Posted on 07/31/2010 6:26:07 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
A document written on two cuneiform tablets around the time of the patriarch Abraham, containing a law code in a style and language similar to parts of the famous Code of Hammurabi, has been discovered for the first time in an Israeli archeological dig.
The code, dating from the Middle Bronze Age in the 18th and 17th centuries BCE, was found at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s excavations this summer at Hazor National Park in the North. However, it has not yet been determined whether the document was written at Hazor – where a school for scribes was located in ancient times, or brought from elsewhere, said Prof. Wayne Horowitz of the HU Institute of Archeology.
Horowitz, who heads a team that is preparing the Hazor law code fragments for publication in book form, said this week that the discovery opened an interesting avenue for possible further investigation of a connection between biblical law and the Code of Hammurabi.
The Hazor excavations – known as the Selz Foundation Hazor Excavations in memory of Israeli archeologist and politician Prof. Yigael Yadin – are being held under the direction of Horowitz’s colleagues Prof. Amnon Ben-Tor and Dr. Sharon Zuckerman. Yadin directed previous excavations at the site in the 1950s and 1960s and found numerous documents in the palace area.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
My post was not really to you but to James C. Bennett, and I copied you as a courtesy because he referred to you and copied you. However, I do not mind that you posted to me.
My reference to xenophobic hate referred to its display in the language of “null and void.”
“... Amalek, due to its depravity, could have been a garden of STDs. Every man, woman and child could be carrying the ancient equivalent of syphilis, AIDS, or any other fatal debilitating disease. I suspect there were some Zoonotic diseases in the mix diseases in the mix, ...”
This is exactly the kind of descriptions and accusations the Nazis made about the “disease ridden” Jews. Genocide is always justified, somehow, whether by Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the communist Chinese, or the Israelites in Caanan.
One does not have to be omniscient to know naked evil when it manifests itself, and that justifying it is as evil as the act. What kind of mind does that?
Perhaps you have a reading problem. No God committed those atrocities, people did. Very evil people.
Hank
The fatc that ti doesn’t shows that ti is a matter of social consensus=The fact that it doesn’t, shows that it is a matter of social consensus.
Your position is still only viable if your rejection of an omniscient and moral Deity commanding this is correct, and you can prove that
1. His ordaining the utter destruction of an exceedingly sinful people was unjust, or that
2. destroying the innocent with them was not to their eternal benefit, or that
3. the method of destruction was wrong, as not accomplishing good.
As you cannot, to reject this even as a possibility presumes you are omniscient. And as said before, just because some presume Divine sanction for what is only their will (which people do daily) cannot disallow that their can be such. But i certainly concur that these are challenging stories, and some see hyperbole is such. http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45&ap=6
My friend, you have been very reasonalbe, even when knowing my views are totally inconsistent with yours. For that I thank you.
We are not going to agree, but I have no interest in changing your views. I do not believe in a deity of any kind, and certainly to no accept the authority of Scripture, though I am a long time student of that most interesting book, (or should say books) in both Hebrew and Greek, and as my main interest in life is philosophy, have a life long interest and study of theology, as well.
Though I do not believe in a God, I have great respect for those who do, because they at least believe in absolute principles and know there is something worth revering in this world, and on that we agree.
With that I’ll conclude my discussion with you, my friend. My your beliefs provide you all the strength and inspiration you look for in it.
Hank
Morality can be both transcendent as well as adaptive, or somewhat experimental. Laws are partly a reflection of an age and a manner world view, but such often are a valid adaptation of laws of a transcendent source, while sometimes being a rejection of such in social experimentation.
But as for the Bible, some laws therein are indeed culturally applied, and others ceremonial, but its basic *moral* laws are universally applicable, and have indeed remained unchanged. See http://homosexvsthebible.wikia.com/wiki/Leviticus_18
And moral laws in America overall have historically had a strong derivative foundation therein. What is a matter of social consensus is whether, or to what degree, a society will assent to such, including by adaptation.
For effects of the ever-morphing morality of liberalism’s rebellion against basic Christian morality, see, http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html
Thank you for your charitable response, and may you find the Author of life and law.
Consider yourself highly commended.
Cheers!
Hmmm, that's interesting.
Because you are not just commenting -- it is manifestly NEGATIVE ("atrocities") and ("evil is evil") from Post #15.
Perhaps the style of Old Testament atrocities were different, but in my book, evil is evil.
Only you are making a comparisons between religions. I’m just pointing out the source of some bad ideas. Most of the Koran is stolen from or corruptions of Biblical teaching.
The crux of the argument comes down to the following questions:
1) Is it morally right, or can it ever by morally right, for God to kill people?
(If not, then everything else is moot.)
2) Can God "deputize" people, either individually, corporately, or within a recognized "group", to do such killing on his behalf?
3) Was this a "one-time-only" license, a general license forever to that group, or a limited license for a particular epoch and geographical area?
4) Even IF all of the above are in principle true, does this mean the stories in the OT are legitimate instances of it, or were the people involved rationalizing their conquests either at the time or after the fact?
5) How does one tell the difference between rationalization and God "really telling you"?
6) If God *did* order it then, how do we distinguish (for contemporary use against 9-11 types) when people are making up such a claim now?
Cheers!
"Very small rocks" /Monty Python>
Cheers!
"The case of the spherical racehorse is very interesting," said the Physicist.
Meanwhile, back in the real world...
I'll be happy to arrange to deport you to your own desert island without any facilities made in any way by any other person or group, so you can put this thesis to the test.
Cheers!
The case in which the best sheep and livestock were spared was in direct contradiction of the prophet's orders.
Cheers!
And that helps the "disease" hypothesis proposed by null and void... how?
It doesn't. It just shows that in your quote in post #90, you don't know what you're talking about.
So let me get this right: the soldiers basically physically killed the supposedly “diseased” people - including the children and infants, then went on to round up the animals - both “diseased” and “healthy” - together, and separated them much later, to select the “healthy” ones for sacrifice.
Cheers!
The crux of the argument comes down to the following questions:
1) Is it morally right, or can it ever by morally right, for God to kill people?
(If not, then everything else is moot.)
2) Can God "deputize" people, either individually, corporately, or within a recognized "group", to do such killing on his behalf?
3) Was this a "one-time-only" license, a general license forever to that group, or a limited license for a particular epoch and geographical area?
4) Even IF all of the above are in principle true, does this mean the stories in the OT are legitimate instances of it, or were the people involved rationalizing their conquests either at the time or after the fact?
5) How does one tell the difference between rationalization and God "really telling you"?
6) If God *did* order it then, how do we distinguish (for contemporary use against 9-11 types) when people are making up such a claim now?
For the most part, if not all, this is a fair and reasonable summerisation of the entire argument. The highlighted points are the major issues of contention, and they thoroughly contradict the Golden Rule.
Oh, that was the picture I got from what null and void was attempting to describe.
I composed that purely to test his "diseased animals" hypothesis / argument. Don't read any more into it, than that. I think null and void addressed the deficiencies of my replies satisfactorily in his later posts, if you had made the effort to follow up. After all the inconsistencies in my replies were eliminated by null and void, I placed a final hurdle that has been, so far, unsurpassed, thus leading to the end of that "theory" that the animals were killed because they were diseased, and not to satisfy the whims of a primitive deity / people.
And that helps the “it never happened” hypothesis proposed by James C. Bennett... how?
I find the way you square-dance onto other threads with line and snare, when the arguments made by you or your cohorts have been thoroughly vanquished, as a confirmation of the same. Imagine me putting up another well-won trophy on the shelf.
You've played this pathetic game before, and you're doing it again, now.
The Golden Rule, as always, wins. Tribal, Stone Age barbarism continues to get relegated to the dust-bins for lack of any ethical or moral value, as a result of the same.
That said, I've confronted more fanatical Muslims in all my travels around the world, including in Britain, Australia, the Middle East, the Subcontinent, the United States, East Asia and Canada, with a greater passion than I'd care for you to know about, or acknowledge. You, to put it succinctly, just don't matter.
Nice try playing this game, but as usual, reveals your weak and effeminate "tactics".
PS: What ever happened to your reply to me in that thread on laser-based weapons that your arrogance found itself painting you into a corner? Want to delve into it again... you know, to baffle me with your "brilliance"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.