That would be the third person, grammatically (even though it is only you and I 
).
1 Like
I know Dr. Collins located Sodom by using the the description of the cityâs location and itâs surrounding villages from Genesis. I would trust that Biblical Archaeologists have the location of Jericho correctly identified as there does not seem to be any dispute with the location. If you canât trust the archaeologists to get their location right how could you trust any of the historical evidence you appear to want to trust?
The thing about living in a free society and interacting through a medium like the internet is that we all have the right to question each other, we all have the right to believe another is wrong, and we all have the right to be offended. We donât have the right to breach forum rules or engage in criminal activity, but thatâs about it.
I might wish others to do or not do, say or not say certain other things here on the forum (or in real life), but my opinions are not necessarily reflective of my rights. Iâd also add that âcausing offenceâ is not a moral crime or a violation of oneâs rights either. It is an inevitable part of intellectual conversation - especially conversation about worldviews, religion, cherish beliefs, traditions, and such (Cf. Gal 5:11 for example).
So if a hypothetical person finds the opinions of another here on the forum are in breach of the guidelines then they have every right to report the post to the moderators for consideration. If such person is concerned about possible criminal activity they have the right to report it to the proper authorities. If such a hypothetical person finds the opinions of another person offensive then they have the right to say so. The causer of the offence may apologies, but they also have the right not to recant the view which was perceived as offensive. If the hypothetical person is not satisfied with this then they have the right to walk away from the conversation.
Long live freedom of speech, thought, and belief.
3 Likes
I was using a common turn of phrase. Or is that not allowed either?
Richard
If Iâm honest, Richard, Iâm struggling to see how you came to this conclusion based on my post above.
As to your use of the phrase, I would suggest that in the Wests growing âRights and Offenseâ based political climate, this is increasingly becoming a much less common turn of phrase.
That said, it is your right and prerogative to use the phrase however you like. Itâs a free country, broâŚ
1 Like
I am not disputing the basic freedom of rights but, it is traditional, at least, to say that if you are guilty of something you forfeit the right to criticise others for it. This is nothing to do with the basic freedom of action that you ae promoting.
Richard
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.
True it is traditional to say that âif you are guilty of something you forfeit the right to criticise others for itâ. Although I wonder, given the volume of precise and technical conversation that takes place on this forum, is it a useful one? After all, a person is still allowed to express their opinion even if they can be charged with being a hypocrite, right?
2 Likes
I have been reading Biblical Archaeology Review for years. There is often controversy about how to reconcile Biblical locations and dig sites.
And new things are always being discovered. Many decades ago people archaeologists doubted the Bible because of the presentation of the Hittites, but then more of their culture was found.
I think an archaeologist who claimed he has âprovedâ the Bible wrong is one who is atypical.
I was talking about Jericho. Is there any controversy on itâs location?
Depends on what you mean by âwrong.â If the Biblical date for the destruction of Jericho, which I am sure is subject to debate, is off by several hundred years would that prove the Bible is wrong, at least in regards to the date?
And since you have admitted the Bible contains contradictions, aka errors, why does my questioning of the historical facts in the Bible seem to cause you so much concern?
Out of interest, how does the proposed archaeological date of Jerichoâs destruction compare to the proposed dates for an early vs. late Exodus? In other words, is the date off by several hundred years if one is working from early Exodus or vice versa? Or is it off by several hundred years regardless of where one lands? Do you follow my train of thought?
I donât know of any controversy on what is identified as Jericho today.
Is that the same location in the Biblical text? How could that be proved? Can anyone rule out the possibility of another site, yet undiscovered, that matches the text? If you think so, how?
From Wikipedia
The âBiblicalâ date of destruction would be about 1400 BC for those with a literal view.
The early Exodus date would give a date of destruction about 1280 BC near as I can tell. So the C-14 dating is not a match for either.
1 Like
Nice way to dodge my question. Let me rephrase.
Do you know of any Biblical Archaeologists who do not think Tell es-Sultan is the Biblical city known as Jericho? A Google Scholar search seems to show Tell es-Sultan = ancient Jericho. Do you think the consensus opinion is wrong? If so, why?
1 Like
I havenât surveyed the archaeology expert community.
My point, which seems to have escaped you, is that you will never convince an inerrancy believer on such flimsy evidence. They simply believe the Bible over what they will call âfallible, changing menâs opinions on carbon dating.â
What it takes to convince an inerrancy believer is a difference between one Biblical âfactâ and a contradictory Biblical âfact.â And that is a rare event, or at least an event that takes a long time.
Likewise, my point was to simply ask you what you think. Not some hypothetical inerrancy believer.
When we say that Jesus is the Word of God and the Bible is the word or book of God, we are saying that our faith is based first on Jesus Christ and not on the Bible. That is a fact that many Christians have forgotten.
One can use the Bible to justify almost anything as we see today. It is much harder to justify the egregious mistakes of Evangelical leaders based on a belief in Jesus Christ the Logos. .
@Relates, I can see where youâre coming from, but that is why good hermeneutics is so important. The only accounts that we really have of Jesus come from the Bible, and so, in order to base our faith âfirst on Jesus Christâ we need to do that by understanding the biblical account of Jesus. Otherwise we end up just âtaking a stabâ at who Jesus is essentially on our ownâŚnever having physically met the man for most of us. This is very dangerousâŚas dangerous as trying to âuse the Bible to justify almost anything.â âBoth are possible, neither is good.
Instead we must use excellent and integral processes to interpret the scriptures carefully. Doing this, (not that Iâm perfect at it), I have found that one cannotâwith good integrityâmake the bible justify anything. It will only âjustifyâ that which Jesus teaches, and nothing else, in my experience.
That being said, I do think that it is better to use the âWordâ to refer to Jesus, and to talk about the Bible being âscripturesââŚalthough I have to admit that Iâm not totally consistent in that.
There are many issues here, but let me begin with this. BioLogos is about evolution. YEC oppose evolution because they say it is âcontrary to the Bible as the Word of God.â If they take the Bible as the literal âWord of Godâ as they and I define it, they do not need any sophisticated hermeneutic. The Bible says that the universe was created in 6 says. What I am saying is that if Jesus is the Word of God, we need to begin with John 1, which gives us a very different and better perspective on the Beginning of the universe.
Second, we have not met the earthly Jesus Christ, but we have 4 biographies of Him. we have Paulâs witness to Who Jesus was. We have the witness of John, James, Peter, and others. We have the witness of the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures. We have the witness of the Church through the ages, and we can know Jesus for ourselves through salvation and prayer. Certainly none of these alone is sufficient, but all of these alone is sufficient for us to truly say we can and do know who Jesus is, although we are still learning. If Jesus is the Living Resurrected Lord, then we can know Him for ourselves and we are not dependent on the Bible and especially the OT for our knowledge of Who Jesus is.
The Jewish religious leaders at the time of Jesus were of the opinion that the Bible, OT, did not justify the teaching of Jesus that He was the Messiah. Again we need to have faith in Jesus Christ that He is the Messiah, the Savior, not in the Bible. Faith in Jesus the divine Savior sent by God the Father is what saves us, not faith in the Bible.
Faith in the Bible can be used as a substitute for faith in God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If the Bible is inerrant and perfect, than we so not need faith, because we have certainty. If we have certainty, we so not receive salvation through faith by grace. .
1 Like
I wonder who/what Jesus would say is The Word of God?
Jesus of Nazareth did not speak English, so obviously would not have said anything is the Word of God.
1 Like