TromboneChat

Quote from: drizabone on May 31, 2017, 04:18PMJeremiah 26 text
 - A Tale of Two Prophets
1) Jeremiah should stop complaining after this

"In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim" - 608 BC.

There's something of an anthropic principle at play here - we don't have a book of Uriah because he was too dead to write one. Do we think Jeremiah will write down in his book that we're reading that he lost his mission? I doubt it.

Quote from: drizabone on May 31, 2017, 04:25PMJeremiah 27 text

 - Babylon to Rule, for a while

 - Jeremiah explains that God's giving their land to the Babylonians, but that the Babylonians will eventually become the slaves of other powers.
 - But for now, they should all submit and serve Babylon. They should ignore the words of the false prophets and anyone else who tells them to resist.

"In the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah" - 597 BC - but note the opening of the next chapter...

Jeremiah hasn't really before this commented on the desirability of probable Babylonian subjugation, other than in the obvious "woe is us" terms. This might be viewed in one of two lights: 1) Some hard-nosed real-politik, similar to the ancient Chinese generals that would surrender before a shot was fired in order not to fight a bloody losing position; or 2) Treason - he's straying into more obviously 'enemy of the state' type rhetoric now, making it clearer why people found his words as objectionable as they did - we might compare such a speech to the WW2 broadcasts of 'Lord Haw-Haw'.

Either way, he's treading a dangerous path. But we know that already.

Quote from: drizabone on May 31, 2017, 04:32PMJeremiah 28 text
 - Don't make up prophecies
2) Jeremiah 1, Hananiah 0.

"In that same year, at the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fifth month of the fourth year" - ah, so this chapter and the last we date instead to 594 BC. The writing was very much on the wall by this point (except, obviously, the literal writing referenced in the metaphor doesn't turn up until Belshazzar's feast...). Hananiah's words are the words of an incorrigible optimist in harmful denial. It seems to me that the tone of Jeremiah has become less dramatic, more resigned and pleading, as we approach the completion of the Babylonian disaster, or is that just me?

Quote from: drizabone on May 31, 2017, 05:31PMJeremiah 29 text
 - How to live in exile
1) Nebuchadnezzar knew Daniel.  So it looks like Jeremiah and Daniel may have been contemporaries or at least near contemporaries, but not living close to each other.  I'd always thought Jeremiah lived 50 years before Daniel. I wonder if they interacted, even indirectly.

We seem to be in a collection of chapters that might be marked 'Misc' here - each chapter is its own useful story. A better title for the whole book might be "The collected and annotated works and deeds of Jeremiah". Less catchy though.

I'm at this point seeing Jeremiah as a clear-headed political thinker trying to use the control tricks at his disposal (i.e. his religion) to persuade those around him to make an obvious coming disaster no more disastrous than it has to be. He's factually correct to observe that Judah is in no way capable of resisting a Babylonian onslaught, and can see the way the tide of history is currently running. This is quite similar to my perception of Isaiah in some ways - both wished to sway Judah into better awareness of the risks posed by an aggressive larger neighbour.

I have read that there is considerable scepticism over the historicity of Daniel - to the extent that it is not at all clear that the man existed. I'll know more when we get there.

We're not told the outcome of the supposed punishment allotted to Shemaiah. The text is always quick to tell us when such things work out (e.g. Hananiah's death in the previous chapter); the omission makes me suspect that Shemaiah and his line didn't obligingly roll over and die on cue.

Quote from: drizabone on May 31, 2017, 07:00PMJeremiah 30 text
 - Good News.
1) Jeremiah gets to announce some good news at last.
2) This promise that David will be raised and rule again hasn't been literally fulfilled yet.  Some christians think that Jesus (as a son of David) will fulfill it others are expecting David.

Yes, he's definitely mellowing. He's moved from 'scare them into noticing' mode to 'reassure them now they're panicking' mode.

It is puzzling that David gets so much positive press in all these books. The accounts of him in Kings et al paint a picture of a far from perfect devotional figure. I think he gets the kudos as the founding dynastic figure rather than as an exemplar.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 01, 2017, 04:14PMJeremiah 31 text
 - God continues to talk about how great the future will be. He'll be the God of all the families of Israel.
2) it foretells the return from exile (Babylon, the north country).  This has been done (at least in part), and I suppose you could say that it was written after to avoid any hint of supernatural shenanigans.

I certainly would. I mean... If this was some random book, say a document from the Babylonian court of the same era, a book that we could see had been subject to later editorialising, where a figure apparently accurately told the future... You'd look at it, and say: 'There are two possibilities - either 1) the later editor wrote in what they knew, or 2) this person knew the future.' And then you'd dismiss (2) out of hand, because it doesn't match anything that has ever been observed about the universe.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 01, 2017, 09:06PMJeremiah 32 text
 - More judgement and then hope.

"In the tenth year of Zedekiah" and "the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar". We're in 588 BC here. The end is nigh. Or at least loitering somewhere conspicuous in the foreground.

At this point Jeremiah is a political prisoner - the king evidently didn't want him spreading dissension to the idea that Judah must fight in this critical conflict situation.

I'm finding Jeremiah (or rather, the Book of Jeremiah) in narrative mode a lot more readable than Jeremiah in Jeremiad mode.

Jeremiah 33 text

Highlights

 - Long term hopes

Summary

 - Still in his prison, Jeremiah talks from Yahweh again
 - Yahweh will make up for the iniquities of the devastation that he has approved to Judah eventually, elevating Jerusalem to pride of place and bringing back joy to the land
 - A day will come when his promise to David will be fulfilled

Questions and Observations

1) Jeremiah striking a less abrasive tone here. Perhaps he wished not to be a prisoner.
2) The promise to David as discussed above.

Jeremiah 34 text

Highlights

 - Zedekiah's magnanimous gesture; Jerusalem's poor response

Summary

 - As Jerusalem resists siege, Jeremiah (Yahweh) says:
 - Zedekiah, your city will be lost, and will burn
 - And you will be taken to Babylon in captivity, where you will die peacefully
 - Zedekiah had proclaimed freedom for all slaves in this dire situation, but many had first freed then resubjugated their slaves. Jeremiah tells of Yahweh's anger with those that did not obey the edict properly. They will die by the sword.

Questions and Observations

1) He's now given up on being more conciliatory, I see. Or at least the writer has - a later revision, given the apparent detailed foretelling.
2) But then, given Zedekiah's gesture, perhaps the outcome was so obvious by this point that describing it risked nothing. The end of the chapter shows Jeremiah's support for Zedekiah, after all. But then again, this section is full of apparent foretellings, so must be treated as at the minimum heavily later edited.

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 03, 2017, 12:27AMIt is puzzling that David gets so much positive press in all these books. The accounts of him in Kings et al paint a picture of a far from perfect devotional figure. I think he gets the kudos as the founding dynastic figure rather than as an exemplar.

I think that its not so much David getting kudo's as God saying that he is going to keep his promises to David with respect to raising up a son (aka descendant) who will rule rigteously

QuoteI certainly would. I mean... If this was some random book, say a document from the Babylonian court of the same era, a book that we could see had been subject to later editorialising, where a figure apparently accurately told the future... You'd look at it, and say: 'There are two possibilities - either 1) the later editor wrote in what they knew, or 2) this person knew the future.' And then you'd dismiss (2) out of hand, because it doesn't match anything that has ever been observed about the universe.

we'd look at each case on its merits with an open mind, not clouded by preconceptions that modern scientific knowledge doesn't have a monopoly on knowing everything that has been observed in the known universe

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 02, 2017, 06:36PMHere's a bit more information about the book by Bauckham
 
http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/7431/jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses.aspx
It's unfortunate there are only two negative reviews, and one is useless. The negative reviews and the responses to them (if any) are often much more instructive than the positive. In this case the one useful negative review is right in line with my own suspicions, at least in principle. Whether the guy imposed that line of thinking on the book or the book gave him every reason to apply it in criticism I can't say, but the responses to the criticism don't help much. That just suggests the critics of the criticism are apologists--in other words they don't really say much of anything.
 
In any case, based upon the reviews I read, I'd recommend this to a religious friend or two, and I trust I'd get a better sense of it from what they tell me about it. We'll see. I highly recommend Elizabeth Loftus' Eyewitness Testimony to anyone inclined to make pretty much any case based upon it, or just anyone who is interested in the validity and actual evidential merit of eyewitness testimony.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 03, 2017, 05:03AMI think that its not so much David getting kudo's as God saying that he is going to keep his promises to David with respect to raising up a son (aka descendant) who will rule rigteously
What I mean is that David is rather revered, in the memory of the religion. We get passages even seeming to imply his resurrection (though as you pointed out, this is very arguable). But he was a slippery operator who changed sides multiple times in an era of war, eventually coming out of top. If he'd been king 200 years later, I suspect his memory would be greatly less revered. But then the relation of the kings to the religion is a peculiar one - we're told in Samuel that the original kingship was conferred religiously in order to unite the land effectively, but this isn't the normal pattern of things - kings arise as the biggest hard bastards around, and then later on align with a religious position suitable for power maintenance. David certainly fits that kind of 'dark age' king mould of a man steeped in blood, who rose to prominence by climbing over the skulls of others.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 03, 2017, 05:03AMwe'd look at each case on its merits with an open mind, not clouded by preconceptions that modern scientific knowledge doesn't have a monopoly on knowing everything that has been observed in the known universe
So there's something to note here. It's become fashionable in this part of the forum to use words beginning with 'pre-' in order to avoid thinking about what a scientific approach to knowledge is, and to imply that not being sceptical is just as reliable a way to generate knowledge as being so. Science is not the knowledge, but the process; it's the practice of not accepting anything as true that can't be demonstrated on demand allied to the quantification of how much certainty any given conclusion has. Every investigation is hedged around with a caveat about degree of certainty at each supporting step. The point is to always know how well supported your assertions are.

Some people in debate like to characterise 'science' as being a body of knowledge that insists on being respected, and I get a flavour of that in your sentence above. Not so - we simply use the usual tools of inquiry to break the idea down:
 - We know: The Book of Jeremiah (BoJ) contains text purporting to describe events leading up to the fall of Judah, some of which purports to foretell things
 - We ask: Is foretelling a possible thing? This is not a question of an apple reliably falling downwards to earth - rather it deals with complex historical narratives at a great remove of time. And so we note:
 - Hypothesis: It is sometimes possible for an astute individual to predict the general shape of what will come next. Trump tried to play a showman's game of keeping us guessing, but we all knew he was going to pull out of the Paris agreement - he'd declared that he wanted to, and all the Republican party interests wanted it. It was no surprise; a great disappointment for humanity in general, but no surprise. Judah had watched Israel fall a century and a half before, making the same errors at the same game, and now Babylon was taking a serious interest. There would have been no need to have a divine tips hotline to infer that what was coming was bad news for Judah at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. So I have no problem with the idea of Jeremiah warning of what was to come, taking his cue from Isaiah, who had watched Israel next door fall in his lifetime.
 - We ask: Is the more detailed foretelling suggested a possible thing (e.g. specifying lengths of time, who would topple the Babylonians, manner of return, life of Zedekiah in captivity)? We note that certainly some of these might have been hazarded in advance, but I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea that if every word we've read was written at the time the text attributes it to, then something beyond political savvy must have been at work.
 - We ask: Are there are mechanisms by which such could work?
 - We observe: Physics has not found any mechanism by which information can travel backwards in time. So much investigation has now been performed on fundamental physical questions that we in general feel that we have a decent overall and detailed grasp of how the universe works in non-extreme places within it like the Earth.
 - We hypothesise: The rules of the universe were not any different 2,500 years ago (a blink of an eyelid in universe timescales). There seems no reason to suppose that they were. We've been performing tests that feed into the body of scientifically-accumulated knowledge for all that time - Pythagoras for example lived during the era of the Babylonian exile. Archimedes's engineering innovations still work as they did for him in the 3rd century BC.
 - If the hypothesis is correct, the idea of Jeremiah performing the detailed foretelling shown seems an impossibility.

Having to our satisfaction ruled out the idea that what we're being told can be taken at face value, we register surprise that some people do want to take it at face value, even after having had the above explained to them. We wonder why they want to do so. We observe that the people that want to do so have emotionally committed to a religion that asserts that it is true, and we say "Oh, there's a very obvious ulterior motive; they have to believe this to stay with the in crowd". It becomes clear immediately that the discussion is not proceeding under a desire to generate knowledge as carefully as possible in order to be as accurate as possible.
Then we ask what actually did happen. We try to construct a plausible narrative, seeking only to establish one way in which things might have gone:
We observe: It is widely held by those that have studied ancient texts that the BoJ was later heavily edited.
We observe: It is very possible that their additions sought to paint Jeremiah in a stronger light by 'beefing up' his predictions; they had a motive for wanting him to look good, and they already had their editing pens out.

That's the route I follow with this. No need to introduce supernatural flights of fancy; we just treat the provenance text with appropriate caution. Even for believers, there's no need to treat any apparently-accurate bible foretelling that we've run across as a true event; these books took a long time to reach their final forms.

Science is a way to not fool ourselves. -- Carl Sagan
 
Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves. -- Richard Feynman
 
Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves. -- Carl Sagan
 
Qualia Soup: Open-Mindedness

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 03, 2017, 09:11AMWhat I mean is that David is rather revered, in the memory of the religion. We get passages even seeming to imply his resurrection (though as you pointed out, this is very arguable). But he was a slippery operator who changed sides multiple times in an era of war, eventually coming out of top. If he'd been king 200 years later, I suspect his memory would be greatly less revered. But then the relation of the kings to the religion is a peculiar one - we're told in Samuel that the original kingship was conferred religiously in order to unite the land effectively, but this isn't the normal pattern of things - kings arise as the biggest hard bastards around, and then later on align with a religious position suitable for power maintenance. David certainly fits that kind of 'dark age' king mould of a man steeped in blood, who rose to prominence by climbing over the skulls of others.

So there's something to note here. It's become fashionable in this part of the forum to use words beginning with 'pre-' in order to avoid thinking about what a scientific approach to knowledge is, and to imply that not being sceptical is just as reliable a way to generate knowledge as being so. Science is not the knowledge, but the process; it's the practice of not accepting anything as true that can't be demonstrated on demand allied to the quantification of how much certainty any given conclusion has. Every investigation is hedged around with a caveat about degree of certainty at each supporting step. The point is to always know how well supported your assertions are.

Some people in debate like to characterise 'science' as being a body of knowledge that insists on being respected, and I get a flavour of that in your sentence above. Not so - we simply use the usual tools of inquiry to break the idea down:
 - We know: The Book of Jeremiah (BoJ) contains text purporting to describe events leading up to the fall of Judah, some of which purports to foretell things
 - We ask: Is foretelling a possible thing? This is not a question of an apple reliably falling downwards to earth - rather it deals with complex historical narratives at a great remove of time. And so we note:
 - Hypothesis: It is sometimes possible for an astute individual to predict the general shape of what will come next. Trump tried to play a showman's game of keeping us guessing, but we all knew he was going to pull out of the Paris agreement - he'd declared that he wanted to, and all the Republican party interests wanted it. It was no surprise; a great disappointment for humanity in general, but no surprise. Judah had watched Israel fall a century and a half before, making the same errors at the same game, and now Babylon was taking a serious interest. There would have been no need to have a divine tips hotline to infer that what was coming was bad news for Judah at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. So I have no problem with the idea of Jeremiah warning of what was to come, taking his cue from Isaiah, who had watched Israel next door fall in his lifetime.
 - We ask: Is the more detailed foretelling suggested a possible thing (e.g. specifying lengths of time, who would topple the Babylonians, manner of return, life of Zedekiah in captivity)? We note that certainly some of these might have been hazarded in advance, but I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea that if every word we've read was written at the time the text attributes it to, then something beyond political savvy must have been at work.
 - We ask: Are there are mechanisms by which such could work?
 - We observe: Physics has not found any mechanism by which information can travel backwards in time. So much investigation has now been performed on fundamental physical questions that we in general feel that we have a decent overall and detailed grasp of how the universe works in non-extreme places within it like the Earth.
 - We hypothesise: The rules of the universe were not any different 2,500 years ago (a blink of an eyelid in universe timescales). There seems no reason to suppose that they were. We've been performing tests that feed into the body of scientifically-accumulated knowledge for all that time - Pythagoras for example lived during the era of the Babylonian exile. Archimedes's engineering innovations still work as they did for him in the 3rd century BC.
 - If the hypothesis is correct, the idea of Jeremiah performing the detailed foretelling shown seems an impossibility.

Having to our satisfaction ruled out the idea that what we're being told can be taken at face value, we register surprise that some people do want to take it at face value, even after having had the above explained to them. We wonder why they want to do so. We observe that the people that want to do so have emotionally committed to a religion that asserts that it is true, and we say "Oh, there's a very obvious ulterior motive; they have to believe this to stay with the in crowd". It becomes clear immediately that the discussion is not proceeding under a desire to generate knowledge as carefully as possible in order to be as accurate as possible.
Then we ask what actually did happen. We try to construct a plausible narrative, seeking only to establish one way in which things might have gone:
We observe: It is widely held by those that have studied ancient texts that the BoJ was later heavily edited.
We observe: It is very possible that their additions sought to paint Jeremiah in a stronger light by 'beefing up' his predictions; they had a motive for wanting him to look good, and they already had their editing pens out.

That's the route I follow with this. No need to introduce supernatural flights of fancy; we just treat the provenance text with appropriate caution. Even for believers, there's no need to treat any apparently-accurate bible foretelling that we've run across as a true event; these books took a long time to reach their final forms.

Dave, a whole lot of assumptions, all of which are philosophical and not at all scientific in nature in this post.  The main problem is that it assumes naturalism as the equivalence of science and that is a presupposition that can not be proven by science itself. Nothing at all illogical in believing that a God who can create this world could also predict the future of that same world-- these are not supernatural flights of fancy.  It's a naturalistic assumption that would rule that out, but that naturalistic assumption is a faith commitment, not something that science itself can prove.  Again, it all comes down to which presuppositions ultimately explain reality and for many of us naturalism dies of its self contradictions.

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 03, 2017, 09:11AMSo there's something to note here. It's become fashionable in this part of the forum to use words beginning with 'pre-' in order to avoid thinking about what a scientific approach to knowledge is, and to imply that not being sceptical is just as reliable a way to generate knowledge as being so. Science is not the knowledge, but the process; it's the practice of not accepting anything as true that can't be demonstrated on demand allied to the quantification of how much certainty any given conclusion has. Every investigation is hedged around with a caveat about degree of certainty at each supporting step. The point is to always know how well supported your assertions are.

I wasn't trying to avoid thinking about what the scientific approach to knowledge is.  I do think its important to identify assumptions aka preconceptions.  And they are what I think causes our different conclusions.  Fair enough?

And I should have just said that you don't actually know that "it doesn't match anything that has ever been observed about the universe". 

QuoteSome people in debate like to characterise 'science' as being a body of knowledge that insists on being respected, and I get a flavour of that in your sentence above.

I was probably not using the term very well.  What I meant was something like knowledge that has been gathered and can be verified according to the scientific method.

Quote- We observe: Physics has not found any mechanism by which information can travel backwards in time. So much investigation has now been performed on fundamental physical questions that we in general feel that we have a decent overall and detailed grasp of how the universe works in non-extreme places within it like the Earth.

I observe that you have not considered the possibility that the foretelling doesn't require information to be sent back in time.  It would be possible if God told Jeremiah what he planned to do in the future.

But you exclude that possibility because?  Because God doesn't exist? You'll excuse me if I think that that is a presumption on your part.

Quote - We hypothesise: The rules of the universe were not any different 2,500 years ago (a blink of an eyelid in universe timescales). There seems no reason to suppose that they were. We've been performing tests that feed into the body of scientifically-accumulated knowledge for all that time - Pythagoras for example lived during the era of the Babylonian exile. Archimedes's engineering innovations still work as they did for him in the 3rd century BC.
 - If the hypothesis is correct, the idea of Jeremiah performing the detailed foretelling shown seems an impossibility.

No, I am just assuming that God does exist and that you don't know all of the rules.

QuoteNo need to introduce supernatural flights of fancy;

there's the difference between us, I don't think God is an extra flight of fancy.

Jeremiah 35 text

Highlights

 - Compare and Contrast the Judahites and the Rechabites.

Summary

 - In the days of King Jehoiakim, a word comes to Jeremiah from God. It tells him to go see the Rechabites, bring them to the temple, and offer them some wine.
 - So Jeremiah takes the Rechabites to the chambers of a man of God named Hanan in the Temple, and offers them wine.
 - They refuse because their ancestor, Jonadab, told them not to ever drink wine. He also told them never to plant a vineyard, build houses, or settle down and practice agriculture. They're supposed to live a nomadic existence in tents.
 - The Rechabites are only living in Jerusalem because of Nebuchadnezzar's invasion, so they're stuck in one place for now.
 - God speaks to Jeremiah again and tells him to go to the people of Judah. He's supposed to tell them to learn a lesson from the Rechabites.
 - The Rechabites continue to obey their ancestor's laws, but the people of Judah can't obey God even when he commands them right to their faces.
 - So in punishment, God's going to bring disaster on Judah.
But God promises the Rechabites that they'll always have God's favor.


Questions and Observations

1) The Rechabites were descended from the Kenites who came with israel into Canaan in the exodus.  Moses father in law was a Kenite.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechabite

2) This chapter like the last chapter is tells us of the rejecton of Jeremiah's message.

Jeremiah 36 text

Highlights

 - Jehoiakim not fazed by Jeremiah's prophecy

Summary

 - In the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign, God tells Jeremiah to take a scroll and write down all the prophecies he's spoken so far against Judah, Israel, and the nations, from Josiah's reign up to the present.
 - Jeremiah dictates his prophecies to his faithful scribe, Baruch.
 - Jeremiah isn't allowed in the temple anymore because the priests have had it with his jeremiads, so he sends Baruch to read it to the people gathered there during a fast day. Baruch reads them the scroll in the chamber of Gemariah.
 - Gemariah's son, Michaiah, tells some palace officials about the words read by Baruch.
 - So the officials send Jehudi to fetch Baruch and to have him read the scroll to them.
 - Baruch reads to them and tells them Jeremiah dictated the book. The officials decide that the king definitely should hear these prophecies.
 - But first they make sure that Baruch and Jeremiah are safely hidden away.
 - They leave the scroll with the king and tell Jehudi to retrieve it when King Jehoiakim's ready to hear it.
 - But as Jehudi reads the scroll, the king cuts off pieces and throws them in the fire until the whole scroll's burned up.
 - The officials urge him not to burn the scroll but Jehoiakim won't listen. He orders Jeremiah and Baruch arrested, but God's already hidden them.
 - God tells Jeremiah to dictate the scroll to Baruch over again. But this time there are some estra prophecies against Jehoiakim 


Questions and Observations

1) More rejection of Jeremiah's message.

2) Baruch seems the only one in Judah who has listened to Jeremiah

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 03, 2017, 03:26PMDave, a whole lot of assumptions, all of which are philosophical and not at all scientific in nature in this post.  The main problem is that it assumes naturalism as the equivalence of science and that is a presupposition that can not be proven by science itself. Nothing at all illogical in believing that a God who can create this world could also predict the future of that same world-- these are not supernatural flights of fancy.  It's a naturalistic assumption that would rule that out, but that naturalistic assumption is a faith commitment, not something that science itself can prove.  Again, it all comes down to which presuppositions ultimately explain reality and for many of us naturalism dies of its self contradictions.

I don't see how Naturalism (definition from Wikipedia: The idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world) can be separated from the process of inquiring as carefully as possible (a.k.a. the scientific process). If something is observed that can't be explained, we mark it interesting, and seek to make observations that relate to it in the hope of gaining an understanding of it. In this sense, there is no possible 'supernatural', all is in the natural realm, because that's where we live - it exists only in the sense that it's a category to classify ascriptions by people to 'unknowable' forces. Science deals with the apprehension of the natural realm, which encompasses everything that happens within it - how can you separate the two?

Occam's Razor shears away the need to suppose a god to have performed this action - we can see a plausible naturalistic route by which the text has got to us in the condition it has. Supposing (or pre-supposing) a god to have circumvented the usual rules of causation for its benefit is a great complication.

I'd be interested to know which self-contradictions you assert that Naturalism contains. You're suggesting a 'proof by contradiction' here - assume A, prove inherent contradiction, therefore not A.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 04, 2017, 04:02AMI wasn't trying to avoid thinking about what the scientific approach to knowledge is.  I do think its important to identify assumptions aka preconceptions.  And they are what I think causes our different conclusions.  Fair enough?
I'm not sure I buy this line of "We're all doing the same thing at root". I'm starting by not assuming something, and you are starting by assuming something. Those two approaches are not equivalent - compare also the debate about the validity of declaring atheism a faith position, along with comparisons about somebody who doesn't collect stamps being labelled a "non-stamp-collector".

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 04, 2017, 04:02AMAnd I should have just said that you don't actually know that "it doesn't match anything that has ever been observed about the universe". 
I haven't personally inspected and considered every universal atom at every moment in time. Nor have I performed the much less onerous, but still well without human possibility task of checking every observation about the universe ever made by a human. But we are lucky enough to live in an age where the collected and merged considerations of most who have ever done so with profundity are much more easily available than they ever have been in the past. Again, it is beyond a single human's ability to absorb even all that summarised knowledge, but certain topics assume a cultural importance such that anomalous observations relating to them gain a rapid widespread currency; what we are talking about (hand of a god, telling the future) certainly falls into that category. Suitable experimental back-up for such has not appeared through these filters, which act to focus relevant info to us. If anything had ever been observed that proved these things, we would know it. We don't, ergo (by the contrapositive) nothing's been observed that proves it.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 04, 2017, 04:02AMI observe that you have not considered the possibility that the foretelling doesn't require information to be sent back in time.  It would be possible if God told Jeremiah what he planned to do in the future.
This is true; good spot.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 04, 2017, 04:02AMBut you exclude that possibility because?  Because God doesn't exist? You'll excuse me if I think that that is a presumption on your part.
Occam's Razor, as in my post to John above, and for the same reason: It isn't hard to construct a reality-compatible route by which the text has got to us as it has. We could suppose a supernatural force acting to make it happen, but that's an additional large complication.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 04, 2017, 04:46AMJeremiah 35 text
 - Compare and Contrast the Judahites and the Rechabites.

The name of the Rechabites was revived in the 19th century for a temperance movement, which still exists as an "ethical" investment company named Healthy Investment.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 04, 2017, 04:54AMJeremiah 36 text
 - Jehoiakim not fazed by Jeremiah's prophecy
2) Baruch seems the only one in Judah who has listened to Jeremiah

In the fourth year of Jehoiakin - 606 BC. We've jumped back in time again.

Baruch is the inspiration for the coming deuterocanonical Book of Baruch, but does not seem to have been its author.

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 04, 2017, 06:43AMOccam's Razor

I note that Occam was a Franciscan friar and a christian and would not have considered God susceptible to his razor . 

Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."  So God was out of scope for him too.

Shakespeare chimes in too "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

And Einstein  "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

The pithiness of this quote disguises the fact that no one knows whether Einstein actually said it (this version comes from the Reader's Digest, 1977 [US: July, UK: October?).  It may well be a precis of the last few pages of his "The Meaning of Relativity" (5th edition), in which he writes of his unified field theory: "In my opinion the theory here is the logically simplest relativistic field theory that is at all possible.  But this does not mean that Nature might not obey a more complex theory.  More complex theories have frequently been proposed. . .  In my view, such more complicated systems and their combinations should be considered only if there exist physical-empirical reasons to do so."

(Above quotes selected from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html The selection is not guaranteed to be unbiased, just a few that interested me) 

And another:

“The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be “Seek simplicity and distrust it.” – Alfred North Whitehead

from http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/05/14/why-the-simplest-theory-is-alm/

And I don't imagine I'm proving or disproving anything, just going off on an interesting tangent.

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 04, 2017, 06:22AMI don't see how Naturalism (definition from Wikipedia: The idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world) can be separated from the process of inquiring as carefully as possible (a.k.a. the scientific process). If something is observed that can't be explained, we mark it interesting, and seek to make observations that relate to it in the hope of gaining an understanding of it. In this sense, there is no possible 'supernatural', all is in the natural realm, because that's where we live - it exists only in the sense that it's a category to classify ascriptions by people to 'unknowable' forces. Science deals with the apprehension of the natural realm, which encompasses everything that happens within it - how can you separate the two?

Occam's Razor shears away the need to suppose a god to have performed this action - we can see a plausible naturalistic route by which the text has got to us in the condition it has. Supposing (or pre-supposing) a god to have circumvented the usual rules of causation for its benefit is a great complication.

I'd be interested to know which self-contradictions you assert that Naturalism contains. You're suggesting a 'proof by contradiction' here - assume A, prove inherent contradiction, therefore not A.

Dave, naturalism's claim that all knowledge can be based on a combination of reason and sense data-- i.e. empiricism-- is a presupposition or what could be called a faith commitment-- that can not be proven by its own starting principles.  No amount of data can show us that all knowledge can be based on human reason and data alone.

Also you have admitted that you don't have exhaustive knowledge of the data and must rely on your own admittedly partial data and others that you say you trust.  Yet you have ruled out of court before you start any data that has any tinge of the supernatural.  Isn't this stacking the deck?  Millions living today and throughout history would make that claim. 

I have a more basic question.  Why do you seek wisdom from books that are thoroughly supernatural?  If human reason and sense data are sufficient to give us all the knowledge we need, does it make sense to look for knowledge from sources that deny that very idea?  Or perhaps you have a nagging suspicion that naturalism really isn't sufficient.

Jeremiah 37 text

Highlights

 - Jeremiah in prison

Summary

 - Years later, King Zedekiah and his officials also ignore the words of Jeremiah.
 - But at the same time, Zedekiah sends a guy named Jehucal and the priest Zephaniah to go ask Jeremiah to pray for them.
 - (Jeremiah hadn't yet been put in prison.)
 - Also, the Chaldeans have just retreated from Jerusalem because they heard that the army of the Egyptians is coming for them, so what's up with that?
 - Jeremiah tells the two men not to kid themselves—the Egyptian army will return home, and the Babylonians will take over Jerusalem and burn it. This would happen even if the Babylonians only had wounded soldiers left in their tents.
 - With the Babylonians temporarily out of the picture, Jeremiah goes to the land of Benjamin to try to claim some property.
 - But a guard named Irijah arrests him at the Benjamin gate, claiming that Jeremiah was going to surrender to the Babylonians.
 - Jeremiah protests his innocence, but Irijah has him taken to the officials who beat him and imprison him in the secretary Jonathan's house.
 - He sits around in the prison for days and days.
 - When Zedekiah asks Jeremiah if there's any message for him, Jeremiah replies that Zedekiah will be captured by the king of Babylon.
 - Jeremiah then asks why Zedekiah threw him in prison, since no other prophet predicted this disaster. He pleads with the king not to send him back to the secretary's house to die in prison.
 - Instead, the king holds him in a better part of the prison compound where he gets a loaf of bread every day, until all the bread in the city runs out.

Questions and Observations

1) Jeremiah is definitely not chronological.

2) That's not surprising if he is writing or dictating this stuff in the middle of attacks on Jerusalem, imprisonments and attempted killing.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 04, 2017, 07:20PMDave, naturalism's claim that all knowledge can be based on a combination of reason and sense data-- i.e. empiricism-- is a presupposition or what could be called a faith commitment-- that can not be proven by its own starting principles.  No amount of data can show us that all knowledge can be based on human reason and data alone.That's an assumption that science makes an assumption it doesn't make ... instead it accepts the unknown for what it is, which seems to be something that religious apologists try very very hard to deny or somehow deride.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 04, 2017, 07:20PMI have a more basic question.  Why do you seek wisdom from books that are thoroughly supernatural?Not a thing unless you assume the supernatural.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 04, 2017, 07:20PMIf human reason and sense data are sufficient to give us all the knowledge we need ... It's not about our needs, it's about our options. The Cosmos/reality doesn't care what we need. We work with what we're got.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 04, 2017, 07:20PM ... does it make sense to look for knowledge from sources that deny that very idea?What are you now assuming science denies?
 
If you want to discuss Dave's notions and views, why do you keep superimposing your own over his?
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 04, 2017, 07:20PMOr perhaps you have a nagging suspicion that naturalism really isn't sufficient.Heh ... that would be affirming, wouldn't it.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 04, 2017, 07:20PMDave, naturalism's claim that all knowledge can be based on a combination of reason and sense data-- i.e. empiricism--
This is not what's being claimed. What is being claimed is that if one bases knowledge on anything else, then one starts to run into very high likelihoods of fooling oneself, because one is deliberately depriving oneself of the strong filtering benefits of scepticism.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 04, 2017, 07:20PMAlso you have admitted that you don't have exhaustive knowledge of the data and must rely on your own admittedly partial data and others that you say you trust.  Yet you have ruled out of court before you start any data that has any tinge of the supernatural.  Isn't this stacking the deck?  Millions living today and throughout history would make that claim.
Yes. Millions of people can't be wrong, can they? [Insert standard-issue Nazi Germany comparison here]

The idea is not to rely on those that you trust. The idea is that it is always possible to verify a prior conclusion by returning to the data yourself. Evidence for the supernatural is very much in court. But none of it has ever proven reproducible. And after the failure of umpteen million claims, one pushes new such claims into the 'likely BS' pile, reasoning that one's limited time is better spent on other things. There's a wry little humorously-presented XKCD cartoon on the subject, as there so often is.

An interesting but rarely-mentioned point is that the ubiquity of phone cameras and videos has done some interesting things to probabilities of supernatural real-world effects existing... For the last decade and more, most everyone has been walking around with the devices necessary to capture any evidence that might present itself, but nothing has turned up. I should confess that this thought was also sparked in me by an XKCD cartoon, but it is a powerful statistical suggestion nonetheless.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 04, 2017, 07:20PMI have a more basic question.  Why do you seek wisdom from books that are thoroughly supernatural?
The books themselves are not supernatural. They exist on my screen in front of me, in a copy on my bookshelf at home, in other copies that I've inspected over the years. They are cultural artefacts that form an important part of the cultural context in which I've lived my life. It is important to understand them, an exercise that all too few people undertake, regardless of their religious orientation or lack thereof. My interest is anthropological, cultural, and antiquarian; I wish to understand the priorities of those that follow these books better, I wish to extract what wisdom there is from their pages without subjugating myself to any version of their belief system, and I wish to use the historical evidence contained within them to improve my understanding of the time and place in which they were written.

I was discussing this by PM with Martin only a few days ago (we have regularly exchanged messages about this thread during its course); it turns out that the books that bore him tend to be the books that interest me, and vice versa - he goes for the religious instruction material whereas I go for the historical background stuff. He suggested that this was "divine providence"


Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 04, 2017, 07:20PM  If human reason and sense data are sufficient to give us all the knowledge we need, does it make sense to look for knowledge from sources that deny that very idea?
"All the knowledge we need" - now there's an assumption begging the question. These give us not the knowledge we need, but the knowledge that is available to us, which may or not be what we need or want.


Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 04, 2017, 07:20PM  Or perhaps you have a nagging suspicion that naturalism really isn't sufficient.

I'll chalk that one up to mischievously humorous wishful thinking

I'd still be interested in hearing you list some of the contradictions that you assert that naturalism contains within itself.

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 05, 2017, 06:09AMI'd still be interested in hearing you list some of the contradictions that you assert that naturalism contains within itself.

He's relying on Platinga, I think.

Naturalism (not my favorite term, but I'll use it here) relies on only one assumption: that evidence means something.

Platinga asserts without evidence, as self evident, that data can't be relied on if God doesn't exist to keep it real.  Therefore if science works, that proves God exists.  But if science didn't accept God, it would have to admit that it's sole assumption was flawed, and all of science is inherently flawed.   

Jeremiah 38 text

Highlights

 - Control in Jerusalem is falling apart; Jeremiah is taken from the king's control and put in a worse place, but then rescued

Summary

 - Jeremiah's dire predictions annoy some more, with people anxious that he is sapping the morale of the troops
 - A group petition Zedekiah to let them dispose of Jeremiah, and he grants his assent, declaring himself powerless to stop them
 - They imprison him in a cistern, deep in silt
 - Ebed-melech, a eunuch, petitions Zedekiah to let him retrieve Jeremiah; he grants his assent
 - Jeremiah is rescued
 - Zedekiah sends for Jeremiah's advice again
 - But Jeremiah is wary; he asks Zedekiah for assurance that his advice will not lead to harm against his person, which he gets
 - Jeremiah tells him that surrender will save his city and his liberty; failure to do so will result in lifelong imprisonment and the sack of Jerusalem
 - Zedekiah swears him to secrecy over the conversation, to protect both of them. Jeremiah complies, and so he gets to stay in his comfortable prison under Jerusalem falls.

Questions and Observations

1) It wasn't such a stretch in the previous chapter for someone to have imagined that Jeremiah was in the pay of the Babylonians. A lot of his message would sound apt in the mouth of someone who was.
2) We've seen this Pashhur before, sent to get Jeremiah's advice by Zedekiah in chapter 21.
3) Zedekiah seems much reduced in this chapter. The king's power has waned so much that he cannot command his men, and grants his assent first one way then the other.
4) Jeremiah disobeyed Zedekiah's closing request in time - we're reading about his words here.
5) Interesting to read about Judahites deserting to the Babylonians (v19). This is I suppose a constant - all armies leak soldiers.

Jeremiah 39 text

Highlights

 - The fall of Jerusalem

Summary

 - After a year and a half of siege, Nebuchadnezzar breaches the city walls of Jerusalem, and his forces enter the city
 - Zedekiah and his army flee the city, but are caught in the Plains of Jericho
 - He is taken to Nebuchadnezzar, encamped at Riblah
 - Nebuchadnezzar kills Zedekiah's sons and the Judahite aristocracy. He blinds Zedekiah, and takes him to Babylon in chains.
 - The citizens of Jerusalem are also deported to Babylon; only left are the poorest.
 - Nebuchadnezzar gives special orders about Jeremiah - that he be treated well
 - Gedaliah is given charge of Jeremiah
 - Jeremiah prophesies that the bad version of events is coming to pass, but the helpful Ebed-melech will not die because he was helpful

Questions and Observations

1) I am more and more wondering if Jeremiah was drawing a salary from Babylon through all this.
2) Gedaliah is the person who was appointed governer of the newly-created local province of the Babylonian empire by Nebuchadnezzar.

Jeremiah 40 text

Highlights

 - The new order settles in uneasily

Summary

 - The captain of the guard frees Jeremiah and offers him the choice to stay in Judah with Gedaliah or follow him back to Babylon
 - Jeremiah chooses to stay, going to Gedaliah at Mizpah
 - The remaining local leaders assemble and approach Gedaliah
 - He advises them to swear loyalty to Babylon
 - He will stay at Mizpah, a fortified place
 - Expatriate Judaeans return from neighbouring lands to lend their efforts
 - Gedaliah is warned of a plot against his life, sponsored by the king of the Ammonites, with Ishmael commissioned to assassinate him, but he rejects the information, not believing that Ishmael would do this

Questions and Observations

1) Gedaliah's advice certainly seems sensible.
2) Those fossils again...

Jeremiah 41 text

Highlights

 - Gedaliah is murdered by Ishmael, and authority seems to disappear

Summary

 - After 7 months, Ishmael and his men come to Gedaliah
 - He feeds them, but over supper they rise up and kill him and also the entirety of his Judaean and Babylonian retinues
 - The next day, 80 men happen to arrive, bringing their religious grain offerings; Ishmael and his men slaughter them too, sparing 10 who tell him that they have stores of supplies elsewhere that he may have
 - The captain of the Babylonian guard had committed various important people to Gedaliah's care, including Zedekiah's daughters; these Ishmael sets out to take to the Ammonites
 - But Johanan hears of what has happened, chases with his men, and rescues the captives; Ishmael and 8 of his men get away to the Ammonites
 - The party thinks of heading to Egypt, because of the disorder in the land

Questions and Observations

1) Gedaliah has misjudged quite badly here...
2) Gedaliah's retinue must have been quite small for the foremost figure in the land if 11 men could massacre them all. Or at least very unprepared as soldiers.

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 05, 2017, 06:09AMThe idea is not to rely on those that you trust. The idea is that it is always possible to verify a prior conclusion by returning to the data yourself. Evidence for the supernatural is very much in court. But none of it has ever proven reproducible. And after the failure of umpteen million claims, one pushes new such claims into the 'likely BS' pile, reasoning that one's limited time is better spent on other things. There's a wry little humorously-presented XKCD cartoon on the subject, as there so often is.In other words, the idea is truly accepting the fact that we're all working with human brains, and taking responsibility for it.
 
Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 05, 2017, 06:09AMAn interesting but rarely-mentioned point is that the ubiquity of phone cameras and videos has done some interesting things to probabilities of supernatural real-world effects existing... For the last decade and more, most everyone has been walking around with the devices necessary to capture any evidence that might present itself, but nothing has turned up. I should confess that this thought was also sparked in me by an XKCD cartoon, but it is a powerful statistical suggestion nonetheless.Clearly God won't act where revealing himself would destroy faith ... eh?
 
Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 05, 2017, 06:09AMI was discussing this by PM with Martin only a few days ago (we have regularly exchanged messages about this thread during its course); it turns out that the books that bore him tend to be the books that interest me, and vice versa - he goes for the religious instruction material whereas I go for the historical background stuff. He suggested that this was "divine providence" Heh ... nice!

it was obvious

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 05, 2017, 10:09AMJeremiah 38 text

...
and so he gets to stay in his comfortable prison under Jerusalem falls.

I'm imagine this comfortable flat under the local waterfall.

QuoteQuestions and Observations

1) It wasn't such a stretch in the previous chapter for someone to have imagined that Jeremiah was in the pay of the Babylonians. A lot of his message would sound apt in the mouth of someone who was.

I expect that this would have occurred to Jeremiah too

Quote3) Zedekiah seems much reduced in this chapter. The king's power has waned so much that he cannot command his men, and grants his assent first one way then the other.
5) Interesting to read about Judahites deserting to the Babylonians (v19). This is I suppose a constant - all armies leak soldiers.

All this seems likely given the approach of a very large scary army.

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 05, 2017, 10:22AMJeremiah 39 text

...

 - After a year and a half of siege, Nebuchadnezzar breaches the city walls of Jerusalem, and his forces enter the city

that would have been a difficult 18 months.

Quote - Jeremiah prophesies that the bad version of events is coming to pass, but the helpful Ebed-melech will not die because he was helpful

Jeremiah only had 2 friends after decades of prophesying death and destruction (or of sowing discord as directed by the Babylonians). 

Quote1) I am more and more wondering if Jeremiah was drawing a salary from Babylon through all this

(From an atheist POV) I can see how this would be an option, and probably the most likely from the p.o.v of the Jew's at the time.

But I'm not sure that the post exile Jew's would have included the works of a traitor in their scriptures.

Why would Jeremiah continue to hang out with the Jew's after the Babylonians captured Jerusalem?

Jeremiah 42 text
Jeremiah 43 text

Highlights

 - Johanan asks Jeremiah what to do, but then disbelieves him
 - Johanan takes them all to Egypt

Summary

Chapter 42
 - Johanan and all his people first go to Jeremiah and ask him what to do.
 - Jeremiah says he'll pray about it, and the people swear to follow whatever course of action God advises, even if it seems bad.
 - After ten days, God speaks to Jeremiah and says if they remain in their own land, he'll build them up. They shouldn't worry about repercussions from Babylon. God will have mercy.
 - But God also says that if they decide to go ahead and move to Egypt, they won't escape war. They'll end up dying from war, disease, and famine in Egypt. No survivors.
 - God says that the punishment for going to Egypt will be just as bad as the punishment just inflicted on Jerusalem.
 - They'll become a cursed people and will never see their homeland again.
 - Jeremiah reminds them that they promised to obey God. But he also says that he doesn't expect them to, since they've never listened to him before. Why start now?
 - He repeats that they'll all die from war, disease, and famine when they go to Egypt.

Chapter 43
 - When Jeremiah finishes, Johanan and Azariah accuse him of lying: they don't believe God really advised them to stay. Typical.
 - They claim that Baruch is encouraging Jeremiah to get them to stay so they'll be handed over to the Babylonians.
 - So Johanan takes most of the people who remained in Judah (including Jeremiah and Baruch) and go to Tahphanes in Egypt.
 - God tells Jeremiah to take some large stones and bury them at the entrance to the Pharaoh's palace.
 - He tells Jeremiah to announce to everyone that Nebuchadnezzar will ravage Egypt and build a throne above the stones. He'll also send people to their destined punishments of war, famine, or disease.
 - Nebuchadnezzar will burn the temples of the Egyptian gods and take them (probably meaning their idols) captive.

Questions and Observations

1) Johanan should have gone with his first instinct.

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 05, 2017, 06:09AM
I'll chalk that one up to mischievously humorous wishful thinking

I'd still be interested in hearing you list some of the contradictions that you assert that naturalism contains within itself.

Yes perhaps a bit mischievous, but also tinged with genuine concern because I truly believe that there are eternal issues at stake here.

Simply listing the contradictions without further explanation wouldn't be all that helpful.

If you'd really like to see this fleshed out, I'd recommend this book by an expatiate Brit James Anderson now teaching in the US-- his PHD is from the U of Edinburgh in computer simulation and philosophical theology.

Here's the link:

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Should-Believe-Christianity-Big/dp/1781918694/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496720249&sr=1-2

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 05, 2017, 05:08PMI'm imagine this comfortable flat under the local waterfall.
I'm sure I commit many more typos than I used to...  I have the same problem with my handwriting (which is illegible) - brain goes faster than fingers...

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 05, 2017, 05:08PMWhy would Jeremiah continue to hang out with the Jew's after the Babylonians captured Jerusalem?

Remorse for having worked against them? Because he felt that exiled Jews in Babylon might pursue him there if he went? Perhaps he was poor and Nebuchadnezzar made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Or perhaps he wasn't working for Babylon after all. I reserve judgement - what we have here is ambiguous and no more than suggestive. I've understood how some of those around him saw him as a traitor - that's a knowledge gain in itself.

I should make myself a little graphic of biblical time context to pin all the prophets on as we go through... But then, I see that plenty of other people have done this online already...

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 05, 2017, 08:48PMYes perhaps a bit mischievous, but also tinged with genuine concern because I truly believe that there are eternal issues at stake here.
It made me smile, something always appreciated when discussing serious things. Thanks for that.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 05, 2017, 08:48PMSimply listing the contradictions without further explanation wouldn't be all that helpful.

If you'd really like to see this fleshed out, I'd recommend this book by an expatiate Brit James Anderson now teaching in the US-- his PHD is from the U of Edinburgh in computer simulation and philosophical theology.

Here's the link:

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Should-Believe-Christianity-Big/dp/1781918694/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496720249&sr=1-2

So pointing someone to a book is not all that helpful... Whether or not it's consciously meant so, it's a way to terminate the conversation without apparently giving up on it - ordering a book takes time, reading it takes more, and by the time that's done, the conversation has withered or moved elsewhere. I don't want a book-length elaboration; I want you to describe to me a logically sound reason (and one is all that's needed) why you think that it is internally inconsistent to hold that one doesn't need to posit extra-natural physical interventions in our universe. On general grounds, I wouldn't expect such a piece of reasoning to take up a whole book; in its barest terms, I'd expect it to be a line or two.
Then, with that proven, I'd be interested to hear one logically sound reason why that extra-natural source of physical intervention must be the exact god concept that your particular Christian denomination believes in.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 05, 2017, 07:55PMJeremiah 42 text
Jeremiah 43 text

 - Johanan asks Jeremiah what to do, but then disbelieves him
 - Johanan takes them all to Egypt

Poor Jeremiah. He still isn't trusted, even by those that have stood by him so far. I can see their POV here - Judah is the badlands now, without a firm governing structure in place. Subject to Ammonite raids, etc. My first instinct in Johanan's place would have been to remove to somewhere safer too.

Tahpanhes is in NE modern Egypt, beyond the Sinai, on the Suez Canal. I was amused by a little linguistic turn in the Wikipedia article: The site was discovered by Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie in 1886; it was then known by natives as Qasr Bint al-Yahudi, the "Castle of the Jew's Daughter".. Even I can translate that... al-Yahudi is "The Jew", and, having been told so, it's easy to see that "Qasr" and "Castle" may well have the same etymological root somewhere, unusual though it is for an Indo-European and a Semitic word to do so. But it's the middle word that amuses me... "Bint" is Arabic for daughter, but tends to get used as a dismissive but fond pejorative in modern British English... E.g. "You daft bint" to an otherwise likable woman that has done something silly. Like all gender-based pejoratives, I avoid its use, but it still makes me smile to see it innocently used like this. It probably shouldn't - bad Dave.

Jeremiah 44 text

Highlights

 - Jeremiah has a new audience to berate in Egypt

Summary

 - Jeremiah talks to the exiles in Egypt
 - Judah is empty and destroyed because of a lack of faith in Yahweh
 - So why are they demonstrating the same lack of faith in him? Fleeing Judah when he said not to; worshipping Egyptian gods etc
 - Jeremiah tells them that they will be consumed by sword, disease and famine in Egypt in consequence
 - His audience are not receptive - they counter him, arguing that what happened happened because they ceased making offerings to Asherah (or some other "queen of heaven"?)
 - Jeremiah has no effective counter to this, simply repeating what he has already said, and adding this evidence to Yahweh's charge sheet for their destruction

Questions and Observations

1) It's interesting to actually hear the counter to the Yahweh view explicitly stated in these books; a refreshing honesty of record. Especially as those arguing against Jeremiah have an obviously valid point - he can't demonstrate that his hypothesis about what happened is any more true than theirs.
2) Jeremiah is certainly consistent in his message. Winning friends and influencing people...
3) We're getting on towards the end of Jeremiah now (8 more chapters). I've enjoyed the last few much more than the earlier chapters of denunciation - so much more to learn from them, including detailed new info on how Jerusalem fell, and what happened afterwards.

Jeremiah 45 text

Highlights

 - Jeremiah advises Baruch

Summary

 - Jeremiah with his Yahweh-voice says to Baruch:
 - Don't seek things for yourself - everything's going to get broken
 - But you won't die

Questions and Observations

1) The current events reportage has finished now; we're back to Jeremiah's misc box in this short chapter. Now 4th year of Jehoiakim - 605 BC.
2) Baruch is Jeremiah's scribe, and a figure to regard in his own right.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 05, 2017, 08:48PMYes perhaps a bit mischievous, but also tinged with genuine concern because I truly believe that there are eternal issues at stake here.
Can't fault that ... it's one of the genuine manifestations of The Better Angels of Our Nature--one of the more profound and positive products of humans communing. Even if it comes with a dash of toxicity, the good stuff still cuts through. I think that's a pretty cool thing about humans.

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 06, 2017, 01:56AMSo pointing someone to a book is not all that helpful ... To be blunt it's kind of like suggesting Von Daniken to someone who's not impressed with that sort of thing, as if some nuance in the book will change the glaring underlying problems somehow.
 
Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 06, 2017, 01:56AMI wouldn't expect such a piece of reasoning to take up a whole book; in its barest terms, I'd expect it to be a line or two.That's precisely why you should expect a book. Religious apologetics are all about window dressing--lots of window dressing--to obscure the modesty of the environs of the bare terms and make them seem far more than they are. Haell, that's pretty much what the religious part of religion is all about. Unfortunately the Real thing going on--building and functioning in communities of fellow humans. It's really what all those behaviors are all about. What's unfortunate--very likely tragically so--is that this is so obscured by the window dressings.
 
Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 06, 2017, 01:56AMThen, with that proven, I'd be interested to hear one logically sound reason why that extra-natural source of physical intervention must be the exact god concept that your particular Christian denomination believes in.That might be interesting, but not very damn likely in the desired way.

You don't understand.

There are lots of ways to acquire information and, dare I say, knowledge?

when it comes to verifiable evidence based facts, it's hard to beat the reliability of science.  Other methods have huge demonstrable flaws.

But when it comes to the supernatural, the best method is revelation.  Science seems to fail miserably here. 

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Jun 06, 2017, 06:06AMTo be blunt it's kind of like suggesting Von Daniken to someone who's not impressed with that sort of thing, as if some nuance in the book will change the glaring underlying problems somehow.
 

No actually it's treating Dave with respect and not just giving him sound bite answers as so many do on this forum.  Apologetics is not simply "window dressing" as you suggest.  It's serious wrestling with issues that sound bite answers, by both believers and unbelievers, BTW, are so prone to giving. 

I believe that you, too, have often suggested further reading when some of us are very underwhelmed by some of your sound bites.  Nothing wrong with that.  In fact suggesting further reading is the best way to say that a person's response deserves more than a sound bite.  Rarely does a sound bit do anything more than cheerlead.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 06, 2017, 10:00AM  Apologetics is not simply "window dressing" as you suggest.  It's serious wrestling with issues
I would agree that theology does make an attempt at wrestling with issues.

Apologetics starts with the answer and strains to find support.  The mental gymnastics required can be very troubling. 

As proof, I refer you to Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel.  I do not see how any person of integrity can take them seriously, but they seem to be the gold standard for apologists. 

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 06, 2017, 10:00AMNo actually it's treating Dave with respect and not just giving him sound bite answers as so many do on this forum ...
Reply moved to: Religion Matters: Take 3.

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 06, 2017, 10:43AMI would agree that theology does make an attempt at wrestling with issues.

Apologetics starts with the answer and strains to find support.  The mental gymnastics required can be very troubling. 

As proof, I refer you to Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel.  I do not see how any person of integrity can take them seriously, but they seem to be the gold standard for apologists. 

Tim, they are popularizers and not really serious apologists from an academic perspective.  Every traditional seminary requires courses in apologetics and the professors who teach them usually have both philosophical and theological training, many with PhDs in philosophy of religion.  They do serious work and that is what I was referring to.  The man that I recommended to Dave has his doctorate from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland in philosophical theology.  He teaches courses called apologetics.

Many serious apologists even question the very methodology of the 2 you referenced.

Surely every trombonist can understand the difference between a professional and an amateur.  Yes, some amateurs are good, but usually even the best fall far short of the serious professional.  Whether you always enjoy the professional or not, we can understand the quality of the professional's playing.

Yes apologists seek to defend the faith, but they do so because it is challenged and the scriptures-- cf. 1 Peter 3:15-- commands us to always give an answer.  Higher level apologetics is just such an answer on a more sophisticated level.

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 06, 2017, 02:32AM
...

 - Jeremiah tells them that they will be consumed by sword, disease and famine in Egypt in consequence
 - His audience are not receptive - they counter him, arguing that what happened happened because they ceased making offerings to Asherah (or some other "queen of heaven"?)
 - Jeremiah has no effective counter to this, simply repeating what he has already said, and adding this evidence to Yahweh's charge sheet for their destruction

Questions and Observations

1) It's interesting to actually hear the counter to the Yahweh view explicitly stated in these books; a refreshing honesty of record. Especially as those arguing against Jeremiah have an obviously valid point - he can't demonstrate that his hypothesis about what happened is any more true than theirs.

I don't think that Jeremiah was doing apologetics here or arguing his hypothesis.  He was just declaring judgement on a disobedient and disbelieving people.  Just like telling someone that if they touch that hot stove it will burn them. 

Jeremiah 46 text

Highlights

 - Egypt: noisy braggarts, destroyed by a gadfly

Summary

 - This chapter is a prophecy in poetic form against Egypt. It begins with God speaking about Pharaoh Neco, who gets defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at the River Euphrates in Mesopotamia.
 - Like the floodwaters of the Nile, Egypt tries to spread over the earth and destroy cities.
 - God urges the Egyptian warriors and their allies to get ready for battle. Then he says that they're just another sacrifice to his glory. They're next up to get clobbered by Babylon.
 - God sarcastically tells Egypt to seek a medicinal balm in Gilead. But there's no healing for them.
 - God predicts that Nebuchadnezzar will invade and destroy Egypt: the Egyptians should get ready for their slaughter.
 - He also mocks their bull god, Apis, who's zero help to them.
 - The Egyptians stumble home in defeat and the Pharaoh earns the nickname "Noisy one who lets the hour go by."
 - Egypt should pack its bags for exile.
 - Egypt's like a "beautiful heifer" who gets stung and driven nuts by a gadfly from the north (Babylon).
 - Egypt will be put to shame, slithering away in retreat like a snake, and being flattened like a forest cut down by the Babylonian war axes.
 - God's bringing punishment on Amon of Thebes, Pharaoh, and all the Egyptian gods and kings.
 - Pharaoh and those who trust in him will be captured, but afterwards Egypt will be inhabited again like it used to be.
 - In concluding the chapter, God again promises Israel that it will be freed from captivity. God will destroy the nations that have oppressed Israel, but not Israel itself. The people will return to their homeland under God's protection.


Questions and Observations

1) Jeremiah can be quite poetic

Jeremiah 47 text

Highlights

 - Philistines go too

Summary

 - More poetry. God also predicts disaster for the Philistines.
 - Water will come out of the north and flood and destroy the land and the cities and people who live in them.
 - Parents won't be able to save their children.
 - Ashkelon, Tyre, Gaza, Sidon, and the remaining Philistines on the coastland will be destroyed with God's help.
 - A voice cries out asking God for mercy, His sword won't go back into its scabbard until he's completed his mission


Questions and Observations

1) I guess that by waters rising our of the north Jeremiah means the Babylonians will invade like a flood

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 06, 2017, 12:14PMTim, they are popularizers and not really serious apologists from an academic perspective ...
Reply moved to Religion Matters: Take 3.
 
Should I just leave these in here, or are they disruptive to the flow of what's going on/intended?

I think its good to move tangents to the other thread.

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 06, 2017, 01:56AMIt made me smile, something always appreciated when discussing serious things. Thanks for that.

So pointing someone to a book is not all that helpful... Whether or not it's consciously meant so, it's a way to terminate the conversation without apparently giving up on it - ordering a book takes time, reading it takes more, and by the time that's done, the conversation has withered or moved elsewhere. I don't want a book-length elaboration; I want you to describe to me a logically sound reason (and one is all that's needed) why you think that it is internally inconsistent to hold that one doesn't need to posit extra-natural physical interventions in our universe. On general grounds, I wouldn't expect such a piece of reasoning to take up a whole book; in its barest terms, I'd expect it to be a line or two.
Then, with that proven, I'd be interested to hear one logically sound reason why that extra-natural source of physical intervention must be the exact god concept that your particular Christian denomination believes in.

Dave, I've recommended other books to you and others based on what I always hope is earnest inquiry, and this recommendation is no different.  You must recognize that weighty matters are seldom explained in a sentence or two, and I assume you have the same opportunity I do to use inter-library loan in your neighborhood library, an excellent resource that allows us to get books in a few days and saves us a bundle.  Perhaps that will work for you across the ocean.

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 06, 2017, 08:59AMBut when it comes to the supernatural, the best method is revelation.  Science seems to fail miserably here. 

But how do you tell that what you are acquiring through revelation is knowledge and not fantasy?

Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 06, 2017, 08:52PMDave, I've recommended other books to you and others based on what I always hope is earnest inquiry, and this recommendation is no different.  You must recognize that weighty matters are seldom explained in a sentence or two, and I assume you have the same opportunity I do to use inter-library loan in your neighborhood library, an excellent resource that allows us to get books in a few days and saves us a bundle.  Perhaps that will work for you across the ocean.

Ah John, I am not a perfect scholar. I am an imperfect human being with many projects currently on the go - building works on the house, researching and writing a pamphlet on the >170 year history of my brass band reading for our anniversary concert next month, getting a musical commission finished for a friend on a tight schedule, doing the player and conductor management for a 29-piece amateur brass band (as well as the same for low brass for 4 orchestras), keeping playing skills up to scratch on trombone and piano, doing other reading I'm already committed to (I have a large 'read when free' pile already in existence that never seems to reduce in size from year to year... I may yet complete reading 'The Canterbury Tales', which is a fine fine piece of work, but rather slow going in 14th century English) - plus of course my regular 9-5 job. I must prioritise my planned reading - which is not to say that such a recommendation cannot be read, but to say that it's unlikely to happen within the next year or two...

All I was asking for was for you to lay out the logical bones of one of the self-contradictions that you purport that a non-supernatural worldview holds. But if you feel that it would do any of your reasons a disservice to lay them out simply, I understand. It's a shame - I find that laying my thoughts on something down in a pithy manner tends to help me get them clearer and more easily communicated, and allows me to identify more readily their inherent flaws.

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 06, 2017, 04:06PMJeremiah 46 text
 - This chapter is a prophecy in poetic form against Egypt.

It isn't clear to me how widely time-separated the three portions of the chapter might be. It is possible that the latter two are intended to be read as being given after the events that resulted in Jeremiah moving to Egypt. It is also possible that they should be read as contemperaneous with the first portion of the chapter.

On that subject, a thought that occurs - Jeremiah scolds those that he travelled with for travelling. But he still went along with them. Surely the more steadfast course would have been to stay in Judah himself?

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 06, 2017, 04:10PMJeremiah 47 text
 - Philistines go too

Gaza changed hands a number of times over the years. Originally Egyptian, in the era of the Canaanites, the incoming Philistines took it late in the era of the Judges. We're told in Kings that David took it, and that it passed to the control of the kingdom of Israel. When Israel fell, the Assyrians took it, from whom the Egyptians retook it - probably before the events of Jeremiah.

So I'm a bit puzzled as to why he talks of Philistines.