By whom and when was scripture written?

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 05:21 PM']Descriptions of events in the Old Testmant sometimes give a clue as to when these passages were written.

For example, in the 11th century, the camel begins to appear in cuneiform texts and reliefs from the area.

Gen 37:25 in describing the kidnapping of Joseph reports thus:

"They then sat down to their meal. Looking up, they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, their camels laden with gum, balm and resin to be taken down to Egypt. "

Joseph in Egypt is suppose to date from about 1700 B.C., but at that point camels hadn't been introduced to the MidEast.

So if camels are described so matter of factly, it seems that this account had to have been written sometime after the 11th century B.C.and the introduction of the camel.
[right][snapback]619717[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Please cite a source saying camels appeared in the mid-east in the 11th century BC and no earlier. I have a source saying it was probably between 4000 BC and 1400 BC, and 1700 BC is much closer to the latest date than the earliest date.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromedary"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromedary[/url]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Jun 23 2005, 10:46 AM']Please cite a source saying camels appeared in the mid-east in the 11th century BC and no earlier.  I have a source saying it was probably between 4000 BC and 1400 BC, and 1700 BC is much closer to the latest date than the earliest date.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromedary"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromedary[/url]
[right][snapback]620476[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

You might be correct, but here's my reference:

The Camel and the Wheel, Richard W. Bulliet, Columbia:1990 (orig. ed. 1975).

From these references [Genesis] a pattern of camel use can be extrapolated that seems very much in consonance with later Middle Eastern society: the camel forming part of a bride price, a small caravan of camels crossing the desert from Palestine to Iraq, a woman perched atop a camel loaded with camp goods, merchants carrying incense to Egypt. This entire vision, however, both original text and extrapolated image, has been categorically rejected by W.F. Albright, one of the foremost scholars of Biblical history and Palestinian archaeology and the person whose opinion on camel domestication is most frequently encountered. According to Albright, any mention of camels in the period of Abraham is a blatant anachronism, the product of later priestly tampering with the earlier texts in order to bring more in line with altered social conditions. The Semites of the time of Abraham, he maintains, herded sheep, goats, and donkeys but not camels, for the latter had not yet been domesticated and did not really enter the orbit of Biblical history until about 1100-1000 BC with the coming of the Midianites, the camel riding foes of Gideon." pages35-36]

The Bible itself associated the coming of the camels with the Midianites, but I'll have to agree with you that the evidence isn't clear cut and there are reasonable but differing opinions.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 23 2005, 07:29 AM']RESPONSE:

Sorry CAM. There is no  reliable evidence that Peter was  ever a bishop of Rome.  And, of course, Popes hadn't  even been invented yet.

We'd agree to a point about legends . In the case of Genesis, there was plenty of time for a legend to develop. In fact, several different fables did. You aren't really claiming tht the creation of man as described in Genesis is historical, are you.
[right][snapback]620321[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Weighed and measured......and you have been found wanting.....



















again.

[Didacus]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 04:44 PM']RESPONSE:

Which of Cardinal Ratzinger's arguments  are you supporting exactly and why?  Or do you just like his writing in general without analysis of his content?

And which form of historical criticism is he talking about? All of them? Or only  a few  in  particular?

If all, then he is in disagreement with Pope Pius XII:

" In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles."
[right][snapback]619668[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

i must admit I have insufficient knowledge to pose any proper critique of Ratzinger's writtings, so I guess I am just a fan of sorts.

i just pay attention, try and learn something new or two and occasionally ask a question to try and look smarter than I really am, like "So what do you think of my new avatar?".

There are a few statements within the Ratzinger writting that I understand well enough to say "Yes, I am in agreement with this statement.." of those I've posted a couple on the thread. In general though, I am cross reading his writting with a dictionary, trying to grasp certain paragraphs on a sentence by sentence basis. I think I will have to re-read it a few times over again before understanding all of it properly. Yes I know... I can be slow at times...i keep waiting for a thread that talks about thermodynamics... now THAT would be my game!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 24 2005, 06:27 AM']i must admit I have insufficient knowledge to pose any proper critique of Ratzinger's writtings, so I guess I am just a fan of sorts.

i just pay attention, try and learn something new or two and occasionally ask a question to try and look smarter than I really am, like "So what do you think of my new avatar?".

There are a few statements within the Ratzinger writting that I understand well enough to say "Yes, I am in agreement with this statement.." of those I've posted a couple on the thread.  In general though, I am cross reading his writting with a dictionary, trying to grasp certain paragraphs on a sentence by sentence basis.  I think I will have to re-read it a few times over again before understanding all of it properly.  Yes I know... I can be slow at times...i keep waiting for a thread that talks about thermodynamics... now THAT would be my game!
[right][snapback]621366[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes. Unfortunately "Writing for Clear Reading" isn't a course taught in the seminaries.

To be easily understandable, a sentence should not be longer than 18 works (See Flesch et al). Or the sentence should be divided into two sentences. For fun sometime, see if you can find any encyclicals or writings by church leaders that observe this rule.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 07:45 AM']RESPONSE:

Yes. Unfortunately "Writing for Clear Reading" isn't a course taught in the seminaries.

To be easily understandable, a sentence should not be longer than 18 works (See Flesch et al). Or the sentence should be divided into two sentences. For fun sometime, see if you can find any encyclicals or writings by church leaders that observe this rule.
[right][snapback]621370[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is a totally ridiculous statement....Just because you can't read those sentences doesn't mean that they are not important nor are they coherent. I mean, seriously, you write sentences that are 10 WORDS long and you don't manke any sense at all.

This is akin to the 100 year rule you created in March. Lunacy. Utter lunacy.

[Didacus]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 06:45 AM']RESPONSE:

Yes. Unfortunately "Writing for Clear Reading" isn't a course taught in the seminaries.

To be easily understandable, a sentence should not be longer than 18 works (See Flesch et al). Or the sentence should be divided into two sentences. For fun sometime, see if you can find any encyclicals or writings by church leaders that observe this rule.
[right][snapback]621370[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I believe their form of writting is correct and precise. Just that the audience to whom it was intended is a little more knowledgable than myself - trying to fix that, but it takes time and dedication to gain knowledge.

I admit the ideas posted by Ratzinger (aka, papa Benedict XVI) is abstract, but that does not necessarily take away the validity of his ideas. One simply has to read with an open mind, and seek to understand what one does not rather than simply condem it. (but then again, that's just me talking... )

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 24 2005, 06:55 AM']That is a totally ridiculous statement....Just because you can't read those sentences doesn't mean that they are not important nor are they coherent.  I mean, seriously, you write sentences that are 10 WORDS long and you don't manke any sense at all.

This is akin to the 100 year rule you created in March.  Lunacy.  Utter lunacy.
[right][snapback]621372[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Actually, you might want to ask your librarian to obtain a copy of Dr. Flesch's works on clear writing, classics in their field. The 18 word reccomendation is his, not mine.

The only reason I'm aware of it is that the Air Force and a number of large companies, in an effort to improve internal and external communications, took up Flesch's recommentations and made them doctrine for their employees.

And you again did not specify what you are referring to, but if it is the guideline that histories originally written one hundred years or more after the event are generally not witnessed or otherwise first hand accounts, and may not be entirely reliable, it's only common sense.

For this reason, if I were to write a histroy of the Civil War from the top of my head, it might not be entirely historically accurate.

The fundamental flaw you kept making was confusing different issues: if there was any historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome with whether there was any reliable historical evidence that he was, in fact, the bishop of Rome.

But I would agree that unless it can be at least established that he was in fact in Rome, the question of his being a bishop there is largely moot!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 24 2005, 06:56 AM']I believe their form of writting is correct and precise.  Just that the audience to whom it was intended is a little more knowledgable than myself - trying to fix that, but it takes time and dedication to gain knowledge.

I admit the ideas posted by Ratzinger (aka, papa Benedict XVI) is abstract, but that does not necessarily take away the validity of his ideas.  One simply has to read with an open mind, and seek to understand what one does not rather than simply condem it.  (but then again, that's just me talking... )
[right][snapback]621373[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I agree with what you say. But one of the first rules of writing is to analyze the audience (the eventual readers). Then appropriate guidelines can be determined.

However, in reading Ratzinger (or others), it is necessary to analyze objectively exactly just what they are saying, not how well they say it.

[Didacus]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 07:18 AM']RESPONSE:

I agree with what you say. But one of the first rules of writing is to analyze the audience (the eventual readers). Then appropriate guidelines can be determined.

However, in reading Ratzinger (or others), it is necessary to analyze objectively exactly just what they are saying, not how well they say it.
[right][snapback]621381[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is just my point, I am NOt in the intended audience. I am trying to squeeze in...

And yes, I do try to adhere to the contents and not the wording. But I do need to understand wording before getting to the meaning of the text.

So what do you think of my avatar?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 24 2005, 07:22 AM']That is just my point, I am NOt in the intended audience.  I am trying to squeeze in...

And yes, I do try to adhere to the contents and not the wording.  But I do need to understand wording before getting to the meaning of the text.

So what do you think of my avatar?
[right][snapback]621383[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Consider the audience you are writing for! I'm not a computer person!
What is an avatar?

Is that the picture to the left of your posts?????

LittleLes

[Didacus]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 07:45 AM']RESPONSE:

Consider the audience you are writing for!   I'm not a computer person!
What is an avatar?

Is that the picture to the left of your posts?????

LittleLes
[right][snapback]621395[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

y e s ... i t... i s... t h e... p i c t u r e ... b e s i d e... m y ... p o s t s . (trying to type slowly for you... joke )

Edited June 24, 2005 by Didacus

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 08:14 AM']RESPONSE:

Actually, you might want to ask your librarian to obtain a copy of Dr. Flesch's works on clear writing, classics in their field. The 18 word reccomendation is his, not mine.

The only reason I'm aware of it is that the Air Force and a number of large companies, in an effort to improve internal and external communications, took up Flesch's recommentations and made them doctrine for their employees.

And you again did not specify what you are referring to, but if it is the guideline that histories originally written one hundred years or more after the event are generally not witnessed  or otherwise first hand accounts, and may not be entirely reliable, it's only common sense.

For this reason, if I were to write a histroy of the Civil War from the top of my head, it might not be entirely historically accurate.

The fundamental flaw you kept making was confusing different issues: if there was any historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome with whether there was any reliable historical evidence that he was, in fact, the bishop of Rome.

But I would agree that unless it can be at least established that he was in fact in Rome, the question of his being a bishop there is largely moot!
[right][snapback]621379[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

blah, blah, blah, blah......Dr. who? Don't really care. That is totally subjective and totally your opinion. There is historical fact regarding St. Peter.....St. Ireneus writes of him in being in Rome. Christ institutes him as the head of the Church. Fluid form of thought.....oops, forgot who I was talking to.

It can be established that he was in Rome, SimpleLes. It has been....His bones are there.....St. Ireneus speaks of himself being there....he even alludes to the fact that he is there, in his Letter to the Romans.

Sheesh....we've been over this.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 06:45 AM']To be easily understandable, a sentence should not be longer than 18 works (See Flesch et al). Or the sentence should be divided into two sentences. For fun sometime, see if you can find any encyclicals or writings by church leaders that observe this rule.[/quote]
Or, for more fun, let's count words in LittleLes' writings. By the way, the last sentence above was 19 words.

The following is one of his recent posts:

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 08:14 AM']RESPONSE:

[color=red](23 words)[/color]
Actually, you might want to ask your librarian to obtain a copy of Dr. Flesch's works on clear writing, classics in their field. The 18 word reccomendation is his, not mine.

[color=red](38 words)[/color]
The only reason I'm aware of it is that the Air Force and a number of large companies, in an effort to improve internal and external communications, took up Flesch's recommentations and made them doctrine for their employees.

[color=red](48 words)[/color]
And you again did not specify what you are referring to, but if it is the guideline that histories originally written one hundred years or more after the event are generally not witnessed  or otherwise first hand accounts, and may not be entirely reliable, it's only common sense.

[color=red](27 words)[/color]
For this reason, if I were to write a histroy of the Civil War from the top of my head, it might not be entirely historically accurate.

[color=red](39 words)[/color]
The fundamental flaw you kept making was confusing different issues: if there was any historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome with whether there was any reliable historical evidence that he was, in fact, the bishop of Rome.

[color=red](30 words)[/color]
But I would agree that unless it can be at least established that he was in fact in Rome, the question of his being a bishop there is largely moot!
[right][snapback]621379[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Those who live in glass houses...

Edited June 24, 2005 by Mateo el Feo

[Didacus]

I'd rather count cards...