Heavy on the Hebrew and linguistic side of things but this article discusses the verses in question at length:
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/v … s_fac_pubs

I'll grant that it doesn't prove anything, which wasn't my point. More to the point is that if the history is accurate then you can consider the other claims as well. Yeah, I know, it doesn't prove ALL of the Bible stories are true. I get that. But common themes can produce a bigger picture that gives better understanding of the biblical story as history. If the history is accurate, then I turn to the theology.

I'm curious as to your source that Jews were polytheistic and then turned monotheistic. I'll have to review the books I have for that information. But, given the surrounding cultures were polytheistic, evidence of other gods does shows cultural influences and dynamics reflected in the biblical story.  A quick search dug up this article: http://www.academia.edu/1857268/Monothe … nt_Israel_
Which I am now reading

Well, there was a flaming sword, as well as the concept of the masses being desperate, which hints that there might be a scene of the rest trying to get aboard.

Not really sure what to think of this movie, but I agree that it seems to be a waste of all that talents time.

Yes. I also come at movies, politics and other topics with presupposition. My life is presuppositions build upon one each other and I never claimed otherwise. I have admitted my bias but I also know how to do research.

What mechanism do you use to separate truth and what do you define as true?
I truly want a definition for the purpose of this discussion.

Nah, I prefer to remain ignorant

I misused the term evolutionary theory in this debate. Sorry, late night on that one. What I mean to say is that the natural world, studying it, the universe and what we know it, I find a need for a creative being, not necessarily the God of the Bible.

Oh, and God, at least the God I am talking about, does not behave in a satisfactory matter for me either.

I didn't say it should impress you. It just starts my own research from there.
Because, with research, it becomes interesting that this isn't a matter of fan fiction, with people sitting there, crafting stories because they wanted to add to the mythology. Some of the authors are removed from each other or removed from knowledge of YHWH in the sense that they were not raised Jewish, or had access to all the records. With respect to your assertion that it is mere fan fiction fails to take in to account the historical record, and the authors' backgrounds.

Its not that they are writing in a vacuum. It is a matter of what they knew and when they knew it.
By the way, this is the book I was talking about: http://www.amazon.com/What-Biblical-Wri … ey+know+it

I meant that I will not change anyone's mind here on  this forum. I find internet forums the most lacking forum for persuasive arguments, especially on religious or political topics. I'm not saying people can change their belief system as it happens all the time.

I have pointed towards evidence, specifically archeological evidence. That is the evidence with which I use to build my faith. But I don't have all the evidence for everything in the Bible, at least in the historical record. Instead, I look at traditions, languages and context to develop a deeper understanding of what the Bible was to the people who wrote it. I can bring out book upon book upon book that I have read, but that is beside the point, isn't it? Archeological evidence, internal consistency and textual criticism are all valid forms of critiquing historical texts and the Bible meets those. That is where I start, and that is my evidence. And it isn't uniquely MY evidence. I haven't filled these posts with links simply because people can go out there and read National Geographic's article about Israeli's finding archeological evidence for the house of David, or records of the Assyrian victory recorded in the Bible by Sargon, a king believed to be fictional for a while.

All I am saying is approach the Bible as historical text. And there are very specific rules on that. You can apply it to any historical text.

If the Bible can be shown to be reliable in its textual accuracy then it is legitimate exercise to examine its other claims. And, the same thing can be done with the Book of Mormon, Quran, etc. Can be, and has been, done: http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/ … the-quran/

As for the God of the Bible, I understand the objections to the Old Testament behaviors of God. Obviously, several cultures were wiped out, arbitrarily and that makes no sense as to why a "loving" God would do that. It goes back to the old story of why does a, supposedly, good God allows evil? I think it comes back to the nature of God and how the reader views God. We cannot divorce our attitude towards God from our own presuppositions of what God is supposed to be.

I have admitted to my bias, and part of it is do to personal experience. In other words, there are personal experiences that influence my belief. So, I really cannot separate that belief from personal experience, so in that regard, I am contradictory, demanding evidence but unable to produce evidence aside from personal experience.

That actually wasn't my point at all. I merely was relating a statement from a book concerning the historical aspect of the Bible. I believe the Bible to be true and Harry Potter to be fiction. Why? One claims to be true. Ok, so I examine those claims, historical evidence and the like. Same thing with other religious texts. That's what I do.

Many of the lessons are abhorrent and it is questionable why they are in the Bible in the first place. I think there is a story in the latter part of Judges that is horrific and I derive no good moral from the story. That, among several other stories.

I get why you dismiss it. I don't agree.
The Book of Mormon and and Quran are internally inconsistent, even in the course of their message. The Book of Mormon is historically questionable.

Of course, the argument is made that the Bible is full of all kinds of contradictions to which the argument is then made regarding context and original languages. That is part of the multi-layered aspect of which I speak and one of the reasons I keep researching and learning.

That's not faith, I'm afraid.

Respectfully, and back to the OP, I disagree. Forgetting the Bible and all other religions, I still would be convinced of a deity of some kind because of the natural world. Evolutionary theory is not satisfactory when it comes to the origins of the universe.

Also, you caught me on the evidence and proof thing. My apologies

Fascinating, to me that transition in your life. However, I happen to know that Tolkien and Lewis spent years debating, discussing and researching different mythologies.  Even Tolkien was disappointed that Lewis ended up a Protestant and not Catholic, as Tolkien was.

Um, but they didn't all know each other, neither where they all contemporaries. The analogy is incomplete and assumes a connection not there in the historical record.

The idea that the Bible was cobbled together by men who conspired to create their view of the world and suppress others is a popular one, especially with the Gnostic gospels coming around. But, many of the stories in the Old Testament have to be viewed in their context, historical and the like, rather than just be taken at face value. In reality, we do this with everything we read, yet the Bible has struggled because of the modern view of it and its interpretation.

I'm sure you've read several books and such by apologists and others, but I'll link it any way. You ask why the Bible is unique versus other books and my summation is the fact that 40 authors over several millennium composted this work, some with differing points of view. Yet, there is a consistent message of man's fall and God work towards redemption. The details in the story are varied, nuanced, some are lost to history or lost in language but there are layers to find in the story of the people who wrote the Bible and the story they tell: http://www.josh.org/resources/study-res … so-specia/

The Bible is also unique in its message. In every other religion, man must do something to obtain to the divine standard, like the Eightfold path, or the four pillars of Islam. Perhaps I should evangelize more to ensure that I am among the 144,000 to go to heaven, like the Jehovah's Witness' that come to my door. Or maybe, I can pay enough to the Church of Scientology to be saved...

In Christianity, God is the actor upon saving man, and man has the opportunity to respond. That really is all. The Bible is the story of man and his struggle to redeem himself and God's work there in. Yes, it is a beautiful myth making exercise, one that has an interesting history. Like I said before, I find that compelling. You may not.

I can only speak for myself and my own experience, but faith isn't just wishing something is true. I point towards archeological evidence because it shows evidence that the Bible might be true. Historical accuracy and all that. Like I said, the evidence that I have read is showing that the Bible has historical accuracy, as well as internal consistency. That's important to me, because if something claims to be the truth, then shouldn't it hold up as such?

Of course, there will never be 100% proof, any more than I can prove any part of human history occurred. But, the Bible is something unique, and even when the people didn't have a "Bible" like we have, there was still a consensus among early Christians as to what was canon, or holy scripture.

Dorkman asked if I found the Quran just as compelling. The short answer is no. The long answer is that the historicity is questionable but in the end is also one man's vision. The Bible is 40 men with consistency of message and theme. Like I said, there are so many layers to the Bible, beyond the whole "it's a fantasy book" idea or "many cultures has religious beliefs." Sorry, to me, it just isn't that simple.

For my part, fear of hell fire has never motivated me to believe in a deity. The nature of man, and the nature of the world is what does that.

I really should stop the religious talks on the internet...

Thank you for clarifying. The textual accuracy is one facet that is compelling. The claim that it is the Word of God, and is a claim maintained by the authors across the centuries is another one I find compelling.

Book of Mormon is not compelling because the history does not line up. Quran is interesting because it actually puts more stock in Jesus than it does the Mohammad, though their Jesus and biblical Jesus are different. There was a whole book written couple of years ago by Muslims who investigated the role of Jesus in Islam. That was interesting.

Dianetics was written based on a bet.

I really, really don't want to derail this thread and create the "fireproof's come to Jesus" hour here. Quickly though, BDA's thing about propaganda would be compelling, if, like the Gnostics, it was a small group of people pushing for the exact same thing. But the Bible spans centuries and multiple people, not all of whom were working for the same goal.

Textual accuracy is one aspect that interests me because it shows what was historically written, to the best of our knowledge. Textual criticism is a whole field in archeology and I am probably doing a poor job relating it here. Hopefully, this helps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

BDA, the idea that the Bible was written centuries after the fact is a common one, but isn't fully accurate of the situation. Textual criticism helps us to see what a document was when it was written. That's also part of biblical interpretation, which basically analyses the original language and what the readers would understand from the writing.

I guess that is why the Bible compels me so much. There is history, poetry, letters and songs that take a lifetime to understand but is fascinating nonetheless. There is so much there to discover, including the claims the Bible makes.

I guess I go back to the nature of man, and the fact that I think that man is basically evil. I think man needs a savior. My study of psychology (and working in retail) hasn't really convinced me otherwise.

I wish I had all the answers, guys, but I don't. Experience has taught me a lot about the importance of faith too, which is a long answer too

But, it isn't fiction in the sense that it was written like your Harry Potter analogy. J.K. Rowling (to my knowledge) does not believe that Harry Potter exists, though I could be wrong in that

Yes, I know that simply believing in something doesn't make it true. The manuscript evidence is the first step indicating that the Bible was accurately recorded, despite the many years from events to transcription. Archeological evidence is continually discovering artifacts and locations that verify that they occurred, including evidence of an Assyrian king believed to be fictional. This one, of many, that I continue to read about and find fascinating. Even as recently as 08 there was a discovery by an Israeli archeological team that may point evidence of the House of David.

Finally, the claims of the Bible are not the claims of Harry Potter. The Bible claims to be the inspired Word of God. It claims to be true. Such a claim, whether true or not, is interesting, to me, and warrants inspection. So, I inspect it.

Given the fact that we have printing presses now, versus the ability to copy texts back then, the fact that there is many, many copies of books now does not carry the same weight as textual critics do to ancient manuscripts. So, with respect, your analogy is incomplete and inaccurate.

Textual criticism is one of the ways that archeologists analyze ancient texts and whether or not they can be considered accurate, or they were written the same as the text we have today. The basic questions of textual critics are "How many manuscripts?" and "How old are they?"

Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars has only 10 surviving copies, dating nearly a thousand years after the events. Similarly, Josepheus, a Jewish historian from the 1st century C.E. has only 9 complete manuscripts, dating 4 centuries later.

So, it may be unremarkable that 90 years seems so long a time, but in the scope of textual criticism, that is rather short, and, as Sam F said, would still have other eyewitness (theoretically) still alive.

Here's a reboot

I did a quick check, because I was curious and Netflix was open, and none of the HP movies are on Play Instantly. However, Captain America is, as I am sure you can see the relevance to my HP search...

I know that stage adaptations have been done before, but this could be interesting...

http://io9.com/disney-wants-to-adapt-pr … 1462503799

Still in the baby stages of development, probably because Disney is looking at all the properties it hasn't milked to death yet, but still, there is potential, especially if they do a Broadway musical with it.