51–60 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mormons who study the book of Mormon don't exactly qualify as good sources, nor are Christians who study the Bible, nor are Muslims who study the Koran as all are extremely biased by their beliefs. Such people look for evidence to justify beliefs rather than looking at evidence to decide what should be believed.
The statement "all are extremely biased" is a bit... biased. ;-)
So the large takeaway is that people in further back ancient Israel were more literate than originally thought, opening up the prospect that the Bible could easily have been written earlier than what some scholars speculated. Correct?
> Prof. Edward Greenstein of Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv. “The process of transmission was much more complicated than scholars used to think.” Theology Student Here - MY TAKE This is pretty Bogus Study in terms of these are Statisticians' work based on one outpost on one piece of pottery. Someone had to publish something to make use of the research money. This is also out of their domain. Seems like trying to t…
A lot of scholars have the Torah being penned closer to the 600BC time frame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not having a religious discussion here. We're talking academics: research, primary sources, etc. When did this become about beliefs?
> You know there are academics who study this for a living, right? http://mi.byu.edu/ When you used BYU as a source, it became about beliefs. Religious institutions are not staffed by real academics, they're staffed by believers which disqualifies them as sources.
How do you explain this then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young_Universi... - BYU scholars have just as much impact for good in this world as any other accredited university. I've had BYU professors who are not Mormon. How do you explain that?
No real substance to add to this discussion, but I love it when these kind of studies come out. By the reaction of the relevant parties you can see who accepts humility and science.
As far as the study is concerned, here it is: http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/04/05/1522200113.DCSu... It looks like they had to develop new techniques because of the condition of the writing, for the purpose of processing the images, and analyzing them. I will have to read more before I can form an adequate to my own taste, but my preliminary opinion is, that they are filling in too many blanks in order to form a meaningful conclusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upvoting this. It's at least as well reasoned as the original article. BUT it doesn't matter because it wasn't actually written down (and/or "revealed") until the 1800s, right? Is there a good academic treatment of the origin of the stories in the BoM?
Thanks, for distinguishing academics from religion. Trying to keep this academic but people keep turning it into a religious debate about beliefs. > BUT it doesn't matter because it wasn't actually written down (and/or "revealed") until the 1800s, right? Right, but that's still 186 years before this article was published. A text that's almost 200 years old still has historic value, whether or not one believes its con…
This article is interesting specifically because of the evidence it presents about when the original texts of the bible were written. The historic value of the BoM is only linked to this article if it has a similarly distant origin. If the BoM is only 200 years old (i.e. the 600 BC origin is incorrect), then it's irrelevant to the discussion.
It is only with personal belief that the BoM is 2600 years old that there is an interesting link between the article and the BoM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm ready to receive the down-votes here, but I've been reading through those posts along with scientific articles for years and I'm still not convinced that the Bible was made up. So it's refreshing to have actual open discussion rather than atheist and bible bashing fights.
Of course the Bible was made up, it didn't write itself; it's a work of fiction by men, nothing more. Nor is there a lick of evidence to the contrary.
So somebody found some commercial records in Hebrew, and this immediately gets extrapolated into religion. Somebody is obsessing. Nine out of ten surviving Babylonian tablets are financial records.[1] There are surviving financial records from Ur two millennia older than Christianity. [1] http://viking.som.yale.edu/will/finciv/chapter1.htm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not joking. You know there are academics who study this for a living, right? http://mi.byu.edu/ - see especially the works of Terryl Givens, John Sorenson, Hugh Nibley, Richard Bushman, Grant Hardy... I never said it was published 600 BC. It was indeed published in 1830, but story within it originates ~600 BC. Very different things.
Mormons who study the book of Mormon don't exactly qualify as good sources, nor are Christians who study the Bible, nor are Muslims who study the Koran as all are extremely biased by their beliefs. Such people look for evidence to justify beliefs rather than looking at evidence to decide what should be believed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Prof. Edward Greenstein of Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv. “The process of transmission was much more complicated than scholars used to think.” Theology Student Here - MY TAKE This is pretty Bogus Study in terms of these are Statisticians' work based on one outpost on one piece of pottery. Someone had to publish something to make use of the research money. This is also out of their domain. Seems like trying to t…
I think the study has very little to do with different vocabs, most people agree that the Torah had multiple authors, JEPD for instance is widely accepted...though perhaps not as it once was. Either way, in the documentary hypothesis or other non-Mosaic origin theories, the books were written separately, from different people and revised over hundreds of years. This study doesn't really refute that. The oral history…
Source? From what I can tell, most religious people disagree with this point.