabitants of the isle; thou whom the merchants of Zidon, that pass over the sea, have replenished" [unequivocal reference to Tyre, the island, plus a reference to having to "pass over the sea" to deliver supplies to the city].
23:6-7 Pass ye over to Tarshish; howl, ye inhabitants of the isle [another unequivocal reference]. Is this your joyous city, whose antiquity is of ancient days [the island city old even in Isaiah's time]? her own feet shall carry her afar off to sojourn."
23:11-12 "He stretched out his hand over the sea, he shook the kingdoms: the LORD hath given a commandment against the merchant city, to destroy the strong holds thereof [more ambiguous, but here is yet another reference to going out "over the sea" to destroy Tyre]. And he said, Thou shalt no more rejoice, O thou oppressed virgin, daughter of Zidon: arise, pass over to Chittim; there also shalt thou have no rest" [passing over to Chittim refers to the attempted escape of the Tyrian king, only somewhat relevant due to Assyrian records].
Now, if (as it appears) Isaiah is referring to the island city of Tyre, this presents a problem for your argument, for Isaiah (books 1-39, anyway) is usually considered to have lived/ministered (broadly) ca. 742-680 BCE. Obviously, this predates Ezekiel by several decades, and the text refers to a city well enough established to be worthy of God's attention. That is, the island city was much more than a minor settlement or offshoot from the mainland even in Isaiah's time. Isaiah (as we read) also identified the city as ancient. It also stands to reason that Ezekiel was familiar with Isaiah, even if he wasn't familiar with the environs of Tyre, so it seems that if he intended to identify the mainland section (Ushu), he could quite easily have done so. In fact, it seems he did by his reference to Tyre's "daughters in the fields."
Moving on to the ANET materials, they too demonstrate that Tyre proper was on the island several hundred years prior to Ezekiel's 'prophecy.'
"Now, please instruct me about Beirut, about Sidon and about Sarepta. Where is the stream of the Litani? (The Litani reaches the sea just north of Tyre...) What is Uzu (Usu) like? They say another town called Tyre-the-Port is situated in the sea (an island). Water is taken to it by the boats, and it is richer in fish than the sands." (from a letter of the Egyptian scribe, Hori, ca. 13th century BCE, ANET 477-478)
The Tell el Amarna letters, those from Abi-Milki, are apparently consistent with the city of Tyre situated on an island. Two sources online were consulted for this material, since obtaining materials from my local library proved problematic - www.ancientcash.info/page-2/TyreAmarna.html and www.specialtyinterests.net/eae.html.
"The Tell el-Amarna tablets contain 10 letters written to Aknenaton by Abi-Milki (Abimelech), who probably ruled after the assasination of the above referenced king. The first letter after standard salutations to the Pharoh only requests provisions:
"Behold I have said to the sun-god. The father of the king; My lord, 'When shall I see the face of the King, My lord?' But behold, I am guarding Tyre, the great city, for the King, My Lord, Until the mighty power of the King comes out unto me, to give water for me to drink and wood to warm me. Further Zimrida, the King of Sidon, has written day-by-day to the criminal Aziru the son of Abdi-Ashirta, concerning, everything that he has heard from Egypt. Behold I have written to my lord for it is good that you should Know." (number 147 letter 2).
Latter it appears that Abi-Miliki has been told that he would get supplies from Sidon and Arvad, but neither arrives; Abi-Milki writes to Pharoh:
"I am the deputy of the King, My lord, and I am one who brings good news as well as evil to the King. My lord, May the King send twenty foot soldiers to protect his city" (number 149 letter 4).
The letter continues that Zimrida (king of Sidon), Aziru and the people of Arvad have taken an oath to besiege Tyre by land and sea. Abi-Milki reports that Sumr has been turned over to Aziru and that he is surrounded on all sides. Abi-Milki reports that he does not have wood or water and is only able to obtain supplies with the greatest difficulty by his ships because of a blocade. He entreats Pharaoh to send him instructions and to take steps to protect him and Tyre. He requests an immediate answer. via the soldier carrying the message and points out how destitute he is that he must send this request by a single soldier without gifts for Pharaoh rather that a proper envoy.(number 149 letter 4).
In reply to Pharaoh's command to report the news from Canaaan, Abi-Miliki again begs for wood and water and points out that this time he is sending his messenger Ilimilku with a gift. He reports the news from Canaan:
"The king of Danuna is dead and his brother has become king in his stead, and his land is quiet, and fire has consumed Ugarit, the city of the king, Half of it has consumed and its (other) half is not, and the people of the army of Hatti are not." (number 151 letter 6) - Note: this is probably the earthquake in which the alphabetic cuneiform tablets of Ugarit were burned about 1365 BC.
Some help appears to have arrived from Eqypt and Abi-Milki writes:
"The whole land is afraid of the soldiers of the King, my Lord. I have permitted my people to board ships for the meeting of the soldiers of the King, my lord, and he who hearkens not his house remains not, nor his power. Behold I protect the city of the King, my lord." (number 155 letter 8).
In another letter Abi-Miliki insists for more help against Zimrida (Sidon). He states that Zimrida will not allow the Tyrians to go on the mainland for supplies from the letter the situation seems desparate: He pleads to Pharaoh that he is still loyal and wants to defend Tyre, however his people are preparing to flee from the city. In his letter he refers to the new queen Meritaten who has replaced Nefertiti. The letter ends as follows:
"Further let my Lord, the king, as there is no wood, no water, no straw, no earth, no place for the dead, let the king, my lord care for the servant of Salmayati that life be given to him when the King, my lord gives, water to drink for the servant of Salmayati then I set my face towards his service, then let the King care for his servant and for Tyre, the city of Salmayati let the King ask the deputy if he dwells in Sumura. Behold, the man of Beruta has gone in a ship, and the man of Sidon goes away in two ships and I go away with all the ships and my whole city so let the King care for his servant and protect the ships of the King in..." (number 155 letter 10).
This is the last letter from the archive, so the fate of Abi-Miliki is unknown."
Assyrian sources -
"(I am Esarhaddon)...I conquered Tyre which is amidst the sea. [Ba'lu, king of Ty]re, living [on an island amidst the sea]...threw off my yoke...[of As]hur and the splendor of my lordship [overwhelmed him]...I took away from him those of his towns (which are situated on) the mainland..." (square brackets fill lacunae in accordance to line length and spacing)"
"Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament", James B. Pritchard, ed., Princeton. Univ. Press, 1969, pg. 290 & 291 (Inscriptions: 1st quote - clay barrel found in Ashur {2-11 obverse}; 2nd quote - Prism B (2-10 reverse).
And more:
"I conquered Tyre, which is amidst the sea, I took away all the towns and the possessions of Ba'lu, its king, who had put trust on Tirhakan, King of Nubia, ... threw off my yoke ... bowed down and implored me, as his lord ... heavy tribute his daughters with dowries, all the tributes which he had omitted , he kissed my feet, I took away from him those of his owns on the mainland turning it over to Assyria."
And more:
"In my third campaign I marched against Ba'il, king of Tyre, who lives (on an island) amidst the sea, because he did not heed my royal order... I (thus) intercepted (lit.: strangled) and made scarce their food supply and forced them to submit to my yoke. He brought his own daughter and the daughters of his brothers before me to do menial services. At the same time, he brought his son lahimilki who had not (yet) crossed the sea to greet me as (my) slave."
British Museum Text K 1295 (ANET 301)
Another rendering:
"In my third campaign I marched against Ba'lu, king of Tyre, who lives amidst the sea, because he did not heed my royal order, did not listen to my personal commands. I surrounded him with redoubts, seized his communications, on sea and land. I intercepted and made scarce their food supply and forced them to submit to my yoke. He brought his own daughter and daughters of his brothers before me to do menial services, at the same time, he brought his son Iahimilki who had not crossed the sea to greet me as slave. I received from him his daughter and the daughters of his brothers with their great dowries. I had mercy upon him and returned to him the son, the offspring of his loins." British Museum Text K 1295 (ANET 301)
Another rendering:
"In my third campaign I marched against Ba'il, king of Tyre, who lives (on an island) amidst the sea, because he did not heed my royal order... I (thus) intercepted (lit.: strangled) and made scarce their food supply and forced them to submit to my yoke. He brought his own daughter and the daughters of his brothers before me to do menial services. At the same time, he brought his son lahimilki who had not (yet) crossed the sea to greet me as (my) slave." British Museum Text K 1295 (ANET 301)
And more:
"On my return march, I conquered the town Ushu the emplacement of which is on the seacoast. I killed those inhabitants of Ushu who did not obey their governors by refusing to deliver the tribute which they had to pay annually. I took to task those among them who were not submissive their images and the people I led as booty to Assyria." (ANET 300)
And more:
"In my third campaign I marched against Hatti. Luli, king of Sidon, whom the terror-inspiring glamor of my lordship had overwhelmed, fled far overseas and perished.¡ The awe-inspiring splendor of the "Weapon" of Ashur, my lord, overwhelmed his strong cities (such as) Great Sidon, Little Sidon, Bit-Zitti, Zaribtu, Mahal liba, Ushu (i.e. the mainland settlement of Tyre), Akzib (and) Akko, (all) his fortress cities, walled (and well) provided with feed and water for his garrisons, and they bowed in submission to my feet." (Sennacherib's campaign, ANET 287-88)
Also a note from www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4107, by Richard D. Patterson M.A., M.Div., Th.M. Ph.D.
"Esarhaddon records that he summoned his vassal Manasseh to Nineveh: 'And I summoned the kings of the Hittiteland (Syria) and (those) across the sea,—Ba'lu, king of Ty-re, Manasseh, king of Judah.'"
Then, of course, there are the "Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser," which can (fortunately) be viewed online through a digitized 1915 book found at library.case.edu/ksl/ecoll/books/kinbro00/kinbro00.html.
Plate XIII is particularly relevant. Quoting directly:
"UPPER REGISTER: The tribute of Tyre and Sidon. On the left of Plate XIII is the fortified city of Tyre, on its rocky island off the Syrian coast. Tribute is being carried across to the mainland in boats, which, as they near the shore, are drawn in with ropes attached to the prow. They are being unloaded by porters, who wade up to their knees into the sea, and wear shoulder-pads very like those in use in Syrian ports at the present day. Bales of goods, bronze cauldrons, trays perhaps containing ivory, and other objects of value (PI. XIII f.) are being carried in procession before the king (Pl. XV). All the Phoenicians wear pointed skull-caps, those of the better class having turban-cloths rolled tightly round them. Behind the king (PI. XV-XVIII) chariots, cavalry, and infantry are advancing from an Assyrian camp."
I strongly suggest looking at this plate, found on pg. 59 of the above book, and read the description on pg. 22 (from which the above is excerpted).
There is a mountain of supplementary material, though more modern, that supports the idea that the island city of Tyre had existed for a very, very long time prior to Ezekiel's 'prophecy.' As has already been said, this is not a point of contention among scholars, historians, archaeologists, nor indeed even Christians! You have created controversy where there was none!
So...
I am not aware of any evidence that "island Tyre" existed as a city in Ezekiel's day.
Perhaps you are now aware of this evidence? The witness of the Bible, of history, and archaeology are against you, Mark. Does it still seem strange to you that Ezekiel might actually have been referring to the island city, as a plain reading of the text would suggest? Again, Ezekiel himself stands against you, distinguishing the mainland from Tyre (c.f., "daughters in the fields") and references to Tyre being strong "in the sea" and being "a place...in the midst of the sea." That you may equivocate on "BThVK" notwithstanding, the body of evidence we have overwhelmingly points to the island. Only your a priori belief in it as supernatural prophecy remains.
16. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #77619 by J.C. Samuelson on October 9, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Mark,
I wrote in a hasty and clumsy manner. I'm not going to abstain completely from contributing on this thread, but I don't wish to engage you further on the issue of prophecy. Though I thank you for your kind words, unfortunately, I find it extremely difficult to be as complimentary in return. Sorry to be rude, but your blatant dismissal of evidence, absurd claims, baseless assertions, attempt to shift the burden of proof, and endless equivocation have become more than anyone should reasonably be expected to bear. Some very recent examples:
Saying Ezekiel was describing Tyre as an island is to disregard the obvious details of the prophecy. If you believe otherwise, you must show us why.
Once again (and for the umpteenth time), extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not we who are arguing in favor of an extraordinary claim (i.e., that some supernatural divinity authored your precious texts), it is you. You bear the burden of proof for prophecy. To draw an analogy, you have proposed a hypothesis which you have submitted for peer review. As those responsible for the peer review process, it is our job to test it and see if it holds up under scrutiny. If it fails, it is falsified. And, should it be rejected, you can choose to go back to the drawing board, looking for more (or better) evidence. What you have done is instead reinterpret the evidence you've already presented, hoping to favorably sway the peer reviewers that have already rejected that evidence as faulty, and/or the methods used to collect it.
...the relatively new city of island Tyre
Evidence - including some extracted from your own source, the Bible - contradicts your claim that the island portion of the city was new in the time of Ezekiel (or later). Isaiah 23, being a convenient example, explicitly refers to Tyre as an "isle." And, unless you're going to again suggest some sort of chronological legerdemain, Isaiah 23 predates Ezekiel. External evidence - including (but not limited to) the El Amarna letters (ca. 14th century BCE) and inscriptions or reliefs of at least three Assyrian kings (Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal) predating Ezekiel, and not to mention Josephus who, discussing the reign of Sargon (again, predating Ezekiel), describes how Old Tyre (Palaetyrus) revolted from Tyre with Sidon, and Tyre's use of ships against them - sweeps the remaining shreds of your theory straight off your hard drive.
To put it succinctly, the island city of Tyre had existed for just under a thousand years (previously, I believe I overstated it) before Ezekiel put pen to papyrus. Claiming otherwise is to ignore the facts. Again, you have taken an otherwise uncontroversial issue among scholars and archaeologists (that of Tyre's historical location) and fashioned a completely nonsensical argument around it.
The bottom line is that, although you are an articulate, educated, and otherwise reasonable person, your defense of the Tyrian prophecy simply has nothing to do with evidence or logic. For you, faith automatically (and perhaps unconsciously) trumps any other possibility. This is why I can no longer engage you on this topic. The above is merely intended to highlight the depths of absurdity to which your arguments have descended (though I admit it's funny that I offered it at all).
All the best means whatever you'd like it to mean. Whatever the best is for you, may you receive it.
17. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #77078 by J.C. Samuelson on October 8, 2007 at 11:51 am
Mark,
Apparently, it is necessary to explain further...
OK. The Hebrew wording used in the Ezekiel passages at issue is "bi-tevek ha-yam" (in-midst (of) the-sea). This is the phrase which appears in Ezekiel 26:5 and 27:32. Here are all the passages in which this exact form appears, as identified by the Online Bible:
Exodus 14:16 But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.
Exodus 14:22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.
Exodus 14:27 And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.
Exodus 14:29 But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.
Exodus 15:19 For the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with his horsemen into the sea, and the LORD brought again the waters of the sea upon them; but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea.
Numbers 33:8 And they departed from before Pihahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days' journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah.
Nehemiah 9:11 And thou didst divide the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on the dry land; and their persecutors thou threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters.
Ezekiel 26:5 It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.
Ezekiel 27:32 And in their wailing they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and lament over thee, saying, What city is like Tyrus, like the destroyed in the midst of the sea?
As you've brought up the issue of lexical context, you'll please note that every verse you've quoted - every one - from Exodus, Numbers, and Nehemiah contains additional contextual clues that qualify "BThVK" (Hebrew transliteration of 'bi-tavek,' or English "the midst of"). The word "sea" (yam) isn't terribly important to learning what "BThVK" means, as it can be substituted for almost any noun of similar character. In these verses, the authors employ these additional words so that there can be no mistaking the implication of movement through or into the middle or midst of something. The qualifiers include "through the," and "passed through," for example. Other descriptive elements, such as those concerning the walls of water to either side, or that the Israelites went on dry ground, give further contextual clues that unmistakably tell us that some kind of movement into or through something is involved.
You might, of course, point to Ex. 14:27 as an exception. However, the Egyptians are destroyed "in the midst of the sea" when the sea crashes in on them. In other words, they are actually in the sea at this point.
Turning to Ezekiel, we see the same transliterated Hebrew, "BThVK" (in the midst of) used in its other sense - that of refering to being "in," "among," "in the middle of," or "in the midst of" something. There are exceptions, of course, but you'll again note that when a "passing through" of some sort is involved, further qualifiers are added by the author. I've already noted these (very few) exceptions in the previous post. Otherwise, the word, "BThVK," without these additional contextual qualifications, overwhelmingly refers to being inside, among, surrounded by, or in the middle of something as we would understand "midst" today:
midst
1 : the interior or central part or point : MIDDLE (in the midst of the forest)
2 : a position of proximity to the members of a group (a traitor in our midst)
3 : the condition of being surrounded or beset (in the midst of his troubles)
4 : a period of time about the middle of a continuing act or condition (in the midst of a meal)
Take, for example, Ez. 1:1 - "Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among ("BThVK") the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God." Or, take Ez. 1:16 - "The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of ("BThVK") a wheel." Or, Ez 3:24 - "Then the spirit entered into me, and set me upon my feet, and spake with me, and said unto me, Go, shut thyself within ("BThVK") thine house." Or, Ez. 5:2 - "Thou shalt burn with fire a third part in the midst of ("BThVK") the city, when the days of the siege are fulfilled: and thou shalt take a third part, and smite about it with a knife: and a third part thou shalt scatter in the wind; and I will draw out a sword after them." Or, Ez. 5:5 - "Thus saith the Lord GOD; This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of ("BThVK") the nations and countries that are round about her."
I could go on. Indeed, there are numerous similar examples in the very books you suggest show the opposite. The overriding point concerning "BThVK" is that Ez. 26 lacks the additional contextual clues that imply movement or might indicate a "path" or a "passing through." Taking another look at Ez. 26:5, "It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea," it seems clear that the author does not mean to indicate some sort of path being created to Tyre, but that Tyre is "in" the sea, so to speak (as in surrounded by, among, or within).
Again, the key is that, when "BThVK" is used in the context of passing through "the midst of" ("BThVK") something, the authors take pains to let the readers know what they're talking about. Even Ezekiel does, when necessary. The lexical context makes your interpretation fit like, well, it just doesn't. It might be easier to grant your suggestion if it were phased more like this:
"It shall be a place for the spreading of nets [to] the midst of the sea," or "It shall be a place for the spreading of nets [into] the midst of the sea," or "It shall be a place for the spreading of nets [through] the midst of the sea," or something similar.
Also, once again, I included the verses from Psalms and Proverbs to make a point about your assertion concerning a "plain reading" of the text. As it is, we could've stuck with the other books we've quoted to make the point, so I apologize if I confused the issue by introducing the other word.
At any rate, to my mind, this isn't all that different from our previous discussion of the timeframe for Ezekiel. It really amazes me that you persist in claiming that a "plain reading" yields your understanding of the text (or that it would for almost anyone) in the face of this absurd semantic argument. But then, otherwise uncontroversial issues long ago became central to your thesis.
I blame myself for doing my part to encourage this to go on as long as it has. Tell you what, Mark. I give up. There are just too many things that are more important to me than keeping up a debate on minutia or dismantling sophisms.
All the best.
18. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #76944 by J.C. Samuelson on October 7, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Mark,
One brief point...you gave some Bible passages including the words "midst of the sea", which you claimed disprove my position on the meaning of that phrase. Please re-check your concordance/Online Bible or whatever you use. You will see that the word for "midst" in those places is quite different from the one Ezekiel uses in 26:5 and 27:32. As I have been saying, the only other uses of that particular Hebrew phrase are about Israel crossing the Red Sea dry-shod; your claim of other senses is mistaken.
Don't be daft, Mark. Do you really believe that I would be so lazy as to not check my concordance? Of course I double-checked my concordance before posting. Here's what I found, but didn't really think belaboring the point further was necessary. Since you seem not to be able to let go of semantic issues, however...
The Hebrew word in question is tavek which, according to Strong's Concordance (Strong's Number 2498), means the following:
1. midst, middle
a. midst, middle
b. into, through (after verbs of motion)
c. among (of a number of persons)
d. between (of things arranged by twos)
e. from among (as to take or separate etc)
The usage breakdown is as follows:
King James Word Usage - Total: 415
midst 209, among 140, within 20, middle 7, in 6, between 3, therein 3, through 2, into 2, miscellaneous 23
Just looking at Ezekiel, it's used 104 times. Furthermore, I note that everywhere - that's right, everywhere - it's used to describe a path (as you say), it's qualified by nearby words such as 'through' and 'on dry land.' Where Ezekiel uses it, nearly always it refers to being in the middle, in the midst of, or 'among.' Ez. 9:4 is one exception, and 12:12, and one more, 29:21. Other than that, there is no indication of any kind of 'path' or some kind of way through something.
Again, the word midst, as it's used by Ezekiel, nearly always refers to something in the middle of something else.
Now, it's true that in the Psalms and Proverbs the word is leb, but as you always blather on about 'plain readings,' I thought I'd include it. Really though, I thought you'd have conceded the point. Apparently, I was wrong.
Must I really go through the Bible (again) and post every single verse using the word tavek and explain why it doesn't mean 'path' or something very close to it?
Do yourself a favor, Mark. Check your concordance again.
For a good while now, I have been showing that the opposite is true; that it was very precisely fulfilled...
No, Mark. You have been asserting that the opposite is true.
BTW, to give the specific reference stevencarrwork refers to, it's Is. 23:2. At least, that's the first mention of it as an 'isle' in that chapter.
19. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #76287 by J.C. Samuelson on October 5, 2007 at 11:08 am
Mark,
Please take your time. As it is, taking time even to post that little bit yesterday took away from other things I should be doing. So, do please respond to the others first. I think we both know that, although this is an interesting conversation and I've learned quite a bit, neither of us is persuading the other, really.
Philip,
Interestingly, you've shown a great interest in posting interesting links. And, they are interesting indeed, as is your interesting addiction to tea. I'd be interested in what interesting blends of tea you're interested in, as well as finding out if you're also interested in coffee.
We Americans don't take all that much interest in tea, interestingly.
:)
sgr79
In addition to the one Billy linked, there are a couple others, though I can't post them at the moment (don't ask). As for a published book, I don't know.
Lee
What other website is there!? ;) Seriously, which one have you been haunting Christians on lately?
I am just wondering if anyone else (other than Mark) has noticed similar within the bible?
Simple answer? Yes.
Why isn't God concerned with the WHOLE world if Earth is so important?
The standard Christian answer is that God does care about the whole world. That's why Jesus died on the cross, so they say. There's even a verse (among the most popular) that I'm sure you've heard of that they will say suggests this very thing:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16
If God was so great, how come the God of the bible was NOT known in America or Australia for example until the Christians (the fans) got there first?
I don't know about Australia, but the Mormons believe a resurrected Jesus did, in fact, visit North America. In fact, their whole theology is predicated on the idea that North America was settled first by ancient Jews who crossed the sea (the remnants of the lost tribes of Israel, called Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites), and at the resurrection Jesus came and spoke to his "other sheep" (in America, apparently) that he spoke of in John 10:16.
So the Mormons argue, anyway.
20. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #76031 by J.C. Samuelson on October 4, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Mark,
This has rapidly degenerated into a semantic discussion, and to be perfectly blunt, I've no inclination to entertain further attempts at sophistry, intentional or not. Apologies if this comes across as vulgar or insulting.
Essentially, you've now argued that human-relative terms cannot be used to describe God, but that, in fact, they can. If the Bible is understandable from a human perspective, then it can only use terms that humans can assign a definition to. If not, then the terms, being indefinable, are useless. Do you agree? If so, let's agree further that your disagreement with Dawkins' portrayal of God is due to your distaste for it rather than his inability to understand and use the terms.
As for "jealous," if you want to project a positive connotation on, say, Ex. 20:5, 34:14, or Deut. 4:24, 5:9, and 6:15 (to take just a few examples) be my guest. Zeal just doesn't seem very appropriate to me in those cases.
I have never taken issue with "lay," or "stones," "timber," and "dust," so that's for others to argue.
With respect to "midst of the sea," your interpretation that it always means "a path across the sea" (implying a "path" on dry land, as in Ex., Num., and Neh.) is belied primarily by its use in Ps. 46:2, Prv. 23:34, and especially Prv. 30:19. One might also point to Matt., but that wasn't written in Hebrew, so we'll let that verse lie. Second, Ezekiel draws a distinction between Tyre and her "daughters" (i.e., the mainland, as you've said before) yet describes the destruction of both. Third, if you want to say that Ezekiel did not know that Tyre proper lay on the island, that again damages your argument for divine inspiration. After all, what could Ezekiel be ignorant of with God as his informant? Fourth, we still have the problem of equivocation, because you now want to say that by Tyrus, Ezekiel really meant Palaetyrus.
Mark, how much further do we have to go before a concession is made that the passage is not altogether explicit? When words do not mean what they appear to mean, or are vague (such as "they" supposedly not referring to nearby plural antecedents and in keeping with other passages by the same author (c.f. Ez. 29:20), but instead unnamed future belligerents), or when one has to appeal to heretofore unheard of "divine definitions" for words, it's probably a pretty good indication that the passage isn't exactly amenable to a "plain reading." Not as literal prophecy, anyway. I mean, the first time you ever read it, was it clear to you exactly who would do the deeds described, if not Nebuchadnezzar? I'm assuming you were unfamiliar with history at the time.
Nevermind. I tend to agree with Corky that "this discussion could drag on for some time to come, say a couple of thousand years." I've got some other things to do in that time, so can we reach some sort of accord, even if it is simply to say "We do not agree?"
21. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #75246 by J.C. Samuelson on October 2, 2007 at 6:06 am
Mark,
Like Billy, I don't see that there's anything to apologize for. I also learned a great deal from the exercise, and so consider it worthwhile. Also, thanks for your honesty. Not to sound condescending, but it seems so rare on this side of the pond for folks of a theistic mindset to admit mistakes, that your forthright admission is a breath of fresh air. If I make a similar mistake, hopefully I can follow your example.
22. Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity
Comment #72616 by J.C. Samuelson on September 21, 2007 at 11:53 pm
To borrow from the usual text that accompanies military awards, I say that SPC Hall's actions reflect great credit upon him, his unit, and the United States Army. As a long-time military member myself, who is also the only open atheist in my unit, I applaud SPC Hall for his courage in standing up.
There are certainly situations in which speaking out would be, in my opinion, inappropriate. Some examples might be a funeral or other solemn ceremonial occasion (such as a change of command or promotion), mission briefings, formations, and so forth. Neither the Thanksgiving dinner nor the off-duty meetings SPC Hall organized match any sort of official criteria as described. Furthermore, if the dinner was an official (and mandatory) function, the commander would still be 100% in violation of the Establishment Clause by requiring a prayer. Both the Staff Sergeant (I am the equivalent rank in the Air Force) and the Major were out-of-line. Period.
SPC Hall acted appropriately and within his rights under the Constitution and the UCMJ, no matter what others here might say.
Incidentally, this wouldn't even be in court were it not for his standing up. It makes no sense to say that the defendants were wrong and deserve to be in court while at the same time saying SPC Hall should've stayed quiet. You can't have it both ways. Sorry.
23. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #70547 by J.C. Samuelson on September 16, 2007 at 2:02 am
Mark,
No one could ever accuse you of lacking a keen intellect and imagination. However, as I suspected, there is really very little that could be construed as new in your latest defense of Ez. 26 as prophecy. Having poured over your latest responses and the map you so kindly provided, with all due respect I've come to the conclusion that you have resorted to grasping at straws.
You now assert that the Tyre Ezekiel referred to was only the mainland portion of the city. Again, this is equivocation. Let us grant that Nebuchadnezzar was only meant to destroy the mainland city. Doing so does not exonerate the chapter as prophecy in the least. Indeed, you still have not dealt with the plain fact that the island city conquered by Alexander has been rebuilt. Put plainly, if Alexander is to be considered you simply must deal with the city that stands today where the island used to be. You cannot simultaneously say that Ezekiel referred only to the mainland as being wiped away while arguing that Alexander fulfilled phase two of the prophecy. Phase two includes the island city being wiped away, as is made clear by the remainder of the chapter. Unless, of course, you're going to again shift the goalposts and say that the remainder referred only to the mainland.
In any event, you've also apparently failed to account for is that the island portion of the city had existed for quite a long time prior to Ezekiel's writing. It had long been used as the main port and a refuge against previous attackers (the Egyptians and the Assyrians being notable examples). If memory serves, the El-Amarna tablets, which predate Ezekiel by as much as a thousand years, refer to the island, not the mainland, as the city proper. While it's impossible to know whether the city was founded on the island or the mainland first, this does not truly seem important since there was ample time for the city to grow on both counts by the time Ezekiel penned his missive. But perhaps most damning to your theory is Ezekiel himself who, by his reference to Tyre as distinct from her "daughters in the fields" and by his further reference to her being a ruin in the "midst of the sea," gives the lie to your notion he referred only to the utter destruction of the mainland portion.
Granted, the Tyre that stands today is not the Phoenician city with which Ezekiel was familiar. But Ezekiel's familiarity is beside the point if we're talking about a prophecy informed (if not authored) by Almighty God. Attempts to place the city elsewhere merely divert attention from the fact that the city has been rebuilt on exactly the same ground that you've previously argued was wiped clean by Alexander and subsequent conquerors. Changing it to mean only the mainland is part and parcel of apologetic attempts to find fulfillment where there is none.
I've intentionally ignored the temptation to respond point by point, because I've already posted my responses to your other assertions elsewhere and months ago (some 10 or more pages back, I believe). In other words, I find your latest suggestions to be less than persuasive and, to put it bluntly, specious. Incidentally, it does not matter one bit what a Phoenician Tyrian would think of modern day Tyre. We're not supposed to be talking about earth-bound perceptions, are we? We're supposed to be discussing a divine prophecy, which presumably is not bound by such limitations.
Now, I'm sure this is all quite frustrating and I do not mean to be rude but frankly it seems to me that it's you who is clinging to the most tenuous threads of reason here, as is the one who is quite "gone out." Again, I would ask you what there is that might be left to say about this alleged prophecy? That said, I'm still interested in your paper. I'll send you a PM shortly.
On another note, please don't feel that you need respond to every post of mine. You are quite overwhelmed, and let me assure you that I'm quite content to wait as long as necessary, or even to go without! :)
24. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #68534 by J.C. Samuelson on September 7, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Mark,
With respect to your license, perhaps you could point me in the right direction as to who needs to be spoken to about obtaining a similar license and what to ask for so I can get the same evidence from my end without compromising security. Surely you can part with that kind of info via PM, couldn't you? In any case, I'd certainly be interested in seeing your paper when it's complete. As with Quetz, just drop me a PM when it's done and I'll send you my postal information. And thanks for the offer to pay the postage!
The Bible's claim is that it is inspired – i.e. the product of God's spirit (mind); that its words in their particular combination are not human-originated words, but come from – were chosen by – God, though individually they are words humans also use.
At the risk of provoking this digression on definitions of God to spin out of control, it seems to me that your answer doesn't really solve the problem. While there are a host of issues with your suggestion that God Himself is responsible for authorship, which have been central to all our debates here so far, I'll try to focus on just the issue of language. Thus, I'll assume for the sake of discussion that God did, in fact, write (or dictate) the words of scripture.
If the definitions attached to the words used originate with God and are somehow different from human definitions, then it's still impossible to claim knowledge of God's character. Since we do not have access to the divine perspective, we cannot know what God means when He describes Himself or His actions. Thus, scripture is rendered meaningless to humanity when it offers words that allegedly help define God. All definitions are therefore potentially true or not, and we can only guess as to what God means in a particular passage.
Consider "righteous" as just one example. This can mean acting in accord with a law (legally "righteous"), with moral principles (morally "righteous"), with perfect or near perfect execution (i.e., excellence), or simply an actuality (i.e., genuine). As I'm sure you'd agree, not all laws are moral, not all morals are expressed as laws, how well something is executed or how genuine it may be are matters of perspective. Alternatively, it can mean something entirely different. Perhaps, to God, "righteous" is more closely defined as having integrity (defined as "completeness," one of the definitions of "integrity"), or (to be absurd) thinking with the right hemisphere of the brain. Or consider "omnipotence." Does this refer to authority or influence? Does it mean virtually unlimited authority or influence, actually unlimited authority or influence, or some variation? Does omnipotence supercede omniscience, or vice versa, or are they equal?
Without the capability to understand what's being taught, how can we possibly claim to know anything about the subject? If God defines the words used in scripture in His own terms, and we do not have an insight into the divine mind, we simply cannot claim any understanding. Thus, all human assertions concerning what God is or may be, or how He may act, have equal potential to be right or wrong.
There's another problem with this as well. Some of the words used in scripture in English are merely the closest equivalents, not the exact translations, because (as we've discussed before) neither Hebrew nor Greek translate directly into English. This further obscures whatever meaning the original words may have had, regardless of which version we might refer to.
All of this is to say that, under your model, no one has any basis for criticizing anyone else's interpretation of scripture as it pertains to God Himself. In other words, Dawkins' interpretation of OT scripture has the same potential as yours to be right or wrong. You can no more say his characterization of God is incorrect than he can say the same of yours. My next question then becomes, of what possible use is scripture if we humans can't really know what it says?
But for men to arbitrarily describe him in their own words (some of which occur in the Bible), but using combinations of words that are not consistent with the biblical description, that is the problem.
All definitions given to various words by mankind are arbitrary. Your dictionary does not give absolute definitions, Mark. It only gives common usage at the time the dictionary was published. Furthermore, it matters little how consistently the words are used in the Bible if we do not know how to define them. In other words, a "biblical description" only has meaning to humans if humans arbitrarily decide which definitions fit the words.
As it is, translators are merely offering a "best guess" as to what the original human authors meant. By suggesting that only God knows what He meant by the words He used, you effectively nullify their work completely.
For example, no such rant as appears at the start of chapter 2 of "The God Delusion" can be found in, or matched to, any Biblical text.
Of course, Dawkins is using his own moral judgment to decide whether the God of the OT is just, unjust, petty, or what have you. Merely because the Bible says that God is always just does not mean that He must be just from a human perspective. After all, as you have argued, God defines His own terms. So perhaps that explains why we might view, say, God's command to kill the man picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-36) as unjust, but from God's perspective perhaps this is just. Yet this still leaves us in the realm of guesswork, since the NT describes Jesus' disciples picking food on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1-8; Mk. 2:23-28; Lk. 6:1-5). God apparently believes in situational ethics, in spite of the biblical description of Him as immutable. To harmonize this, we might guess that God is above His own Law, since Jesus claims lordship of the Sabbath. But if He places Himself above the Law, then He is, by our definition, a tyrant, punishing everyone who breaks the Sabbath except those whom He happens to favor at the time. Then again, how can we know anything since God defines Himself and His actions in His own terms, and doesn't seem inclined to tell us what he really means?
Again, if the biblical characterization of God is made up of divinely defined words that we cannot know the meaning of, then what makes you think your interpretation is any better than Dawkins'?
...the word "jealous" in the Bible is consistently not a pejorative term, and that "proud" by contrast is pejorative, but is never used of God's attitude. In Biblical usage, "jealousy" is not the same as "envy" (as modern usage of the former term has it), but a positive concern for correct relationships to be maintained.
Again, this is a human judgment, not God's, as you have so helpfully pointed out. However, you're at least incorrect concerning the Hebrew root word for jealous, qana'. This is Strong's Number 07065, and means the following:
to envy, be jealous, be envious, be zealous
(Piel)
to be jealous of
to be envious of
to be zealous for
to excite to jealous anger
(Hiphil) to provoke to jealous anger, cause jealousy
You might be tempted to suggest that this is only the root word, and that qanna' is the more appropriate word for some of the better known verses such as Ex. 20:5, 34:14 or Deut. 4:24, 5:9 and 6:15. Yet the only known definition is the word 'jealous' itself. In other words, jealous means jealous (give it any meaning you like, I suppose). Furthermore, the root word is used in the context of describing God's jealousy in 1 Ki. 14:22, Ps. 78:58, Ez. 39:25, Joe. 2:18, and Zech. 1:14 & 8:2. So, the fact of the matter is that God is biblically described as envious, jealous, zealous, and whatever other meaning you might find to attach to it. Even the context of the better known verses gives a clue that God gets jealous (the pejorative term, as you put it), because He's jealous of other gods, whoever they may be. It's merely your prejudice for a particular image of God that gives preference to the idea that jealousy doesn't really mean jealousy as we usually understand it.
To return to the point, if God defines jealousy in His own way, the Bible is of little to no help in understanding what He means. How can we be assured that the Hebrews define the word correctly?
You actually illustrate my point nicely in almost the next phrase:
...the same word is applicable to a man's valid desire for his wife that she remain uniquely his, and not engage in adulterous activity with someone else.
Is this concern for the "right" relationship, or anger and pain over rejection or envy? Jealousy, as humans understand it, is a purely selfish emotion, not a philanthropic concern for your spouse's well-being or that he/she remain with you for his/her sake. It's for one's own sake that one gets jealous. There are countless examples of jealous spouses whose marriages could hardly be described as healthy or "right." Again, this is a human concept, and we cannot know that this has any bearing on a divine entity we don't (or can't) understand.
The bottom line is that we're still in the same place you left us. If God defines His own terms, and it's wrong for humans to impose their defintions on them (as you complain of concerning Dawkins), then we cannot know anything about Him. Might I suggest that what you object to isn't really Dawkins' imposition of human-relative terms on God, but that those terms conflict with your own?
But the Bible claims for itself, and gives objective enquirers strong reasons to believe, that it is in fact a communication from God, bringing into our finite minds and intellectual framework God's own presentation of his infinite power and knowledge, couched in terms we can grasp if we choose to. We are, painfully, limited by our own human inclinations and traditions in our response to that message: "the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him" (1 Cor 2:14). Nonetheless those who are prepared to consider it seriously find - as I do, continually - that the more one submits oneself to the principles it teaches, being willing to accept it for what it claims to be, the more it substantiates itself as being true, and the more the evidence of this world of ours and its present condition, both in the large and in very small details, is found to match with precision both the Bible's overall characterisation of things, and its many individual predictions.
Pardon me for asking, but are you actually suggesting that an objective reader could not reach an opposite conclusion? Are you actually questioning the seriousness - and perhaps the integrity - of those of us who have studied the Bible and yet do not believe? If so, I'd really like an explanation for my own deconversion, especially considering the fact that it was through my very attempt to objectively confirm the Bible that I came to skepticism. I was seeking to emulate Matt. 22:37, Mk. 12:30, Lk. 10:27, and 1 Peter 3:15. Was my seriousness misplaced? Should I have been less demanding of the text? Was I somehow less honest or serious than you?
Given that according to various historical accounts, there was a change of king in Tyre around the time of Nebuchadrezzar's siege (which is itself documented from multiple secular sources), and that members of the Tyrian royal family are listed as living as exiles in Babylon, I am not at all sure of the validity of "didn't fall to this attack"!
Hold on there. Are you saying now that Tyre fell to Nebuchadnezzar, or are you merely referring to its political capitulation?
Lee,
Actually, I did find God right here on RD.net. Quetzalcoatl, dispenser of teas and ruler of laser-headed falcons. ;)
Erm... probably 50% those posts (and about 75% of the rubbish written) is from me... sorry.
Please don't be sorry. I rather enjoy your posts, and don't consider them rubbish at all. It just takes awhile to read them. ;)
Keep up the good work!
25. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #68190 by J.C. Samuelson on September 6, 2007 at 10:16 am
Hey Quetz,
Maybe he did miss it. I surely did!
26. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #68150 by J.C. Samuelson on September 6, 2007 at 8:54 am
As usual, the thread goes silent for awhile and suddenly there are 50-100 posts to catch up on. :)
Mark,
Welcome back! It's good to know that you enjoyed your adventure, and I'm glad you're back in one piece. I see that you've been overwhelmed here, so I won't spend too much time adding to it. We'll probably have to agree to disagree.
"A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different."
Richard Dawkins
I am always staggered when I see this quote appear in the side-bar, as it just did. I would love Richard Dawkins to tell us how he can happily assert this, without effectively claiming God-level (i.e. infinite) knowledge and status for himself!
The others have answered far more ably than I could, but just to add one minor suggestion, this is not so staggering a claim as you might think. There are many specific claims that Christians make with respect to the alleged design of the universe, and more than a few can be looked at scientifically. Victor Stenger does a fine (albeit imperfect) job of this in God: The Failed Hypothesis, which treats the "God hypothesis" most frequently offered by adherents to the Abrahamic faiths as a scientifically testable proposition. He succeeds mostly in demonstrating that the universe looks just as we would expect in the absence of a god as described by Abrahamic theists.
It seems to me that RD is concerned to define God in human-relative terms - God could only have certain possible characteristics, so far as he is concerned, and if an actual God fitted them, then RD might be right about the nature of this universe. But that requires God to conform to his (human-defined) rules. In other words, from that quote on its own, Richard Dawkins appears to be (as he certainly does all too often in TGD) inventing an imaginary version of God that fits his purpose, in order to prove that such a God does not exist. In other words, a straw man...
This is such a self-defeating argument, Mark. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised you'd offer it, though perhaps I shouldn't be. Essentially, you've just rendered all definitions of God meaningless, for they all rely on human understanding. You cannot logically claim to know anything about God while simultaneously asserting that the terms we use are useless.
Scripture, which you've defended as eminently comprehensible, describes God as jealous, righteous, loving, wrathful, omniscient, omnipotent, and so forth. Are these terms not human-relative terms? If human terms do not or cannot define God, then scriptural definitions too are rendered meaningless. You can't have it both ways. Do you believe God has or does not have the traits described in the Bible, Mark? If so, then human-relative terms are valid, aren't they?
In any event, Dawkins did not 'invent' the image of God he attacks. Believers did. The only difference is in the framing. Believers are willing to equivocate on or overlook difficult aspects of the scriptural depiction of God's personality. Non-believers are not.
Or, perhaps you are suggesting that believers are not subject to human limitations?
Moving on...
With respect to Tyre, I don't think we're going to reach agreement here. Continually, you've asserted that Ezekiel was specifically referring to particular attackers, though the text names but one - the one with whom Ezekiel was familiar. It would have been pathetically easy for God to give Ezekiel precise names and dates, thereby eliminating any question as to its alleged prophetic nature, but that isn't what we read. In fact, in order to support your case at all, you are forced to shift huge portions of that book and others backward in time by nearly two decades, thus undermining any present historical credibility it may have.
Although I find the idea that you've uncovered new evidence concerning the ruins intriguing, without knowing what it is I can't say that anything has changed. We've already agreed that there are ruins there. Indeed, I've never suggested that Tyre wasn't destroyed many times. That wasn't the question at all. The question is, was it ever rebuilt? Yes. Was it "found again?" Yes. This gives the lie to your position that the prophecy was literally fulfilled in all its particulars, as far as I'm concerned (not that my concern matters).
To be clear (again), I do not have a problem if Ezekiel was being hyperbolic in his description of Tyre's destruction at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. In fact, I feel this maintains a degree of historical integrity for the document. You, on the other hand, maintain literal fulfillment. This is an enormously difficult position (actually, I'd call it 'untenable') to take in light of the facts.
Again, while it seems unlikely that anything will change, I'd be interested in seeing this alleged "new" evidence you have. That it seems to have convinced you further doesn't help us here. The pictures you did provide don't really add much to our discussion, sorry. Will you share your evidence via PM?
Sorry to sound negative, but I've no interest in debating Tyre further unless something new and meaningful is entered into the discussion. I mean, what else is there to say?