The morality of the Bible?

[tat tvam asi]

Hey Robert, did you get through all of this video on white holes, the big bang, and multiverse?



It will be interesting to see what the new telescope turns up. They have clear ways of trying to set out to detect the presence of other universes now and they're going to try and do it. Here's a link to L.I.S.A.:

http://lisa.nasa.gov/

It's not impossible to detect the gravity from parallel universes if they are there. And another interesting point is that according to the white hole and black hole idea, new universes are always in the act of 'becoming'. Supposing they get hard evidence of this with LISA and even greater technology to come thereafter, and the standard model is changed around accordingly, well then apologists are going to have to scramble to come up with something to account for all of the new discovery. With much wailing and gnashing of teeth I would imagine.

Would they have to eventually point back at Exodus 3:14 and note that it actually says "I will be", which tends to show something in the way of God in the act 'becoming'? And Genesis as a representation of one particular universe coming into existence in the larger scheme of many other universes coming and going before hand? What else could they do? But to make an apology like that would involve having to openly admit that God is meant to represent existence itself which is everywhere and always in the act of 'becoming' as new things come into being constantly over and over again. The process of 'becoming' itself having no fixed beginning or end to speak of - an eternal process of 'existence'. I like to look at the new science and then figure out how religion would have to react to each new potential discovery. They had to react to the sun being confirmed as the center of the solar system in due time, the earth confirmed as round in due time, and they'll have to react to the universe as but one of many in due time as well if it's established as hard fact by new data.

[stahrwe]

Mainly in repsonse to tat.

I don't have time to indepth so a few quick points:

forumla for success ammended from Necessary Being, I think.

Hang a bunch of letters after your name.
Make a video where you specualte wildly with a straight face.
Sound intellectual.
Make lots of money.

I don't watch the videos.

The physical universe has nothing to do with who God is.

the realm of existence has nothing to do with who God is.

The fact that God is self existent is difficult to comprehend but not to understand. You contunued claims against it are unimaginative repetition and are reminisent of the Day 4 arguments from Genesis.

I do not believe in the supernatural, or aliens, or ghosts.

With respect to the meaning of YHWH I suggest that you consult the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer, Jr., Bruce Waltke, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, IL 1981, pages 210-212, and you will see that my explanation that it means, I Am, is correct.

The point is that nothing is necessary for God to be but God is necessary for the realmo of existence to be.

It really isn't that hard.

ps, I am sorry your frienc changed his name, he must feel foolish now.

[Robert Tulip]

The physical universe has nothing to do with who God is. the realm of existence has nothing to do with who God is. The fact that God is self existent is difficult to comprehend but not to understand. You contunued claims against it are unimaginative repetition and are reminisent of the Day 4 arguments from Genesis. I do not believe in the supernatural, or aliens, or ghosts.

The point is that nothing is necessary for God to be but God is necessary for the realmo of existence to be.

Stahrwe, the problem with your explanation here is that it rests on an imaginary story about the identity of God. The Bible is one source among many that give us ideas about God. You cannot elevate the Biblical God of Christianity above all other human experience. For you to say "the realm of existence has nothing to do with who God is" suggests you claim a knowledge of God that excludes the entire problem of pantheism: how God is revealed in nature. The traditional Christian separation between the special revelation of God in Christ and the general revelation of God in nature has established a dogmatic prejudice. When you say you do not believe in the supernatural, it is hard for readers to reconcile this with your belief in Christian miracles, in which God is said to intervene supernaturally in nature through Christ. The alternative picture that Tat has discussed about the realm of existence places the special revelation of Christ within the bigger story of the general revelation of God in nature.

If Christ is seen as natural, rather than supernatural, we can begin to build a natural story of how the Christian religion evolved, with the transcendental imagination of Isaiah focussed into a story of the incarnation of God in Christ. The gospel historic narrative is built upon the Gnostic cosmic vision of Paul that Christ was crucified to redeem for the sins of the world. The Gospels were written after the Epistles. The mythicist argument suggests that the cosmic Christ was not able to provide the base of a mass religion because it lacked the crucial distinction from myth of historic plausibility. Therefore the cosmic story was historicized through fictional accounts of how this imaginary world saviour came into the world in Galilee and Bethlehem and Jerusalem. There is no evidence that Jesus lived, and there is a plausible psychological account, similar to other events in human history where myths have been believed, of how his story in the Bible was written as a cosmic redemption myth. Reading the Bible as fiction explains why Paul's Jesus has no biographical detail, because Paul wrote before the biographical tales of the gospels, which are either wholly invented or heavily embroidered from a historic seed, and there is no convincing evidence that Paul thought of Jesus as an actual person. Within Jewish tradition, we can see that the stories of Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses have fictional content. The use by Israel of monotheist prophecy as a security doctrine is compatible with the claim that the story of Jesus served political interests in a similar way. If Jesus did not exist, it would have been necessary to invent him.

[tat tvam asi]

With respect to the meaning of YHWH I suggest that you consult the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer, Jr., Bruce Waltke, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, IL 1981, pages 210-212, and you will see that my explanation that it means, I Am, is correct.

"I am" comes from yud, hey, vav, hey and Exodus 3:14 clearly has aleph, hey, yud, hey written down. It's right there in the second link I posted in detail:

http://www.yhwh.com/godsrealname.htm

And Christians have chosen to read it the same as yud, hey, vav, hey even though that's not what is written in the text. I wasn't asking you about what's written, I was telling you what it is and telling you that you should ask the people in your Hebrew class about what is actually written and why they translate "I will be" as "I am" when that's not how it appears in the text? Is your class taught by Jews or Christians grasping at Hebrew?

I know what it says in the Hebrew text and I know that these Christian sources you've pointed at have no ability to change what is actually written and preserved. They can only try and twist the interpretation of what is written and preserved towards the 'present tense' when that's not how it was given in the text. Why do they want to read AHYH as if it says YHWH? Because it makes people uncomfortable that its given in the 'future tense' in Exodus 3:14. But the foot note: or "I will be what I will be" is there in the NIV just to let people know about the original text. It's right there in my NIV bible which is opened on the desk before my eyes as I'm typing.

And it does actually make sense with respect to the context of the burning bush scene when you think about it. God is saying that he 'will be what he will be', and in this case he appears as a burning bush. In other cases God is speaking from a fiery mountain, or a cloud hovering above the people. It seems that God is saying to Moses - an Egyptian in the storyline - go tell the people that I'm the God of their forefathers who was known by various names who 'will be what I will be'. Their God appears as a voice coming out from various aspects of nature at different times, and who goes by different names, in other words. And It has to do with existence itself as if existence is a living consciousness which thinks, and knows, and likes, and dislikes, and loves, and hates... Every way of taking the verse comes back to God as a personification of the Realm of Existence as a mythological motif. He will be what he will be, it all points back to the same thing - existence speaking out to the people from various aspects of nature. He will be a burning a bush, he will be a cloud overhead, he will be the fiery mountain, he will be a human being walking the earth as a man later in the narrative...

The point is that nothing is necessary for God to be but God is necessary for the realmo of existence to be.

It really isn't that hard.

It isn't that hard. For God to be self existent means that God is God's own Realm of Existence, not that God is beyond any Realm of Existence whatsoever. Self existent means to 'exist', it doesn't mean non-existence:

http://atheism.about.com/od/whatisgod/a/exists.htm

Your statement is basically saying that nothing is necessary for the Realm of Existence (God) to be, it just is. But the Realm of Existence (God) which just is, is necessary for the universe and everything in it to exist. The realm beyond the confines of the finite universe is the greater Realm of Existence (God) which surrounds the universe on all sides and is responsible for the existence of the universe in the first place. But as for the greater Realm of Existence (God) which was necessarily before the creation of the universe as we know it, no beginning or cause can be given to it. There's no first cause for the existence of existence itself, no first cause for God as it were. Existence just 'is' and so it is said that God just 'is'. Theologians are passing along ancient mythological personification attributes ascribed to mere existence and more often than not having no idea whatsoever what they're actually doing in the process of passing along these ancient metaphors.

God as beyond existence on the other hand, is actually reserved for something deeper yet - the eastern transcendent philosophy - which actually lays waste to theistic fundamentalism by the way. Are you sure you want to go there Stahrwe? Do you know what happens when God is considered as that which transcends all categories including the category of "self existence"?

[Azrael]

Mainly in repsonse to tat.

I don't have time to indepth so a few quick points:

forumla for success ammended from Necessary Being, I think.

Hang a bunch of letters after your name.
Make a video where you specualte wildly with a straight face.
Sound intellectual.
Make lots of money.

I don't watch the videos.

The physical universe has nothing to do with who God is.

the realm of existence has nothing to do with who God is.

The fact that God is self existent is difficult to comprehend but not to understand. You contunued claims against it are unimaginative repetition and are reminisent of the Day 4 arguments from Genesis.

I do not believe in the supernatural, or aliens, or ghosts.

With respect to the meaning of YHWH I suggest that you consult the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer, Jr., Bruce Waltke, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, IL 1981, pages 210-212, and you will see that my explanation that it means, I Am, is correct.

The point is that nothing is necessary for God to be but God is necessary for the realmo of existence to be.

It really isn't that hard.

ps, I am sorry your frienc changed his name, he must feel foolish now.

Hang a bunch of letters after your name.
Make a video where you specualte wildly with a straight face.
Sound intellectual.
Make lots of money.

You don't. The above sounds oddly enough like your pulpit pimps on Sunday mornings. Damn the sheeples they will buy anything with God's name attached to it. We can drive our Mercedes and live in our crystal homes. Is this what these dumb asses mean by God will provide? Provide for who? Them or the people they are suckering out of their hard earned money?

I do not believe in the supernatural, or aliens, or ghosts.

Another odd remark. Since you obviously believe in a deity that no one has ever seen.

The physical universe has nothing to do with who God is.

Coming from a creationist this is another ad hoc statement since your God was suppose to have created the universe.

the realm of existence has nothing to do with who God is.

Agian ad hoc since there again Christians claim he exist and that nothing got here without him so how does the realm of existence not have anything to do with sky fairy?

[Interbane]

The physical universe has nothing to do with who God is.

the realm of existence has nothing to do with who God is.

The fact that God is self existent is difficult to comprehend but not to understand. You contunued claims against it are unimaginative repetition and are reminisent of the Day 4 arguments from Genesis.

Stop making stuff up!

[tat tvam asi]

Back on track to the moral code of the bible:

We all know the biblical story in the Book of Exodus about the Israelite prophet Moses ascending Mount Sinai and being given tablets of the Ten Commandments, supposedly written by the very finger of God himself. Over the past few centuries, many people have suspected this supernatural tale to be not "history" but myth, citing the similarities between the story itself to the myths of other cultures, as well as between the Commandments and the law codes or scriptures of other nations, such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, spell 125, and the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi.

Menu-Minos-Mises-Moses the lawgiver

The story of Moses resembles the tales of other lawgivers in a wide variety of places. As I relate in "The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ," the legend of Moses, rather than being that of a historical Hebrew character, is found in germ around the ancient Middle and Far East, with the character having different names and races, depending on the locale: “Menu” is the Indian legislator; “Mises” appears in Syria and Egypt, where also the first king, “Menes, the lawgiver” takes the stage; “Minos” is the Cretan reformer; “Mannus” the German lawgiver; and the Ten Commandments are simply a repetition of the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi and the Egyptian Book of the Dead, among others.

Moreover, the historicity of the Exodus itself has been called into question many times over the past several decades, with experts in a number of fields citing a complete lack of scientific evidence for this dramatic event, which we can easily recall in our minds from DeMille's classic rendition of it in the movie "The Ten Commandments," starring Charlton Heston.

Now it appears that we may have yet another "smoking gun" showing how the Bible is not a "historical" account infallibly recorded by God's faithful scribes but a compilation of ancient myths and some later history, the former having been found in other cultures and essentially "borrowed" by the Hebrews, Israelites and Jews. This theory has the Jewish priesthood largely glomming onto Babylonian myths and stories during their "Exile" or "Captivity" in that nation in the sixth century BCE.

The "Ten Commandments" of Hammurabi?

New evidence that the biblical tale of Moses was neither historical nor written by him, as is widely believed, comes in the form of a small tablet found in northern Israel at the site of Hazor. This tablet dating to the 17th-18th centuries BCE and written in Akkadian appears to be similar to the famous Code of Hammurabi, found in Iran a century ago. Its presence in what is now Israel demonstrates that these "eye for an eye" laws as found in the later biblical book of Deuteronomy were already known centuries before Moses supposedly existed and brought down the Mosaic Law from Mount Sinai.

An article in Arutz Sheva, "Tablet Discovered by Hebrew U Matches Code of Hammurabi," reports:

For the first time in Israel, a document has been uncovered containing a law code that parallels portions of the famous Code of Hammurabi. The code is written on fragments of a cuneiform tablet, dating from the 18th-17th centuries B.C.E in the Middle Bronze Age, that were found in Hebrew University of Jerusalem archaeological excavations this summer at Hazor, south of Kiryat Shmonah, in northern Israel….

The fragments that have now been discovered, written in Akkadian cuneiform script, refer to issues of personal injury law relating to slaves and masters, bring to mind similar laws in the famous Babylonian Hammurabi Code of the 18th century B.C.E. that were found in what is now Iran over 100 years ago. The laws also reflect, to a certain extent, Biblical laws of the type of “a tooth for a tooth,” say the researchers.

As archaeologists and other scientists dig deeper into the soil of Israel and the surrounding environs, interpreting the finds without the bibliolater bias of past centuries, we continue to see more and more evidence of this sort, which essentially proves the Bible not to be the "Word of God" but a manmade artifact created by a certain group of people for a specific purpose. This former belief of divine origin has caused a huge amount of turmoil on this planet, so it is with great relief that we see the latter, more scientific analysis finally coming to light. Let us hope we do not experience any return to previous Dark Ages of superstition preventing us from continuing our progress toward human enlightenment and understanding.
Another Smoking Gun Proving the Bible a Myth

President Camacho's pet idea about writing a new modernized moral guide is sounding better all the time...

[Azrael]

The Bible has no moral code! At least not one thats possible to live by. I have seen nursery rhymes with more solid moral codes than this fictional joke they call a Holy Book!

[tat tvam asi]

Yet another reason why Camacho's pet idea sounds better and better.

[stahrwe]

The verb form used here is אֶהְיֶה (’ehyeh), the Qal imperfect, first person common singular, of the verb הָיָה (haya, “to be”). It forms an excellent paronomasia with the name. So when God used the verb to express his name, he used this form saying, “I am.” When his people refer to him as Yahweh, which is the third person masculine singular form of the same verb, they say “he is.” Some commentators argue for a future tense translation, “I will be who I will be,” because the verb has an active quality about it, and the Israelites lived in the light of the promises for the future. They argue that “I am” would be of little help to the Israelites in bondage. But a translation of “I will be” does not effectively do much more except restrict it to the future. The idea of the verb would certainly indicate that God is not bound by time, and while he is present (“I am”) he will always be present, even in the future, and so “I am” would embrace that as well (see also Ruth 2:13; Ps 50:21; Hos 1:9). The Greek translation of the OT used a participle to capture the idea, and several times in the Gospels Jesus used the powerful “I am” with this significance (e.g., John 8:58). The point is that Yahweh is sovereignly independent of all creation and that his presence guarantees the fulfillment of the covenant (cf. Isa 41:4; 42:6, 8; 43:10-11; 44:6; 45:5-7). Others argue for a causative Hiphil translation of “I will cause to be,” but nowhere in the Bible does this verb appear in Hiphil or Piel. A good summary of the views can be found in G. H. Parke-Taylor, Yahweh, the Divine Name in the Bible. See among the many articles: B. Beitzel, “Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia,” TJ 1 (1980): 5-20; C. D. Isbell, “The Divine Name ehyeh as a Symbol of Presence in Israelite Tradition,” HAR 2 (1978): 101-18; J. G. Janzen, “What’s in a Name? Yahweh in Exodus 3 and the Wider Biblical Context,” Int 33 (1979): 227-39; J. R. Lundbom, “God’s Use of the Idem per Idem to Terminate Debate,” HTR 71 (1978): 193-201; A. R. Millard, “Yw and Yhw Names,” VT 30 (1980): 208-12; and R. Youngblood, “A New Occurrence of the Divine Name ‘I AM,’” JETS 15 (1972): 144-52.
nebbible.org

If you go to http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0203.htm and scroll down to verse 14 the Hebrew is on the left with: aleph hay yud hay, aleph shin rash, aleph hay yud hay

searching on these Hebrew words takes you to this URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism with a translation which agrees with me that it means I AM. Sorry your buddy is looking so silly.