Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


srd44 last won the day on February 8 2017

srd44 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

30 Good

About srd44

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
  • More About Me
    I am a biblical scholar

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
  1. There is a great deal of debate about how John's logos should be, or originally was, understood. I haven't been conversant in this literature fro some time since I have been more dedicated to source-critical scholarship on the Pentateuch. Yet, I still initially think that "word" is most likely the correct understanding, and then again specifically the word as a promise of Jesus' coming. John is pretty interesting if you compare him next to Matthew's and Luke's anxiety to make sure Jesus gets the proper messianic pedigree via their genealogies, etc. John seems to be less interested in this
  2. Would you care to expand on this term/concept of "logos"? In stoic terms, the logos was the "law" of nature---its rational, reason. Everything in nature is harmoniously in tune with the logos and the goal of stoic philosophy was that man too must align himself to this logos. Zeus later came to symbolize it as it took on the definition of cosmic justice. I think most scholars see the Stoic's idea of logos going back to the pre-Socratic Heracletuc' logos. I used to be conversant with this literature. . . so long ago. There have been attempts to interpret John's logos in this manner, bu
  3. I'm less convinced by such broadly stated theses. Perhaps I'd be more persuaded uf we softened this to indirect influence. Although I enjoyed my Campbell days now decades ago (I think I must of read everything he wrote), I take a much more academic view on many things now. For instance, while yes we can classify Gen 1 in the larger context of creation myths and understand them collectively and culturally as man grappling with his world and its origins as he/his culture perceived them, I am now much more interested in looking at specific cultural, historical, or in the case of Gen 1, authorial
  4. My own thoughts are that the writer set out to make a creation account which conformed to a 7 part process. Now keep in mind, I was raised Seventh Day Adventist (who take the 7 day creation literally, to the point of seeing salvation boiling down to worshiping on Saturday instead of Sunday) so the issue of the 7 day creation is CENTRAL to trying to get through to my friends and relatives who are still brain washed into thinking that SDAism is absolute truth. Indeed, the issue of creationism and it's effect on society hits very close to home with me. I myself rejected it by age 15, I'm now
  5. Hey everyone, thanks for giving my work some thought. Glad your enjoying it. It's still humbling to think that as a biblical scholar my main goal in bringing modern biblical scholarship to a public audience (especially on the topic of Bible contradictions, or as scholars like to say, varied sources that went into the composition of the Bible) was to get fundamentalist to actually. . . well recently my pet phrase is, be honest to the texts, authors, and their varied beliefs, worldviews, ideologies, etc. Most visitors to my blog, however, have been atheists and de-converts looking for real scho
  6. Hi ficino, nice to reconnect with you. No, I never bothered to look. A lone evangelic trying an apologetic wriggling of the text versus a tradition of haveing been correctly translated by Hebraists ---- doesn't interest me. But I would agree in principle. sometimes no means yes.
  7. Interesting, I never thought about this. What lame refutation do fundy apologists pull out of their ---? Ficino, here is one from the website ChristianThinkTank - http://christianthinktank.com/qyhwh.html. Even considering a Christian perspective, I do not think this explanation would be very satisfying. There may be other apologetics somewhere. CARM has an apologetic response for Exodus 6:2-3 but it is more directed at whether anyone has seen God or not - http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/has-anyone-seen-god-or-not Dr. DiMattei has a good webpage that gives
  8. The title of this post is the title of another book I’m currently working on. Its thesis is that despite fervent claims made by fundamentalists, when one studies the Bible’s many different legislations, law codes, and moral precepts comparatively, the biblical texts themselves tell us that its morals were shaped by ever-changing cultural and subjective perspectives, worldviews, and even ideologies. In other words although the Bible rhetorically presents Yahweh giving laws and statues—“Thus saith Yahweh…”—when studied more closely and contextually the Bible’s texts reveal that their moral prece
  9. What's the evidence for this? Specifically, the 6th century as being the exact time that Genesis 1:1-2:3 was written? Or that a "secular" scribe wrote 2:4-9? Good questions. Here I am bringing in the assessment of these texts per source-critical studies that go back a few centuries now. The evidence that such a claim rests on is that according to source-critical work on what has been labeled as the Priestly source, Genesis 1 shares numerous lexical, vocabulary, thematic and theological (even ideological) parallels with the author of Leviticus. In chapter 2 of my book I summarize these p
  10. Yes, but in the case of Genesis 1 and 2-3 there is so much linguistic and stylistic differences---and even geographical worldviews---that the textual evidence screams two different authors, one extremely educated and well-written, the other presented more as a secular story from a scribe/storyteller of the old days who was mainly interested in etiological tales and play on words. Since it was one of my goals in this project to attempt to list an exhaustive list of differences in these two creation accounts---textual, thematic, and theological---I was actually surprised that there was so mu
  11. Here https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Creationism-Debate-Honest-Beliefs/dp/1498231322/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1460735429&sr=1-2
  12. I haven't posted here in quite some time, but I'd like to take the opportunity to . . . well publicize my recent book, Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate: Being Honest to the Text, Its Author, and His Beliefs, and to make a plea why I feel it's necessary for secularists, atheists, and de-converts to take an active part in combating what I'm calling biblical illiteracy. As many of you are well aware, most Christians who claim they believe in the Bible don't actually know anything about this corpus of ancient literature, who wrote its numerous texts, to whom, why, etc. As I have written e
  13. I might have actually been the one who posted on this. . . In either case, you are correct. But what is interesting here in this passage is that the power and effectiveness of a first-born son sacrifice to a national deity other than the writer's was recognized. In other words, the Israelite scribe who penned this account, most likely influenced from a real skirmish with the Moabites, understood the power of this sacrifice as so strong that his god Yahweh was helpless to alter the situation afterwards. It allows us modern readers to peer into the perspectives that ancient peoples had even when
  14. Modern readers often assume that Genesis 1 depicts the creation of the Earth and Sky as we know it. For this reason Creationists, Fundamentalists, and Evangelists often claim that they believe in the text of Genesis 1. However, for any reader who has actually sat down and read Genesis 1 objectively on its own terms and from within its own historical and literary context, being as honest as possible to the beliefs and worldview of its author, one quickly realizes that we are in a vastly different perception of the world. Our goal as responsible readers of this ancient text should be to allow t
  15. Ravenstar, this is quite thorough --- thanks. To add a few biblical examples, the most famous example of a Canaanite child sacrifice in the Bible comes from 2 Kings 3:26-27, where arrayed in battle formation against the Israelites, the Moabites perform a firstborn male sacrifice to their god, Chemosh. What is revealing in this example is how this child sacrifice was viewed. The sacrifice is done to procure the god's favor, in this case Chemosh, in granting them, the Moabites, a favorable victory (cf. Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter to Yahweh to procure the same in Judges 11:29-40)
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.