Why I Don't Believe

[JimBowie1958]

If everything is possible why don't you believe in everything?

lol, you are serious. Because some things are disproven outside of Biblical sources.

Really? Only math and alcohol have proofs that I know of. What is proven? Not just in your experience, common knowledge, or has a preponderance of evidence but actually proven.

So nothing in science, forensics, archeology, or history is ever proven in your opinion? That is more lying atheist horse shit.

Why do you guys lie so damned much?

roflmao

You'll be happy to know that that is exactly what happened to scripture over the centuries.

Prove it, you lying bitch.

Many critical scholars have noticed the fourth gospel has signs of insertions, additions and reshuffling, suggesting its writing followed a long process:

"It is today freely accepted that the fourth Gospel underwent a complex development before it reached its final form." (John's gospel, from original to canonical. Successive additions & relocations (reshuffling), with evidence for a progressive composition)

Professor Bart D. Ehrman's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060859512?ie=UTF8&tag=religdebat-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0060859512"]Misquoting Jesus[/ame]:

Top 10 Verses that were not Originally in the New Testament

1 John 5:7- There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
One of the more famous stories in the Bible is the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." incident. The next two verses that Ehrman lists are from the same encounter (from which I quote at length in the block quote).

John 8:7 - Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.

John 8:11 - Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.

John 8:1-11 (NRSV) while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?’ They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, sir.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.’

I was expecting as a result of my brief article: "Jesus: Unoriginal Moral Thinker" for someone to have mentioned this story from the Gospel of John. So far, I haven't had it claimed as a response to the implicit challenge that Jesus never really taught anything original -- and the things that were original were immoral (for example, a thought-crime is equivalent to the actual crime).

If someone had mentioned the "cast the first stone" as an original moral, I would pointed out two problems. First, this story, which only appears in the Gospel of John, is a later addition. Not only does Ehrman make this point, but so does the Harper Collins Study Bible:

"The most ancient authorities lack 7.53—8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful. Scholars generally agree that this story was not originally part of the Gospel of John." (My emphasis added) - p 1830 [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006078685X?ie=UTF8&tag=religdebat-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=006078685X"]Harper Collins Study Bible[/ame] (which I recommend if you are serious about having a scholarly Bible for reference).

The second problem is that it's pretty hard to get a moral principle out of the story that is useful: don't punish people unless you have never done anything wrong, ever?

Seriously though, think of how pervasive the story of 'casting the first stone' is in society -- it is one of the most popular stories of the entire Bible -- and it was not in the original Gospel account!

Luke 22:44 - In his anguish Jesus began to pray more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling to the ground.

Luke 22:20 - And in the same way after supper Jesus took the cup and said, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

The following two verses form the basis of my essay: Ridiculous Ending to the Gospel of Mark. This essay gives an explicit example of how I would steer the conversation if the person I was arguing with did not believe that the ending to the Gospel of Mark was a later addition.

Mark 16:17 - These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons and they will speak with new tongues.

Mark 16:18 - And they will take up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any poison it will not harm them, and they will lay their hands on the sick and they will become well.

The last three verses round out the top ten:

John 5:4 - For an angel of the Lord went down at certain times into the pool and disturbed the waters; and whoever was the first to step in when the water was disturbed was healed of whatever disease he had.

Luke 24:12 - But Peter rose up and ran to the tomb, and stooping down to look in, he saw the linen clothes by themselves. And he went away to his own home, marveling at what had happened.

Luke 24:51 - And when Jesus blessed them he departed from them and he was taken up into heaven.

Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand. The Gospel is obviously incomplete without these verses, and so most scholars believe that the final leaf of the original manuscript was lost, and that the ending which appears in English versions today (verses 9-20) was supplied during the second century. (The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20))

apology accepted

Those are trivial variations caused by the use of different quotations from the same events, hyperbole, metaphore and variations in translation.

No essential meaning has been changed, you fucking liar.

This post of yours is the epitome of the atheists lack of facts behind their false claims on almost any topic.

lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

Seriously though, think of how pervasive the story of 'casting the first stone' is in society -- it is one of the most popular stories of the entire Bible -- and it was not in the original Gospel account!

/shrugs.....and its because the passage IS pervasive in society that it was left in even after this was discovered.....leaving a footnote that it doesn't appear in the earliest texts.....but seriously, did you really intend to use the example of us finding a more accurate translation of scripture to attack its accuracy?........

Are you saying that adding text to scripture makes it more accurate? You have a curious definition of accurate. Did God make the decision to add it or was it a man's decision?

Of course this was not the only story that was added to scripture.

Moses’ birth, given in Exodus:

Exodus 2:2-6,10
The woman conceived and bore a son; and...she hid him for three months. And when she could hide him no longer she took for him a basket made of bulrushes; and daubed it with bitumen and pitch; and she put the child in it and placed it among the reeds at the river's brink. Now the daughter of the Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river; and her maiden walked beside the river; she saw the basket among the reeds and sent her maid to fetch it. When she opened it she saw the child...And the child grew...and he became her son; and she named him Moses, for she said "Because I drew him out of water."

There is a legend of the founder of the Semitic dynasty of Akkad, King Sargon, which dates to the third millennium BC and is certainly earlier than the story in Exodus. This legend was found on Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets dated to the first millennium BC. This is how the tablets sound like, in English:

Sargon, might King of Akkad, am I. My mother was of mixed blood; I never knew my father...My city is Azupiranu, on the banks of the Euphrates. My mother conceived and she secretly bore me. She put me into a basket of rushes, and sealed its lid with tar. She cast me into the river which did not drown me. The river swept me to Akiki, the drawer of water. Akiki, the drawer of water scooped me up in his pitcher. Akiki, the drawer of water raised me as his son.

more bullshit lies from a lying atheist.

Variations in copyists word use, differences in hyperbole and metaphor, differences in translations do not constitute a change in the essential meaning of the word as given.

The person inspired was given a meaning that they put into words drawn from their own language, knowledge, life experiences and preferences.

None of that is a change in the meaning of the text's religious theme or message.

Why do you atheists lie so damned much?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Seriously though, think of how pervasive the story of 'casting the first stone' is in society -- it is one of the most popular stories of the entire Bible -- and it was not in the original Gospel account!

/shrugs.....and its because the passage IS pervasive in society that it was left in even after this was discovered.....leaving a footnote that it doesn't appear in the earliest texts.....but seriously, did you really intend to use the example of us finding a more accurate translation of scripture to attack its accuracy?........

Are you saying that adding text to scripture makes it more accurate? You have a curious definition of accurate. Did God make the decision to add it or was it a man's decision?

what an odd response.....a rational person, with an appropriate level of reading comprehension, would have concluded that discovering and noting the addition that happened a thousand years ago is NOT an addition that makes it more accurate but is instead a correction that makes it more accurate.........

 

[PostmodernProph]

Of course this was not the only story that was added to scripture.

Moses’ birth, given in Exodus:

Exodus 2:2-6,10
The woman conceived and bore a son; and...she hid him for three months. And when she could hide him no longer she took for him a basket made of bulrushes; and daubed it with bitumen and pitch; and she put the child in it and placed it among the reeds at the river's brink. Now the daughter of the Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river; and her maiden walked beside the river; she saw the basket among the reeds and sent her maid to fetch it. When she opened it she saw the child...And the child grew...and he became her son; and she named him Moses, for she said "Because I drew him out of water."
[/I]

do you have some documentation supporting that claim?.....

 

[alang1216]

lol, you are serious. Because some things are disproven outside of Biblical sources.

Really? Only math and alcohol have proofs that I know of. What is proven? Not just in your experience, common knowledge, or has a preponderance of evidence but actually proven.

So nothing in science, forensics, archeology, or history is ever proven in your opinion? That is more lying atheist horse shit.

Why do you guys lie so damned much?

roflmao

Answering my question with a question seems like a clear evasion. I'll ask again, What is proven?

Prove it, you lying bitch.

Many critical scholars have noticed the fourth gospel has signs of insertions, additions and reshuffling, suggesting its writing followed a long process:

"It is today freely accepted that the fourth Gospel underwent a complex development before it reached its final form." (John's gospel, from original to canonical. Successive additions & relocations (reshuffling), with evidence for a progressive composition)

Professor Bart D. Ehrman's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060859512?ie=UTF8&tag=religdebat-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0060859512"]Misquoting Jesus[/ame]:

Top 10 Verses that were not Originally in the New Testament

1 John 5:7- There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
One of the more famous stories in the Bible is the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." incident. The next two verses that Ehrman lists are from the same encounter (from which I quote at length in the block quote).

John 8:7 - Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.

John 8:11 - Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.

John 8:1-11 (NRSV) while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?’ They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, sir.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.’

I was expecting as a result of my brief article: "Jesus: Unoriginal Moral Thinker" for someone to have mentioned this story from the Gospel of John. So far, I haven't had it claimed as a response to the implicit challenge that Jesus never really taught anything original -- and the things that were original were immoral (for example, a thought-crime is equivalent to the actual crime).

If someone had mentioned the "cast the first stone" as an original moral, I would pointed out two problems. First, this story, which only appears in the Gospel of John, is a later addition. Not only does Ehrman make this point, but so does the Harper Collins Study Bible:

"The most ancient authorities lack 7.53—8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful. Scholars generally agree that this story was not originally part of the Gospel of John." (My emphasis added) - p 1830 [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006078685X?ie=UTF8&tag=religdebat-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=006078685X"]Harper Collins Study Bible[/ame] (which I recommend if you are serious about having a scholarly Bible for reference).

The second problem is that it's pretty hard to get a moral principle out of the story that is useful: don't punish people unless you have never done anything wrong, ever?

Seriously though, think of how pervasive the story of 'casting the first stone' is in society -- it is one of the most popular stories of the entire Bible -- and it was not in the original Gospel account!

Luke 22:44 - In his anguish Jesus began to pray more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling to the ground.

Luke 22:20 - And in the same way after supper Jesus took the cup and said, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

The following two verses form the basis of my essay: Ridiculous Ending to the Gospel of Mark. This essay gives an explicit example of how I would steer the conversation if the person I was arguing with did not believe that the ending to the Gospel of Mark was a later addition.

Mark 16:17 - These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons and they will speak with new tongues.

Mark 16:18 - And they will take up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any poison it will not harm them, and they will lay their hands on the sick and they will become well.

The last three verses round out the top ten:

John 5:4 - For an angel of the Lord went down at certain times into the pool and disturbed the waters; and whoever was the first to step in when the water was disturbed was healed of whatever disease he had.

Luke 24:12 - But Peter rose up and ran to the tomb, and stooping down to look in, he saw the linen clothes by themselves. And he went away to his own home, marveling at what had happened.

Luke 24:51 - And when Jesus blessed them he departed from them and he was taken up into heaven.

Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand. The Gospel is obviously incomplete without these verses, and so most scholars believe that the final leaf of the original manuscript was lost, and that the ending which appears in English versions today (verses 9-20) was supplied during the second century. (The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20))

apology accepted

Those are trivial variations caused by the use of different quotations from the same events, hyperbole, metaphore and variations in translation.

No essential meaning has been changed, you fucking liar.

This post of yours is the epitome of the atheists lack of facts behind their false claims on almost any topic.

lol

You really need to get better acquainted with truth. I said scripture has been added to over the centuries and you say essential meaning has been changed. I documented my claim and never claimed essential meaning has been changed.

You need to grow up and learn to read. Facing facts might also help you but I have little hope for that.

 

[alang1216]

/shrugs.....and its because the passage IS pervasive in society that it was left in even after this was discovered.....leaving a footnote that it doesn't appear in the earliest texts.....but seriously, did you really intend to use the example of us finding a more accurate translation of scripture to attack its accuracy?........

Are you saying that adding text to scripture makes it more accurate? You have a curious definition of accurate. Did God make the decision to add it or was it a man's decision?

Of course this was not the only story that was added to scripture.

Moses’ birth, given in Exodus:

Exodus 2:2-6,10
The woman conceived and bore a son; and...she hid him for three months. And when she could hide him no longer she took for him a basket made of bulrushes; and daubed it with bitumen and pitch; and she put the child in it and placed it among the reeds at the river's brink. Now the daughter of the Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river; and her maiden walked beside the river; she saw the basket among the reeds and sent her maid to fetch it. When she opened it she saw the child...And the child grew...and he became her son; and she named him Moses, for she said "Because I drew him out of water."

There is a legend of the founder of the Semitic dynasty of Akkad, King Sargon, which dates to the third millennium BC and is certainly earlier than the story in Exodus. This legend was found on Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets dated to the first millennium BC. This is how the tablets sound like, in English:

Sargon, might King of Akkad, am I. My mother was of mixed blood; I never knew my father...My city is Azupiranu, on the banks of the Euphrates. My mother conceived and she secretly bore me. She put me into a basket of rushes, and sealed its lid with tar. She cast me into the river which did not drown me. The river swept me to Akiki, the drawer of water. Akiki, the drawer of water scooped me up in his pitcher. Akiki, the drawer of water raised me as his son.

more bullshit lies from a lying atheist.

Variations in copyists word use, differences in hyperbole and metaphor, differences in translations do not constitute a change in the essential meaning of the word as given.

The person inspired was given a meaning that they put into words drawn from their own language, knowledge, life experiences and preferences.

None of that is a change in the meaning of the text's religious theme or message.

Why do you atheists lie so damned much?

I hope you and your stawman are very happy together. If you care to address what I actually said I'll be happy to respond.

 

[alang1216]

/shrugs.....and its because the passage IS pervasive in society that it was left in even after this was discovered.....leaving a footnote that it doesn't appear in the earliest texts.....but seriously, did you really intend to use the example of us finding a more accurate translation of scripture to attack its accuracy?........

Are you saying that adding text to scripture makes it more accurate? You have a curious definition of accurate. Did God make the decision to add it or was it a man's decision?

what an odd response.....a rational person, with an appropriate level of reading comprehension, would have concluded that discovering and noting the addition that happened a thousand years ago is NOT an addition that makes it more accurate but is instead a correction that makes it more accurate.........

An odd response because you have totally confused me. I said scripture was added to and you seem to agree but then go on to justify it as a "correction". I never made a claim that it was good or bad, only that it happened.

Do you admit scripture has been added to over the centuries or not?

 

[alang1216]

Of course this was not the only story that was added to scripture.

Moses’ birth, given in Exodus:

Exodus 2:2-6,10
The woman conceived and bore a son; and...she hid him for three months. And when she could hide him no longer she took for him a basket made of bulrushes; and daubed it with bitumen and pitch; and she put the child in it and placed it among the reeds at the river's brink. Now the daughter of the Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river; and her maiden walked beside the river; she saw the basket among the reeds and sent her maid to fetch it. When she opened it she saw the child...And the child grew...and he became her son; and she named him Moses, for she said "Because I drew him out of water."
[/I]

do you have some documentation supporting that claim?.....

I provided the passage, you're welcome to Google it. What documentation would you accept?

 

[sealybobo]

I have no idea. Now.... let me know when you have objective evidence to share. Until then, you're just spouting religious beliefs and treating it as if you knew something.

All we are saying is that we don't believe in your god or any god(s).

No religion required to not believe something.

Is bald a hair color?

Yes. It is a zero measure, but still a measure. Were we to talk about a rock having hair and how many hairs it had, that would be a null measure, though one could still measure, it wouldn't be a valid measure since there is no expectation of hair on a rock.

That is what measuring is about; if something is expected to be there, you then make a measurement and enter it into whatever little data set you have for such things. While some may have data sets for the amount of hair on a persons head they don't do it for rocks because rocks don't normally have hair, and even if there was some hair like thing on it, it would still not be hair.

So a measure of the color or length or thickness of human hair on a human head would be ZERO, if they are bald, and that is a measure a number or a color if that is what you are observing.

For a rock it would be a null set since there is no valid measure or observation for hair on a rock.

I know that is way too much for a kookburger atheist to grasp, but I post it anyway for the lurkers out there.

Or, a scientist might look at that rock under a microscope and find that rocks do have microscopic hairs, even if your religious book says they don't.

 

[sealybobo]

And only people that are willing to see your invisible friend can see him right? Fucking retard.

Lol, yes, it is a well established phenomena that people very often cannot see the things that they look for if they already believe that the thing searched for cannot be there.

idiot.

I agree. It most often manifests itself by being able to see in others what they simply cannot see in themselves. There was once a great teacher who talked a lot about that. He admonished his followers to look to the plank in their own eye. But heck, why listen to a kookburger like that.

Any person who doesn't question religion(s) and their stories is either a child or a fool.

But you guys are making it very clear that you believe because you want to believe.

I know the idea that there is no god makes you uncomfortable. It's why you guys believe. In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

 

[sealybobo]

Because God only speaks to those who are willing to hear, dumbass liar.

And only people that are willing to see your invisible friend can see him right? Fucking retard.

Lol, yes, it is a well established phenomena that people very often cannot see the things that they look for if they already believe that the thing searched for cannot be there.

idiot.

There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.

In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.

Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Are you saying that adding text to scripture makes it more accurate? You have a curious definition of accurate. Did God make the decision to add it or was it a man's decision?

what an odd response.....a rational person, with an appropriate level of reading comprehension, would have concluded that discovering and noting the addition that happened a thousand years ago is NOT an addition that makes it more accurate but is instead a correction that makes it more accurate.........

An odd response because you have totally confused me. I said scripture was added to and you seem to agree but then go on to justify it as a "correction". I never made a claim that it was good or bad, only that it happened.

Do you admit scripture has been added to over the centuries or not?

you may be confused, but don't give me credit....self help was involved......as to being "added" tell me this....as of the 21st Century is there or is there not at least one LESS passage considered to be original text as compare to the 11th Century......is that adding to or taking away or simply correcting.......it obviously isn't adding to, as it was there a thousand years ago and now its not......its not taking away, because we now know it never was......it is obviously a correction of an error, which intelligent people would applaud instead of criticize.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Of course this was not the only story that was added to scripture.

Moses’ birth, given in Exodus:

Exodus 2:2-6,10
The woman conceived and bore a son; and...she hid him for three months. And when she could hide him no longer she took for him a basket made of bulrushes; and daubed it with bitumen and pitch; and she put the child in it and placed it among the reeds at the river's brink. Now the daughter of the Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river; and her maiden walked beside the river; she saw the basket among the reeds and sent her maid to fetch it. When she opened it she saw the child...And the child grew...and he became her son; and she named him Moses, for she said "Because I drew him out of water."
[/I]

do you have some documentation supporting that claim?.....

I provided the passage, you're welcome to Google it. What documentation would you accept?

lol......first of all, how about a link to the proof its an insertion instead of original text.....does anyone besides some AtheistRUs web site claim it is?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

the incredible parallels between Moses and Sargon....
well, at least there was ONE....

Like several notable successors he had, and did not disguise, an obscure birth and a humble beginning. The account of this is not only explicit but conveyed in a form which purports to be his own words. Only the first few lines are preserved of Assyrian tablets which begin, 'I (am) Sargon, the mighty king, king of Agade', and go on to relate the birth and earliest years of the speaker, name in broken lines some of his subsequent conquests, and then break off. It is not, indeed, likely that the words are an authentic utterance of the great king; the class of composition to which this text belongs was regularly cast in the form of personal record as though taken from an inscription, but there is much to suggest that they were the productions of a later age, having a didactic bent and perhaps a certain philosophy of history. One such recorded inscription even purported to recount, in the god's own words, the life and beneficent achievements of 'the god Marduk, the great lord'. Despite this element of forgery, these accounts were certainly based upon authentic tradition, and there is nothing incredible in the statements attributed by this 'legend' to Sargon.
According to this, therefore, his mother was a priestess, his father an unknown wanderer. He was born in secret at an obscure village on the Euphrates called Azupiranu, perhaps 'Saffron Town', from a local product which has kept its name almost unaltered. His mother, to rid herself of the child, enclosed him in a basket which she covered and made fast with pitch, and launched it upon the river. Miraculously preserved from drowning, he was carried downstream, and fished out by one Aqqi, a labourer in a palmgarden, who noticed the basket as his bucket dipped in the water. Aqqi took the child and reared him as his own, making him to follow the same profession.

22 Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: “Every Hebrew boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live.”2 Now a man of the tribe of Levi married a Levite woman, 2 and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. When she saw that he was a fine child, she hid him for three months. 3 But when she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus basket[a] for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then she placed the child in it and put it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile. 4 His sister stood at a distance to see what would happen to him.

5 Then Pharaoh’s daughter went down to the Nile to bathe, and her attendants were walking along the riverbank. She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her female slave to get it. 6 She opened it and saw the baby. He was crying, and she felt sorry for him. “This is one of the Hebrew babies,” she said.

7 Then his sister asked Pharaoh’s daughter, “Shall I go and get one of the Hebrew women to nurse the baby for you?”

8 “Yes, go,” she answered. So the girl went and got the baby’s mother. 9 Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Take this baby and nurse him for me, and I will pay you.” So the woman took the baby and nursed him. 10 When the child grew older, she took him to Pharaoh’s daughter and he became her son. She named him Moses, saying, “I drew him out of the water.”

http://http://www.cristoraul.com/ENGLISH/readinghall/GalleryofHistory/Ancient-People/SARGON.htm

 

[alang1216]

do you have some documentation supporting that claim?.....

I provided the passage, you're welcome to Google it. What documentation would you accept?

lol......first of all, how about a link to the proof its an insertion instead of original text.....does anyone besides some AtheistRUs web site claim it is?.....

Sir Henry Rawlinson published the Legend of Sargon which he had found in the library of Ashurbanipal while excavating Nineveh in 1867 CE. The Legend of Sargon reads:

She set me in a basket of rushes,
She sealed the lid with tar.
She cast me into the river, but it did not rise over me,
The water carried me to Akki, the drawer of water.
He lifted me out as he dipped his jar into the river,
He took me as his son, he raised me
Sargon of Akkad -- Ancient History Encyclopedia

<Similarities I see to the Moses story>

​

Sargon survives as a legendary figure into the Neo-Assyrian literature of the Early Iron Age. Tablets with fragments of a Sargon Birth Legend were found in the Library of Ashurbanipal from the 7th century BC.[17] According to this legend, Sargon was the illegitimate son of a priestess (older translations describe his mother as lowly). She brought him forth in secret and placed him in a basket of reeds on the river. He was found by Akki the irrigator who raised him as his own son.[18][19]

from Sargon of Akkad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PostmodernProph]

I provided the passage, you're welcome to Google it. What documentation would you accept?

lol......first of all, how about a link to the proof its an insertion instead of original text.....does anyone besides some AtheistRUs web site claim it is?.....

Sir Henry Rawlinson published the Legend of Sargon which he had found in the library of Ashurbanipal while excavating Nineveh in 1867 CE. The Legend of Sargon reads:

She set me in a basket of rushes,
She sealed the lid with tar.
She cast me into the river, but it did not rise over me,
The water carried me to Akki, the drawer of water.
He lifted me out as he dipped his jar into the river,
He took me as his son, he raised me
Sargon of Akkad -- Ancient History Encyclopedia

<Similarities I see to the Moses story>

​

Sargon survives as a legendary figure into the Neo-Assyrian literature of the Early Iron Age. Tablets with fragments of a Sargon Birth Legend were found in the Library of Ashurbanipal from the 7th century BC.[17] According to this legend, Sargon was the illegitimate son of a priestess (older translations describe his mother as lowly). She brought him forth in secret and placed him in a basket of reeds on the river. He was found by Akki the irrigator who raised him as his own son.[18][19]

from Sargon of Akkad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

simlarities.....Sargon was rescued from his basket by a guy who carried water for palm trees...he was put in the basket because he was an illegitimate child of a priestess who would have been trouble if her pregnancy became known.....he was raised to be a guy who carried water for palm trees and ended up being an emperor.....

Moses was rescued from his basket by the daughter of the Pharaoh......he was put in the basket because that same Pharaoh had ordered his death.......he was raised as the grandson of the Pharaoh who wanted him dead.......he ended up either dead on a mountain or raised into heaven and never entered the land he led the Israelites to.......

the only similarities are that both spent a few hours in a basket.....

 

[alang1216]

lol......first of all, how about a link to the proof its an insertion instead of original text.....does anyone besides some AtheistRUs web site claim it is?.....

Sir Henry Rawlinson published the Legend of Sargon which he had found in the library of Ashurbanipal while excavating Nineveh in 1867 CE. The Legend of Sargon reads:

She set me in a basket of rushes,
She sealed the lid with tar.
She cast me into the river, but it did not rise over me,
The water carried me to Akki, the drawer of water.
He lifted me out as he dipped his jar into the river,
He took me as his son, he raised me
Sargon of Akkad -- Ancient History Encyclopedia

<Similarities I see to the Moses story>

​

Sargon survives as a legendary figure into the Neo-Assyrian literature of the Early Iron Age. Tablets with fragments of a Sargon Birth Legend were found in the Library of Ashurbanipal from the 7th century BC.[17] According to this legend, Sargon was the illegitimate son of a priestess (older translations describe his mother as lowly). She brought him forth in secret and placed him in a basket of reeds on the river. He was found by Akki the irrigator who raised him as his own son.[18][19]

from Sargon of Akkad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

simlarities.....Sargon was rescued from his basket by a guy who carried water for palm trees...he was put in the basket because he was an illegitimate child of a priestess who would have been trouble if her pregnancy became known.....he was raised to be a guy who carried water for palm trees and ended up being an emperor.....

Moses was rescued from his basket by the daughter of the Pharaoh......he was put in the basket because that same Pharaoh had ordered his death.......he was raised as the grandson of the Pharaoh who wanted him dead.......he ended up either dead on a mountain or raised into heaven and never entered the land he led the Israelites to.......

the only similarities are that both spent a few hours in a basket.....

I think you're putting your fingers in your ears and yelling I can't hear you but that is your right.

I have come to believe that many of the stories about Jesus were written to impress pagans and compete with pagan heros.

from Jesus life and Pagan "god-men"[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Life events shared by Yeshua (Jesus) and mythical heroes:

According to author Robert Price, specialists in mythology such as Lord Raglan, Otto Rank, and others have developed a concept called the "Mythic Hero Archetype" -- a type of larger-than-life man found in many Indo-European and Semitic cultures. They have analyzed stories and myths of Aeneas, Arthur, Buddha, David, Gilgamesh, Heracles, Lohengrin, Moses, Odysseus, Oedipus, Perseus, Romulus, Siegfried, etc. and have identified twenty-two recurring elements in these myths. Typically, the life story of any one hero contains many, but not all, of the twenty-two components. 1
Author Alan Dundes has compared this archetype with events in the life of Jesus, as recorded in the Christian Scriptures. 2 He found that Jesus' life contained almost all of the twenty two elements. Element #3 is missing, and #12 is a weak match. But the remaining twenty events are relatively precise matches:
[/FONT]

1. [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
2. His mother is a royal virgin. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke state that Jesus' mother is a virgin. (e.g. Matthew 1:23). The genealogies in the two gospels indicate that Joseph is of royal descent; Mary would partake of royalty by being married to Joseph. (e.g. Matthew 1:1-16).
3. His father is a king. Jesus is regarded to be the Son of God, and God is often referred to as King of Kings.
4. His father and mother are related. There is no match here. Nothing is known about the genealogy of Mary, so this cannot be confirmed. If the early Christians believed that Joseph and Mary were related, then this information did not make it into the Gospels.
5. His conception was unusual. Both the Gospels of Luke and of Matthew state that Jesus was conceived by Mary "from the Holy Spirit" without having engaged in sexual intercourse with a man. (Matthew 1:20), [/FONT]
6. [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]He was said to be the son of God. This is seen throughout the Christian Scriptures. Considering only the first chapter of the Gospel of John, there are seven references to Jesus as the Son of God:[/FONT]
   
   [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]as "The Word" being with God.[/FONT]
   
   [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]as the "only begotten of the Father." [/FONT]
   
   [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]as the "only begotten Son"[/FONT]
   
   [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]as "the Lamb of God." (2 times)[/FONT]
   
   [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]as the "Son of God." (2 times)[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
7. There was an attempt to kill the hero while he was a child. In Matthew 2:16, Herod ordered that "all the Children who were in Bethlehem" and its vicinity were to be murdered. (KJV) 3 The NIV says that the slaughter was to be restricted to only male infants.
8. He was spirited away. Matthew 2:13-14 relates how an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him to flee to Egypt with his family.
9. He was reared by foster parents in a country far away. Matthew 2:15 states that Jesus was raised in Egypt until Herod died, and it was safe for the family to return to Nazareth. Most hero myths involve a foster family. In the case of Yeshua, Joseph was not Jesus' father; Joseph was a type of foster father.
10. Little or no information is known about his childhood. The Christian Scriptures give almost no details about the life of Jesus, from the time that he was circumcised at the age of eight days (Luke 2:21) until his baptism at about the age of 30. The only exception is Luke 2:46-49 where, at the age of 12, he was described as having been taken to Jerusalem at the time of Passover. He is described as debating theological matters with the priests. Presenting the hero as a child prodigy does not appear in the Mythic Hero Archetype being considered here. However, Robert Price states that "it is a frequent mytheme in other hero tales not considered by Raglan..." 1
11. He goes to a future kingdom. Jesus went to Jerusalem just before his last Passover, where he was declared king by the public. John 12:12-13 says that "a great multitude took branches of palm trees and went out to meet Him, and cried out: 'Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! The King of Israel!' " (NKJ)
12. He is victorious over the king. The passage in John 18:36-37 describes how Jesus demonstrated superior debating skill when interviewed by Pilate. More importantly, Jesus' resurrection which was mentioned in all four Gospels and many additional locations in the Christian Scriptures is the ultimate victory over the king who was responsible for ordering the crucifixion. Pilate ordered Jesus death and Jesus was triumphant. Pilate was not a king; he was a procurator -- a type of governor. But he still had enormous power.
13. He marries a princess. There is no match here -- only the suggestion of a tie-in. There is no record of Jesus having been married. However, some theologians have suggested that the miracle story in which he converts water into wine may have taken place at his own wedding. The Gospels talk extensively about women being in Jesus' retinue during his ministry. In the culture of Palestine during the 1st century CE, these female followers would have had to be married to Jesus and/or the disciples, or they were prostitutes. One assumes the former, because one would otherwise expect the Pharisees to repeatedly and viciously criticize Jesus for moral laxity if he was followed by a crowd of hookers. It has been argued that Jesus was probably married. Jewish society strongly pressured men to marry while young; if Jesus remained single, then one would have expected the Pharisees to criticize him for remaining a bachelor. Luke 8:3 indicates that one of the women who followed Jesus was at least close to King Herod.
14. He becomes king. John 18:36-37 describes how the people of Jerusalem proclaimed him the King of Israel. Pilate jokingly recognizes that the public considered Jesus as a king in Mark 15:12 and John 19:15. In Mark 15:18, the Roman soldiers jokingly referred to him as king of the Jews. A plaque was placed above his head during the execution. It called him "The King of the Jews." (e.g. Mark 15:26).
15. He reigns uneventfully, for a while. He does not reign in the sense of having temporal power. However, Mark 12:27 to 13: describes how he holds court in the Jerusalem temple.
16. He prescribes laws. In Mark 12 and 13, "...He issues teachings, parables, and prophecies, which are taken with legal force by his followers." 1
17. He loses favor with the gods or his subjects. The Gospels record how the public turns against Jesus and demands that he be crucified. (e.g. John 19:15).
18. He is driven from the throne and city. In Luke 23:26-32, he is led out of the city by Roman soldiers.
19. He has a mysterious death. DuringJesus' crucifixion, he died after an unexpectedly short time. (John 19:31-33). More mysterious than that were the events at the time of his death. Luke 23:44-45 describes how the sun stopped shining and the curtain in the temple was torn in two. Matthew 27:51-53 describes major earthquakes sufficiently strong to split rocks. Matthew also discusses the resurrection of many people from their graves, who subsequently entered the city and appeared to many people.
20. He dies at the top of a hill: He was executed on the hill of Golgotha, on top of Mount Calvary.
21. If he has any children, they do not succeed him. There is nothing in the Christian Scriptures to indicate that Jesus had children. It was Jesus brother, James, who succeeded him as leader of the disciples, and the head of the Jewish Christian group in Jerusalem. (Some faith groups regard James as Jesus' step-brother, cousin or friend).
22. His body was not buried: Rather that being buried in an earthen grave, his body was temporarily laid out in a rock cave. At some unknown time between late Friday afternoon, when he was laid in the tomb, and the following Sunday morning, the Gospels all say that Jesus was resurrected. Price comments that this "would seem to be within legitimate variant-distance of the ideal legend type." 1
23. One or more holy sepulchers are built: The Church of the Holy Sepulcher was built over the place where many Christians believe that Jesus was executed. [/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Robert Price concludes that "The Gospel story of Jesus is itself apparently mythic from first to last....As Dundes is careful to point out, it doesn't prove there was no historical Jesus for it is not implausible that a genuine, historical individual might become so lionized, even so deified, that his life and career would be completely assimilated to the Mythic Hero Archetype...Thus it seems to me that Jesus must be categorized with other legendary founder figures, including the Buddha, Krishna, and Lao-tzu. There may have been a real figure there, but there is simply no longer any way of being sure."

















[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica][/FONT]

1. [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica][/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica][/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica][/FONT]

 

[PostmodernProph]

I think you're putting your fingers in your ears and yelling I can't hear you but that is your right.

I have come to believe that many of the stories about Jesus were written to impress pagans and compete with pagan heros

I get so tired of these lame claims.....

1. His mother is a royal virgin. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke state that Jesus' mother is a virgin. (e.g. Matthew 1:23). The genealogies in the two gospels indicate that Joseph is of royal descent; Mary would partake of royalty by being married to Joseph. (e.g. Matthew 1:1-16).

not royal, but yes....a virgin.....now, who is it this time that you're pretending had a virgin birth......we've had three or four contenders put forward so far and I have proven each of them was a lie....do you have a new contender or are you just going to repeat one of the earlier claims?.....

{by the way, it is not overlooked that this was a diversion on your part to hide the fact you couldn't come up with a parallel between Moses and Sargon.......we will keep reminding you of that from time to time, so don't think you're getting away with it}.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

by the way, the author of your article above is Bruce, from ReligiousTolerance.org.....Bruce has a Bachelor of Science in Engineering and states that he has not studied theology and never will because a learning something might have an effect on the knowledge he already has on the topic....
Credentials of the authors of the Religious Tolernace.org web site
to avoid further embarrassment, you should avoid linking to his articles.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

It never ceases to amaze me how people make decisions about God without consulting Him on the matter.

I've made decisions regarding Spider-Man without consulting him. What's the difference?