Talk:Criticism of the Bible/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Errors in Ezekiel's "Egypt prophecy" paragraph

"Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (Ezekiel 29:10-14), and Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it (Ezekiel 29:19-20). Critics argue that this event never happened, but Christian apologists argue that there is mention by a clay tablet in the British Museum of an attack against Egypt "in the 37th year of Nebuchadrezzar"[citation needed]. The Jewish historian Josephus also records: "Nebuchadnezzar...fell upon Egypt, in order to overthrow it; and he slew the king that then reigned and set up another".[1] According to Christians, it is possible that an exile of the Egyptians took place subsequently. [citation needed]"

This is wrong on many levels. There are missing citations, and (as far as I know) nobody disputes that Nebuchadrezzar attacked Egypt: the event that "never happened" is the conquest and depopulation of Egypt. The Egyptians defeated Nebuchadrezzar, and Herodotus records that the Pharaoh at the time (Amasis II) went on to have a long and prosperous reign, in which he even added Cyprus to his kingdom. None of this was supposed to happen, according to Ezekiel. Does the Josephus reference even refer to the correct pharaoh? Nebuchadrezzar had earlier defeated Necho (at Carchemish), but not Amasis, who was Paharaoh at the time specified by Ezekiel (after the siege of Tyre).

...And there's something else going on here. Ezekiel promised the riches of Egypt to Nebuchadrezzar as compensation for the earlier failure of his prophesy that Nebby would sack Tyre. The Tyre prophecy is ofted cited as an example of a failed prophecy, but there is no mention of it here: there is, however, a mysterious picture of Tyre harbour sitting there. On investigation, I discovered that the Tyre prophecy entry has been mysteriously deleted by an anonymous IP some time ago. I'll restore it (and tidy it up: it had gotten somewhat messy). --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone has added the following at the end: "A prophet does not only utter God's word without own consideration, but plays a part in communicating God's will. Ezekiel seems to have overstepped this responsibility by exaggerating the punishment for Tyre." which looks like a personal opinion so as to justify the authority of Bible and does not give any references. I think we should delete that part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.17.252 (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfair treatment in comparison to other articles

Are we meant to take Wikipedia seriously, when the article "Historicity of Jesus" is closed to discussion, yet an article that is critical of the bible is open to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.43.200 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing about science

It's a bit weird that the article "Criticism of the Bible" doesn't have a single word to say about science (and only provides a link to a related article). I imagine a sentence or two about the flat earth and evolution would be useful here. Kaldari (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a couple paragraphs just to cover the basics. Kaldari (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Horrible Unfulfilled Prophesies section

it looks like has someone has confused talk page with actual article. I tried reading unfulfilled prophesies and almost burst my head. I am neither a biblical scholar nor a historian, so please can anyone rewrite the section with proper references and paragraphing and remove the counter arguments?--Bapatnikhil (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Since this was raised in February I'm going to start clean up now then check back to see if I stepped on toes. 68.7.134.191 (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it still needs a lot more clean-up. Kaldari (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Propoganda

Much of the 'Unforfilled prophecies' section is just a bunch of confusing justifications of why the prophecies were somehow fulfilled. It appears as if somebody is posting biased apologist opinions on this page.Jemappelleungarcon (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I added an NPOV tag Jemappelleungarcon (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

70 years

The article currently claims:

  • Jeremiah predicts 70 years (Jeremiah 29:10) for the Babylonian exiles, but they only lasted 59 years.

However, this isn't what the Bible actually says about the 70 years. The Bible never actually says the Jews were exiled 70 years. Most translations of the Bible (including the one linked in the article) correctly indicate at Jeremiah 29:10 that the 70 years were a period for Babylon, and not a period of exile. Further, Jeremiah 25:11, where the 70 years are first mentioned, quite clearly indicates the 70 years would be a period during which all the nations would serve Babylon (see also verses 9 and 17-26 to establish context); and Jeremiah 25:12 states that Babylon's king would be punished after the 70 years had finished. Consistent with this, Jeremiah 29:10 says the Jews would have an opportunity to return home after Babylon's 70 years had ended. Though it is acceptable for the 70 years of nations serving Babylon to be a round period, the duration from the fall of the Assyrian Empire (609BCE) until Cyrus conquered Babylon (539BCE) is exactly 70 years. Therefore, unless there is compelling reason to keep it, the section should be removed from the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As no one has commented in over two weeks, I have removed the section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is about criticisms of the Bible as a source of reliable information

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels because of a similar sequence and wording.

Shared features of the synoptic gospels:
  1. Have a similar length.
  2. The author(s) are unknown.
  3. Are composed in Koine Greek.
  4. No autograph manuscripts exist.
  5. No contemporaneous source verifies the creation of the autograph manuscripts within the conjectured time period of possible creation.
  6. The majority of Mark and roughly half of Matthew and Luke coincide in content, in much the same sequence, often nearly verbatim.
  • Besant, Annie Wood (1893). Christianity, Its Evidences, Its Origin, Its Morality, Its History. R. Forder. p. 276. Dr. Giles then argues that Justin [Martyr] would have certainly named the books [Synoptic Gospels] and their authors had they been current and reverenced in his time ; that there were numberless [many] Gospels current at that date ; that Justin mentions occurrences that are only found related in such apocryphal Gospels. (Image of p. 276 at Google Books) {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help)
  • Vincent, Marvin Richardson (1899). A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Macmillan. p. 3. The problem for the textual critic of the New Testament grows out of the fact that the New Testament autographs have disappeared, and with them all copies earlier than the middle of the fourth century. (Image of p. 3 at Google Books) {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help)

Per the synoptic gospels, It seems to me that that if;

  1. The author(s) are unknown.
  2. They are composed in Koine Greek.
  3. No autograph manuscripts exist.
  4. No contemporaneous source verifies the creation of the autograph manuscripts within the conjectured time period of possible creation.

Then that is a bona-fide source of criticism of the Bible as a source of reliable information. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the numbered statements would be appropriate for this article, but unless you can come up with sources that specifically are criticizing the bible for these reasons, it would be considered wp:synthesis. Editor2020, Talk 00:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Criticism of the Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of the Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Criticism of the Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

'Impossibly High' Rate of Mutation Comment

A quick Google search for 'causes of Genetic Variation in Humans' reveals that DNA Mutation AND Gene Flow are causes of human Genetic Variation (though I'm no Geneticist and don't know how to correctly interpret what Google is telling me). It seems to me that the Human Genome and Evolution of Humans is so vastly complex that asserting that observed Human Genetic Variation is not consistent with the existence of 2 original Homo Sapiens is making too much of an extreme statement. The article on Speciation would seem to be relevant here (assuming humans are derived from a pre-existing species, which seems to be likely, though not necessarily proven in absolute terms). 'Common sense' would seem to indicate that humans must have come from some pre-existing Genetic ancestor as it is highly unlikely that humans could have evolved in 'one step' from, say, a single-celled organism (how would an Amoeba give birth to a human?). ASavantDude (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@ASavantDude: Your missing the most important part of the sentence: "Moreover, it would require an impossibly high rate of mutation to account for the current amount of genetic variation in humans if all humans were descended from two individuals several thousand years ago." It's not the number that's the problem, it's the time frame. Ten thousand years is not enough time for humans to have evolved in to numerous different races with widely varying genomes. I'll try to make the wording more clear. Kaldari (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I support your recent change. —PaleoNeonate – 06:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of Theoretical Constraints to the Rate of Mutation within Organisms

I accept that it is a bit of a stretch to state that humans could have evolved in 10,000 years. Nevertheless, I am confused about the types of mutation that can arise, whether there are 'mutation amplification' mechanisms that can somehow speed up the rate of mutations (or the rate at which such mutations accumulate - together with complexities that arise in terms of how mutations interact with each other), and whether evolutionary mechanisms can be speeded up under abnormal conditions (via exposure to certain chemical agents, highly ionising radiation, viruses that somehow interact with an ancestor organisms genome, etc....). I think that there is a certain onus on someone to shed some light on potential mechanisms and means that (i) Could have given rise to the existence of Homo Sapiens (assumed to be from a common ancestor that we share with Chimpanzees), (ii) That could provide plausible explanations for not only the existence of Genetic Variations within humans BUT also why the types of Genetic Variation that are seen occur in the way that they do and (iii) That provide the best current scientific Guess concerning what timescale over which humans are likely to have evolved over from the most recent ancestor with Chimpanzees that we have. In short, what timescale are we really supposing that human evolution occurred over?

ASavantDude (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That would depend on how 'human' is defined (and there is much debate over this). At least 3 million years ago, our ancestors were walking fully upright, or beer near to it, with feet morphology very similar to our modern feet; aside from that, they were still basically upright chimps. Simple stone tools were being used at this time. More complex use of tools, and fire, and spread over the Old World happened 1.5 to 2 million years ago. 'anatomically modern humans'first appeared around 200,000 years ago, or so. Behavioural modernity did not begin until ~50,000 years ago, and its appearance is as yet unexplained. and yes, in addition to mutations, there is gene flow, meiosis and genetic drift. and the various selection forces.

Incorrect Reference (Help requested)

I'm brand new to editing Wikipedia, but I noticed that there was a messed up external link in the archeology section. In the first quote by Dever, it has "...No archeologist thinks so. (location of previous reference) [...]" This link was just redirecting to msn.com, which isn't helpful.

The original link was to this http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/18/1679514.aspx. I used the wayback machine to find a way to access the original article via https://web.archive.org/web/20110812123824/http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/11/18/4350632-bible-gets-a-reality-check. I don't know the best way to fix this, so if someone could help with that, that would be great. I probably should have left it in there, but I figured it needs to actually be corrected either way so hope it's not a big deal. Thanks. NanoTech976 (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Works of Josephus, Book 10.9
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_the_Bible/Archive_2"