Which Bible

[Learner]

I was only focusing on how much one can EARN writing books. Suddenly I have an utmost desire to write a book earning a living as these two are doing (if only).

Indeed so. A lot of money can be made preying on a group's obsession by telling them what they already believe, especially if that belief is contested by others. I once started writing such a book targeting UFO believers but then considered the ethics and dropped it.

Do the two mentioned, actually believe what they're writing about? Should they both drop it if they do?

Contesting the belief is not an issue unless... you mean that an individual being contested doesn't really believe what they're writing about and are in it, solely for the money.

Did you believe what you wanted to write about?

 

[Gun Nut]

forget about the hyper-focus on human authorship... what about the hyper-focus that god-authored words mean anyhting at all close to what you think they mean.. when god says "a dog".. your simply human brain thinks of the animal... but god is great and when he says "a dog", he is saying a large nuber of great truths about the human condition that we can not even get close to comprehending.

This hyper-focus on the idea that we think we know what those words means is fucking hysterical.

The only difficulty has been translation i.e. an ancient language into a modern one. The Prophets did all the explaining so to speak (accidental pun) and I would assume that people then, knew exactly what they were writing down. Anyway fortunately in this day and age we can study with translation-tools like 'Strongs Concordance' for example, to clarify Hebrew words that have specific meanings when the modern word replacement could mean several different things, which obviously could potentially give the wrong contexts to the verses as often happens. Its an ongoing process of course.

no, no.. what I mean to say is that the failable humans that "transcribed" gods words into sanskrit made the errors right at the start... the errors that inevitably exist when translated over and over again into other languages just exasperates the problem further. But the hyper-focus on the original words being even in the right ballpark of the correct meaning is what is ridiculous to think.

 

[steve_bank]

I thought the historical critical method basically talked itself into irrelevance. How can you study the bible without canonical exegesis?

"A significant limitation of the historical-critical method is that its hyper-focus on human authorship tends to leave us with a jumble of at best vaguely related texts, each with its own distinctive finality and meaning. We have, in a word, what Isaiah meant and what the author of the book of Job meant and what Mark and Paul meant—but not what God means across the whole of the Bible."

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/pope-benedict-and-how-to-read-the-bible/22322/

The gospels and OT are inherently thin on all sides.

Framing interpretation in terms of historical context makes the best sense academically. The geo-politics of the day provides the only possible background for understanding who someone like Jesus was about.

In terms of geo-politics he was not speaking about the end of the world, he was speaking to Jews saying if they did not change their ways they faced destruction.

Revolution and sedition against Rome was in the air. The Jewish Revolt, Masada. There were a number of Jews claiming to be the prophesied messiah. The Jews were not interested in reformation, they wanted a king and leader to restore them as a power.

 

[Atheos]

I would go so far as to say that the pipe dream such Jews of that day had in a "restoration to power" was borne of a gross misrepresentation of history as told by their fabricated holy books. The world-leading superpower Kingdom of Israel under Saul, David and Solomon such as was described in the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles never existed. We have abundant archaeological evidence of what kingdoms actually were in power during the time periods in question and "Israel" barely makes a blip on the radar. These histories are at best huge exaggerations of the roles of tribal chieftains. Great kingdoms such as are described in those books would have left abundant archaeological evidence of their existence and influence in the ancient world.

It's important to note that the best archaeologists don't begin with an agenda (such as proving or disproving the bible). They explore with a desire to find evidence of what actually did happen and hope that the truth can be found. So far the evidence is damning to the biblical accounts.

 

[Learner]

It's important to note that the best archaeologists don't begin with an agenda (such as proving or disproving the bible). They explore with a desire to find evidence of what actually did happen and hope that the truth can be found. So far the evidence is damning to the biblical accounts.

I doubt its damning to the biblical accounts. Each day that excavations and biblical studies are done, the more it seem mo to favour the biblical accounts.

Example: the exodus is more likely from Egypt to Saudi-Arabia because there is evidence for Israelites landing there. Now you also have to put into account that the Isaraelites were nomadic for a period of time. Not much time to stay-put to chilsel out their life stories on great big stones to rival the Egyptians or the Sumerians let alone be carried around.

(sorry its rather brief, can't fully engage this very moment)

 

[Atheos]

Damning. From the flood myth to the mighty kingdom of Solomon over which the queen of Sheba allegedly gushed "The half has not been told," fact-finding geologists, historians and archaeologists have (without intention) debunked dozens of claims of biblical scripture. There was no mass exodus of Israelite slaves from Egypt at any time in the historical record. There was never a period of 10 devastating plagues such as are described in the Exodus myth. There was never a tower of Babel marking the epicenter of a sudden burst of world languages appearing practically overnight. There was never a conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua. There is no record of the great kingdom as described in Samuel/Kings/Chronicles. The earliest archaeologically supported Israelite history begins around the time of Nehemiah. Nebuchadnezzar didn't go batshit crazy for 7 years and he sure as hell never became a believer in Yahweh.

It's easy to make up historical fiction. What the writers of these fictions in the bible couldn't do was plant archaeological evidence that would support their wild stories once the technology to do carbon dating became available.

And that's really at the crux of the matter. Some elements of historical fiction can be verified, but that doesn't mean the extraordinary claims of biblical writers is true. The existence of Atlanta or the Civil War doesn't vindicate the existence of Scarlett O'Hara or Rhett Butler.

 

[steve_bank]

The Hebrews were a minor player in a tough neighborhood. They got picked on and bullied.

 

[bilby]

I was only focusing on how much one can EARN writing books. Suddenly I have an utmost desire to write a book earning a living as these two are doing (if only). Lion has already made a thread with the liar dispute anyway.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...pologetic-book
Happy to continue there.

I think you have a delusional idea of the money authors make.

To get $10 per book sold, would imply a cover price of about $100/copy.

Dawkins likely gets around $2 per paperback book sold; and maybe $3 per hardback.

Typically, an author can expect to receive the following royalties: Hardback edition: 10% of the retail price on the first 5,000 copies; 12.5% for the next 5,000 copies sold, then 15% for all further copies sold. Paperback: 8% of retail price on the first 150,000 copies sold, then 10% thereafter.

https://www.alanjacobson.com/writers-toolkit/the-business-of-publishing/

 

[Learner]

I was only focusing on how much one can EARN writing books. Suddenly I have an utmost desire to write a book earning a living as these two are doing (if only). Lion has already made a thread with the liar dispute anyway.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...pologetic-book
Happy to continue there.

I think you have a delusional idea of the money authors make.

To get $10 per book sold, would imply a cover price of about $100/copy.

I didn't say Dawkins gets 100% of sales revenue which would obviously mean the publisher forks out the costs and mindlessly gets zero% in return. His book generated more than $8 million in 2014.

But you don't see the point I was making I suppose, in the below.....

Dawkins likely gets around $2 per paperback book sold; and maybe $3 per hardback.

Typically, an author can expect to receive the following royalties: Hardback edition: 10% of the retail price on the first 5,000 copies; 12.5% for the next 5,000 copies sold, then 15% for all further copies sold. Paperback: 8% of retail price on the first 150,000 copies sold, then 10% thereafter.

https://www.alanjacobson.com/writers-toolkit/the-business-of-publishing/

So we can put his $2 per book to scale, making Dawkins earn $6 million in revenue just in 2014. How much therefore has his ONE BOOK ALONE made to this day, as compared to Strobels accumulated revenue ... ALL his book royalties combined giving Strobel $8 million in total?

One could wonder - how much ALL of Dawkins books in total has made him, to this date!

Strobel sells books like everyone else. What is the argument?

 

[skepticalbip]

The Hebrews were a minor player in a tough neighborhood. They got picked on and bullied.

As you say, it was a tough neighborhood. Every group got picked on and bullied, some to the point of being killed off completely. Some "picked on and bullied" and finally killed off by the Hebrews. We know about the woes of the Hebrews because they survived and their writings of their woes at the hands of others (and their triumph over and suppression of others) survived. We don't know about the woes of some of the groups because they or their writings didn't survive.

 

[Lion IRC]

Damning. From the flood myth to the mighty kingdom of Solomon over which the queen of Sheba allegedly gushed "The half has not been told," fact-finding geologists, historians and archaeologists have (without intention) debunked dozens of claims of biblical scripture.

Excuse me?
Are you seriously claiming King Solomon never existed?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216100433.htm

And the only version of Noachian flood debunked by archeology is the fantasy version in your head.
...around 6000 years ago, a young earth was entirely covered continuously for a year by flood waters no less than 10,000 metres above sea level, following which the earth rapidly repopulated the previously extant flora and fauna into every single species to what we have today. .

There was no mass exodus of Israelite slaves from Egypt at any time in the historical record.

The bible IS a historical record of that event.

If there was never an exodus, who invaded the promised land of Canaan? (That's the horrible genocide God stands accused of by folks who say how nasty the Old Testament God is.)

Nasty God criticised for wiping out women and children in a global flood - that never happened.
Nasty God orders the slaughter of the Amalakites by the Sinai desert Israelites - who magically came out of nowhere.

There was never a period of 10 devastating plagues such as are described in the Exodus myth.

OK. Call them mundane trivial plagues if that makes it easier to believe.

There was never a tower of Babel marking the epicenter of a sudden burst of world languages appearing practically overnight.

Does the bible say "practically overnight"?
You are the one babbling on.
Ancient civilisations have a rich history of building towers.

There was never a conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua.

...by the stateless Israelites who had been wandering in the Sinai desert for forty years. (After they left Egypt)

There is no record of the great kingdom as described in Samuel/Kings/Chronicles.

Yes there is.
The one described in Samuel/Kings/Chronicles.

The earliest archaeologically supported Israelite history begins around the time of Nehemiah.

Rubbish.
We have archeological evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidb...sed-on-a-real-life-impact-event/#43b9b7d74c29

Nebuchadnezzar didn't go batshit crazy for 7 years and he sure as hell never became a believer in Yahweh.

Have you got archeological evidence to support that claim?
Because, to quote YOU...
"It's easy to make up historical fiction."

 

[Lion IRC]

Damning. From the flood myth to the mighty kingdom of Solomon over which the queen of Sheba allegedly gushed "The half has not been told," fact-finding geologists, historians and archaeologists have (without intention) debunked dozens of claims of biblical scripture.

Excuse me?
Are you seriously claiming King Solomon never existed?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216100433.htm

And the only version of Noachian flood debunked by archeology is the fantasy version
in your head.
...around 6000 years ago, a young earth was entirely covered continuously for a year by flood waters no less than 10,000 metres above sea level, following which the earth rapidly repopulated the previously extant flora and fauna into every single species to what we have today.

There was no mass exodus of Israelite slaves from Egypt at any time in the historical record.

The bible IS a historical record of that event.

If there was never an exodus, who invaded the promised land of Canaan? (That's the horrible genocide God stands accused of by folks who say how nasty the Old Testament God is.)

Nasty God criticised for wiping out women and children in a global flood - that never happened.

Nasty God orders the slaughter of the Amalakites by the Sinai desert Israelites - who magically came out of nowhere.

There was never a period of 10 devastating plagues such as are described in the Exodus myth.

OK. Call them mundane trivial plagues if that makes it easier to believe.

There was never a tower of Babel marking the epicenter of a sudden burst of world languages appearing practically overnight.

Does the bible say "practically overnight"?
You are the one babbling on.
Ancient civilisations have a rich history of building towers.

There was never a conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua.

...by the stateless Israelites who had been wandering in the Sinai desert for forty years. (After they left Egypt)

There is no record of the great kingdom as described in Samuel/Kings/Chronicles.

Yes there is.
The one described in Samuel/Kings/Chronicles.

The earliest archaeologically supported Israelite history begins around the time of Nehemiah.

Rubbish.
We have archeological evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidb...sed-on-a-real-life-impact-event/#43b9b7d74c29

Nebuchadnezzar didn't go batshit crazy for 7 years and he sure as hell never became a believer in Yahweh.

Have you got archeological evidence to support that claim?
Because, to quote YOU...
"It's easy to make up historical fiction."

 

[Tharmas]

Excuse me?
Are you seriously claiming King Solomon never existed?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216100433.htm

You are leaping to conclusions here. When read carefully, what the article you reference claims is, not that Solomon and David existed, but that some form of governmental organization, with some form of bureaucracy, may have existed in the area and historical era that some biblical scholars suggest is the era when David and Solomon existed, if they were real.

In a separate interview from the one you listed, one of the archeologists admits as much:

However, in an interview with The Huffington Post, he [Hardin] acknowledged that archaeology can’t necessarily be used to prove beyond a doubt that the Bible stories about these legendary men are true.
“That’s a personal thing,” he said. “What I think archaeology does do well is create a context in which to understand the events of the Bible.”

 

[steve_bank]

People make a lot of money writing books. Trump has been a windfall for political writers.

Dawkins makes a living. In particular Christian materials is very big business.

 

[Atheos]

Lion IRC you show a pattern of putting words in my mouth. I suspect it's not just me though. I'd strongly encourage you in the interest of meaningful dialog to take a moment to read what someone actually does say rather than attack positions they never stated.

Damning. From the flood myth to the mighty kingdom of Solomon over which the queen of Sheba allegedly gushed "The half has not been told," fact-finding geologists, historians and archaeologists have (without intention) debunked dozens of claims of biblical scripture.

From that you jump to me claiming Solomon never existed. It's the "mighty kingdom" that I said is not supported by archaeological evidence. We have mounds of evidence of other mighty kingdoms in that area of the world both before and after the time frame in which the kingdom of Saul, David and Solomon allegedly existed. The mighty kingdom described in the bible either never existed or was erased entirely from the historical record.

The flood that never happened is the one recorded in the book of Genesis, chapters 6-9. Perhaps you know of a different Noachian flood, one that didn't cover all land and destroy all animal life on the planet other than what was in the (ridiculously un-seaworthy) ark.

An exodus of 1.8 million slaves combined with the entire destruction of Pharoah's armies would have left an indelible mark in the historical record. Plagues that destroyed all the fish, all the livestock and all the crops of Egypt, left their soldiers immobilized due to boils all over their flesh would show up in the historical record. Not only that, with their armies decimated Egypt would have been ripe for plunder by competing nations. Somehow the marauding hordes kept their distance throughout all this. It's real easy for people to make up stories about all this interaction of their war-god with humans. It's all but impossible for these things to happen without leaving abundant evidence of their happening in the historical record.

You also challenged with the following:

If there was never an exodus, who invaded the promised land of Canaan? (That's the horrible genocide God stands accused of by folks who say how nasty the Old Testament God is.)

Nasty God criticised for wiping out women and children in a global flood - that never happened.

Nasty God orders the slaughter of the Amalakites by the Sinai desert Israelites - who magically came out of nowhere.

The conquest of Canaan is a mythical story about a non-existent god. It's the story that's horrible, and personally I find it disturbing that people glorify that sort of savagery whether it happened or not. We know that the inquisitions and crusades happened, wherein untold thousands of people were tormented and killed over little else besides religious and ideological differences. Glorifying barbaric "in the name of God" bullshit like this is how people get talked in to holy wars, acts of terrorism, etc. While it is certainly true that many wars have been fought over little else besides resources and wealth, it is also true that very few of them did not in some way appeal to some god or other as advocating the carnage.

Finally there's this gem:

The earliest archaeologically supported Israelite history begins around the time of Nehemiah.

Rubbish.
We have archeological evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah

So Sodom and Gomorrah were Israelite cities? Who knew.

This argument is like saying "We know that Tara, The O'Hara's and Rhett Butler existed because Atlanta and Robert E. Lee are confirmed in the historical record."

 

[Lion IRC]

You said archeology had debunked the Flood myth and the Kingdom of Solomon.
Don't blame me if that claim sounds like there never was a Flood or a Kingdom of Solomon

You said there is no archeological evidence relating to Israelite history earlier than Nehemiah.
The history of the Israelites - Gods Chosen People - dates back to Abraham.
So archeological discoveries which support the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah relate to the history of the Israelites.

Skeptics doubted the existence of Solomon and of Sodom and Gomorrah despite the biblical historical documentation of their existence.

 

[Atheos]

You said archeology had debunked the Flood myth and the Kingdom of Solomon.
Don't blame me if that claim sounds like there never was a Flood or a Kingdom of Solomon

You said there is no archeological evidence relating to Israelite history earlier than Nehemiah.
The history of the Israelites - Gods Chosen People - dates back to Abraham.
So archeological discoveries which support the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah relate to the history of the Israelites.

Skeptics doubted the existence of Solomon and of Sodom and Gomorrah despite the biblical historical documentation of their existence.

Skeptics doubt everything unless useful evidence is produced that vindicates the claim. That's what it means to be a skeptic. I will not apologize for being one. I've heard far too many outlandish claims made by sincere sounding people, which turned out to be totally bogus. I am more than willing to be convinced by evidence but not by obviously self-serving fantasy that includes extraordinary claims such as those about the Noachian flood, the Tower of Babel, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the exodus itself, a mighty kingdom of Israel that somehow got so completely erased from the historical record that it's only recorded in a story that didn't appear until the days of Nehemiah, 7 years of insanity for Nebuhadnezzar that never got recorded anywhere else, etc.

By all means bring forth the evidence that this mighty kingdom of Israel existed and was a major player at any time in the historical record and I will gladly retract that particular objection. It still won't convince me that some magical skybeast gave Solomon a gift of wisdom, power and wealth the likes of which exceeded everyone else of that period.

I Kings 3

:11 And God said unto him, Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself long life; neither hast asked riches for thyself, nor hast asked the life of thine enemies; but hast asked for thyself understanding to discern judgment;

:12 Behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.

:13 And I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches, and honour: so that there shall not be any among the kings like unto thee all thy days.

Where the hell did all archaeological evidence of that vast kingdom go? Again, I will not apologize for being skeptical. This bullshit belongs in the same place that Joseph Smith's "history" belongs. It's archaeological rubbish written by people with religious agendas to pimp their favorite sky-daddy. I suspect that Nehemiah and his peeps are the source for all this "history." I welcome any evidence that disproves this theory, but from where I'm sitting and having looked at this stuff for a long time it looks exactly like what Joseph Smith did.

 

[steve_bank]

From a recent documentary it appears the Exodus story is a conflation of separate events by the author. One was a battle and one was a likely escape across a 'reed sea'. A sallow body of water. There is a British officer's account of this sea under certain conditions low enough to walk through.

 

[bilby]

From a recent documentary it appears the Exodus story is a conflation of separate events by the author. One was a battle and one was a likely escape across a 'reed sea'. A sallow body of water. There is a British officer's account of this sea under certain conditions low enough to walk through.

...and of course, 'cheesemakers' refers to all manufacturers of dairy products.

 

[Atheos]

You said archeology had debunked the Flood myth and the Kingdom of Solomon.
Don't blame me if that claim sounds like there never was a Flood or a Kingdom of Solomon

Oh, and I didn't intend to let this slide either. I meant what I said earlier about reading what you're responding to instead of putting words in the other person's mouth (or keyboard).

Here's what I wrote:

Damning. From the flood myth to the mighty kingdom of Solomon over which the queen of Sheba allegedly gushed "The half has not been told," fact-finding geologists, historians and archaeologists have (without intention) debunked dozens of claims of biblical scripture.

There have been many floods, some truly devastating. But the evidence is clear that there has never been a flood on this planet that matches the flood described in the Genesis myth. Never. It is what I said from the outset of this back-and-forth and it's what I continue to affirm.

And there is a vast difference between a "Kingdom of Solomon" and the "mighty kingdom of Solomon over which the queen of Sheba allegedly gushed 'The half has not been told.'" Since I'm revisiting this claim maybe this would be a good place to point out that this anachronism is one of the many pieces of evidence that tie these histories to the time period of Nehemiah, wherein they magically appeared after supposedly being hidden away for hundreds of years. The kingdom of Saba (which is by far the most likely candidate for "Sheba" in the OT scriptures) did not exist before the 8th century BCE (far too late for the time frame of Solomon.) But Saba was a prominent player in Arabian trade routes by the 7th century BCE (which is about the time Nehemiah and his buddies would have been doing their thing). Acknowledgment of Solomon's kingdom's greatness by this unnamed queen is a big old red flag when it comes to archaeology and attempting to piece together what really did happen. Sure, there may have been a minor "kingdom" ruled by Solomon, but there sure as hell wasn't any Queen of Sheba around at that time to gush about it and exaggerate how big it was.

Like Joseph Smith inserting the phrase "Bid him Adieu" in a "history" of the Americas about a time at least 700 years before the first french-speaking people existed, the 6th century authors of Kings and Chronicles got caught by archaeologists.