noetic2:

is this not pure folly? is it not obvious that moses started a new conversation with God in verse 8 and 9. . . . . .why is this so hard for u to understand?

In the case of Jehovah, we examine the narrative about God using a number of methods - anthropological, historiogical, and scientific, etc, etc.  [size=16pt]Evidence from these diverse disciplines [/size]suggests the Jehovah is a mythological figure from antiquity,

huxley:

Please, address the case of the DIFFERENCES between the two sets of commandments.

noetic2:


[size=16pt]where are these EVIDENCES from anthropology, history and science that suggest that Jehovah is a mythological figure? [/size]

noetic2:

what differences? did the bible state anywhere in exodus that the new commandments from God was written on a stone?

a)  Why should we trust the Law of Biogenesis?  Does it reveal some universal truth about nature?  How was the Law of Biogenesis arrived at and What is it anyway?

If you think the Law of Biogenesis is Truth, what is it about it that contradicts with The Theory of Evolution?

Now, the law of biogenesis, if it is truth, has nothing whatsoever to say about The Theory of Evolution.   The Theory of Evolution ONLY explains how life diversified,  NOT how life started.  

Can you show me any scientific material that says that the Theory of Evolution addresses the origins of Life?

huxley:

Now that you have LEARNT to ask a question that relates to WHAT I actually said, I shall address this in the next few minutes.

huxley:

Did you NOT see this or have you got problems with comprehension?


Exodus 34: 1 The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. 2 Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain. 3 No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain."


And this

Exodus 27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.


Shall I rest again?

huxley:

Did you NOT see this or have you got problems with comprehension?


Exodus 34: 1 The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. 2 Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain. 3 No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain."


And this

Exodus 27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.


Shall I rest again?

noetic2:

I am waiting. . . ,  

noetic2:

I am waiting. . . ,

huxley:

This is a report of one such study.  Taken from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/09/books/new-torah-for-modern-minds.html


New Torah For Modern Minds
By MICHAEL MASSING
Published: Saturday, March 9, 2002


Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document.

''When I grew up in Brooklyn, congregants were not sophisticated about anything,'' said Rabbi Harold Kushner, the author of ''When Bad Things Happen to Good People'' and a co-editor of the new book. ''Today, they are very sophisticated and well read about psychology, literature and history, but they are locked in a childish version of the Bible.''

''Etz Hayim,'' compiled by David Lieber of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, seeks to change that. It offers the standard Hebrew text, a parallel English translation (edited by Chaim Potok, best known as the author of ''The Chosen''), a page-by-page exegesis, periodic commentaries on Jewish practice and, at the end, 41 essays by prominent rabbis and scholars on topics ranging from the Torah scroll and dietary laws to ecology and eschatology.

[b]These essays, perused during uninspired sermons or Torah readings at Sabbath services, will no doubt surprise many congregants. For instance, an essay on Ancient Near Eastern Mythology,'' by Robert Wexler, president of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, states that on the basis of modern scholarship, it seems unlikely that the story of Genesis originated in Palestine. More likely, Mr. Wexler says, it arose in Mesopotamia, the influence of which is most apparent in the story of the Flood, which probably grew out of the periodic overflowing of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The story of Noah, Mr. Wexler adds, was probably borrowed from the Mesopotamian epic Gilgamesh.

Equally striking for many readers will be the essay ''Biblical Archaeology,'' by Lee I. Levine, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. ''There is no reference in Egyptian sources to Israel's sojourn in that country,'' he writes, ''and the evidence that does exist is negligible and indirect.'' The few indirect pieces of evidence, like the use of Egyptian names, he adds, ''are far from adequate to corroborate the historicity of the biblical account.''

Similarly ambiguous, Mr. Levine writes, is the evidence of the conquest and settlement of Canaan, the ancient name for the area including Israel. Excavations showing that Jericho was unwalled and uninhabited, he says, ''clearly seem to contradict the violent and complete conquest portrayed in the Book of Joshua.'' What's more, he says, there is an ''almost total absence of archaeological evidence'' backing up the Bible's grand descriptions of the Jerusalem of David and Solomon.[/b]

The notion that the Bible is not literally true ''is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis,'' observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to ''Etz Hayim.'' But some congregants, he said, ''may not like the stark airing of it.'' Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that ''virtually every modern archaeologist'' agrees ''that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all.'' The rabbi offered what he called a ''litany of disillusion'' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have ''found no trace of the tribes of Israel -- not one shard of pottery.''


The reaction to the rabbi's talk ranged from admiration at his courage to dismay at his timing to anger at his audacity. Reported in Jewish publications around the world, the sermon brought him a flood of letters accusing him of undermining the most fundamental teachings of Judaism. But he also received many messages of support. ''I can't tell you how many rabbis called me, e-mailed me and wrote me, saying, 'God bless you for saying what we all believe,' '' Rabbi Wolpe said. He attributes the ''explosion'' set off by his sermon to ''the reluctance of rabbis to say what they really believe.''

Before the introduction of ''Etz Hayim,'' the Conservative movement relied on the Torah commentary of Joseph Hertz, the chief rabbi of the British Commonwealth. By 1936, when it was issued, the Hebrew Bible had come under intense scrutiny from scholars like Julius Wellhausen of Germany, who raised many questions about the text's authorship and accuracy. Hertz, working in an era of rampant anti-Semitism and of Christian efforts to demonstrate the inferiority of the ''Old'' Testament to the ''New,'' dismissed all doubts about the integrity of the text.

Maintaining that no people would have invented for themselves so ''disgraceful'' a past as that of being slaves in a foreign land, he wrote that ''of all Oriental chronicles, it is only the Biblical annals that deserve the name of history.''

The Hertz approach had little competition until 1981, when the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the official arm of Reform Judaism, published its own Torah commentary. Edited by Rabbi Gunther Plaut, it took note of the growing body of archaeological and textual evidence that called the accuracy of the biblical account into question. The ''tales'' of Genesis, it flatly stated, were a mix of ''myth, legend, distant memory and search for origins, bound together by the strands of a central theological concept.'' But Exodus, it insisted, belonged in ''the realm of history.'' While there are scholars who consider the Exodus story to be ''folk tales,'' the commentary observed, ''this is a minority view.''

Twenty years later, the weight of scholarly evidence questioning the Exodus narrative had become so great that the minority view had become the majority one.

Not among Orthodox Jews, however. They continue to regard the Torah as the divine and immutable word of God. Their most widely used Torah commentary, known as the Stone Edition (1993), declares in its introduction ''that every letter and word of the Torah was given to Moses by God.''

Lawrence Schiffman, a professor at New York University and an Orthodox Jew, said that ''Etz Hayim'' goes so far in accepting modern scholarship that, without realizing it, it ends up being in ''nihilistic opposition'' to what Conservative Jews stand for. He noted, however, that most of the questions about the Bible's accuracy had been tucked away discreetly in the back. ''The average synagogue-goer is never going to look there,'' he said.

Even some Conservative rabbis feel uncomfortable with the depth of the doubting. ''I think the basic historicity of the text is valid and verifiable,'' said Susan Grossman, the rabbi of Beth Shalom Congregation in Columbia, Md., and a co-editor of ''Etz Hayim.'' As for the mounting archaeological evidence suggesting the contrary, Rabbi Grossman said: ''There's no evidence that it didn't happen. Most of the 'evidence' is evidence from silence.''

''The real issue for me is the eternal truths that are in the text,'' she added. ''How do we apply this hallowed text to the 21st century?'' One way, she said, is to make it more relevant to women. Rabbi Grossman is one of many women who worked on ''Etz Hayim,'' in an effort to temper the Bible's heavily patriarchal orientation and make the text more palatable to modern readers. For example, the passage in Genesis that describes how the aged Sarah laughed upon hearing God say that she would bear a son is traditionally interpreted as a laugh of incredulity. In its commentary, however, ''Etz Hayim'' suggests that her laughter ''may not be a response to the far-fetched notion of pregnancy at an advanced age, but the laughter of delight at the prospect of two elderly people resuming marital intimacy.''

In a project of such complexity, there were inevitably many points of disagreement. But Rabbi Kushner says the only one that eluded resolution concerned Leviticus 18:22: ''Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.'' ''We couldn't come to a formulation that we could all be comfortable with,'' the rabbi said. ''Some people felt that homosexuality is wrong. We weren't prepared to embrace that as the Conservative position. But at the same time we couldn't say this is a mentality that has been disproved by contemporary biology, for not everyone was prepared to go along with that.'' Ultimately, the editors settled on an anodyne compromise, noting that the Torah's prohibitions on homosexual relations ''have engendered considerable debate'' and that Conservative synagogues should ''welcome gay and lesbian congregants in all congregational activities.''

Since the fall, when ''Etz Hayim'' was issued, more than 100,000 copies have been sold. Eventually, it is expected to become the standard Bible in the nation's 760 Conservative synagogues.

Mark S. Smith, a professor of Bible and Near Eastern Studies at New York University, noted that the Hertz commentary had lasted 65 years. ''That's incredible,'' he said. ''If 'Etz Hayim' isn't around for 50 years or more, I'd be surprised.''

Its longevity, however, may depend on the pace of archaeological discovery.

Photos: Excavations like this one at Khirbet Raddana, northeast of Jerusalem, have yielded evidence that makes it hard to take many Bible stories literally. (From ''What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?'' by William G. Deever [Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing])(pg. B9); ''ETZ HAYIM'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), a new Torah and commentary, offers new findings in biblical research, which cast doubt on stories like that in Raphael's ''Crossing the Red Sea,'' below. (Scala/Art Resource; top, Tony Cenicola/The New York Times)(pg. B7)

noetic2:

Analysis of Huxley's answer to question 2

1. your response is absolutely ridiculous. If the law of biogenesis cannot be trusted, why should TOE be trusted?
The biogensis is the arm of biology that attempts to determine the source of life. . . . it is based on this source that the diversification of life/species (evolution) is founded.
[size=18pt]So if biogenesis clearly states that LIFE begets LIFE . . . , why should evolution preach otherwise?[/size]

2. biogenesis reveals a universal truth. . . . . . which is the fact LIFE begets LIFE . . , can u point to any non-living organism u have ever OBSERVED which springs out life?

3. why dont u do a little study on biogenesis . . . .google and wikipedia would be useful.

noetic2:

So using your analogy. . .how does verses 8 and 9 fit into your theory?

huxley:

check this out for my post: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?action=profile;u=185999;sa=showPosts

huxley:

Who said Evolution preaches otherwise? CAn you show any evidence where reputed evolutionists claim that evolution "preaches otherwise"?

noetic2:

I will reserve my response till the spam bot posts your post.

huxley:

I don't have to try and make thing fit.  It is for you, as a believer of the bible, to try and concort a harmonious narrative out ot these jumbled up tales.  As far as I am concerned, it cannot be done.  And you have not been able to harmonise Exodus 20 with Exodus 34, which amply proves my point.

noetic2:

what sort of rubbish is this?

according to evolution . . . . . are the minutest traces of life living organisms?

noetic2:

all u have is a theory. . .a FALSE one.

To make sense of your theory u need to assimilate verses 8 and 9 into your argument. . . otherwise it is pointless.

huxley:

At least you cannot say I did not provide the evidence you asked for.  You can read it there if you want.

huxley:

Evolution says NOTHING about the origins of life.   Please, try and contradict me with data, evidence from reputed evolutionary scientists (preferable from journals, books, or other scientific publication).  I shall accept no less.

I await your response,  BUT I KNOW you will NOT do this, else you shoot yourself in the foot.

huxley:

My original question was WHY Ex20 commandments are DIFFERENT from EX34 commandments. Can you show how Ex 8 & 9 answers the questions of the discrepancy of the two sets of commandments?

noetic2:

1. what EXACTLY happened to your brain? why did u have to go and google up an article? I thought this debate was all about intelligence and originality? This article DOES NOT in any way answer the question I asked u. . ,  . I will repeat the question before analysing the article.

noetic2:

and what is the purpose of a journal in this context?. . . . . . .how about u tell the source of the first components of evolution? why is this so hard to state? is it cos u are a quack evolutionist? 

huxley:

This is really ridiculous - smacks of clutching at straws as the going has gotten tough.

Was any of my arguments founded on whether I am a historian, archeologist, anthropologist, etc, etc.  I have not done any of the research myself, so I have no choice but to refer to other people's work. Is there a problem with that?

You are make arguments regarding the Law of Biogenesis - Did you invent or discover this law.   So if you require me not to use any source for evidence you too should not use anything that you did not write yourself.  Not even the bible.



Please, justify why it is wrong to use published work to support an argument.

noetic2:

and what is the purpose of a journal in this context?. . . . . . .how about u tell the source of the first components of evolution? why is this so hard to state? is it cos u are a quack evolutionist?  

huxley:

Cuz  you are a BIG FAT CHRISTIAN LIAR (BFCL).   You lie about Evolution.   Evolution makes NO claims about the origins of life.     And until you prove otherwise I shall henceforth call you a BIG FAT CHRISTIAN LIAR. 

Of course, I will withdraw this charge 10000% unreservedly if your provide the evidence that says evolution talks about origins of life.   So until such time you are a BFCL, and I see no reason to not call you a BFCL as I am fully justified.


And I am sure you will forgive me IF I do get to Apologise for mischaracterising as a BFCL.

noetic2:

I cant believe that I have been debating with an Empty Head Illiterate (EHI) . ,   . .

1. I never said evolution talks about the origin of life. . . . .I clearly made a case for BIOGENESIS

1. your response is absolutely ridiculous. If the law of biogenesis cannot be trusted, why should TOE be trusted?
The biogensis is the arm of biology that attempts to determine the source of life. . . . it is based on this source that the diversification of life/species (evolution) is founded.
So if biogenesis clearly states that LIFE begets LIFE . . . ,  why should evolution preach otherwise?

2. All I asked from u is to tell me the source of the first organisms that evolved? . . ,  . .why is this such a tough task? is it cos your head is blank?

huxley:


Who said the following?


Evolution does not need to know the source of the first organism for evolution to be true, BECAUSE evolution does not address the source of life, ONLY the diversification of life once life got started.