|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 28, 2017 21:03:43 GMT -5
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jul 29, 2017 10:19:19 GMT -5
original article www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(17)30276-8 Biblical literalists aside, - - Why would anyone be surprised that the bible is incorrect about anything? Why would anyone think it even possible for one ancient group to completely exterminate another? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 12:00:55 GMT -5
And the point of this thread is.....? Oh, wait, I get it. Who cares about one FACTS poster less. Sure. But I suppose it's only fair to diss religion when we also diss astrology. So, same difference, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jul 29, 2017 12:59:28 GMT -5
I neither intend nor see any "dissing" of religion here.
The Bible is not a history or science book, and much of what it says is wrong. The opening stories - creation in seven days, the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, Noah's flood, the Tower of Babel, and so on - are mythology, not historical or scientific accounts of what happened. But that does not diminish the Bible's value as religious scripture, which helps us to understand who we are and our place in the universe, and provides the moral foundation for western civilization.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 16:10:05 GMT -5
What is the point of these "hit and run" posts with no commentary if not to essentially say "here you are you dumb ass believers". I don't see any other purpose except for that. And it pisses me off!!!!
And by the way, the majority of humans outside of Africa have a portion of Neanderthal in their DNA and Neanderthals were killed off. But apparently not, because according to what Bob apparently believes, they are alive and well all over the planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jul 29, 2017 16:46:53 GMT -5
Yes, Bob does like to post link without any comment of his own. Annoying. I don't know if he's saying "this is interesting" or "what a load of rubbish."
Yes, many people carry about 3 or 4 percent (whatever the figure is) Neanderthal dna, but the species is otherwise extinct (as far as we know). Where did Bob say otherwise?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 19:00:02 GMT -5
Okay, let's take this passage from Bob's article:
Okay, that's apparently what God requested. But is that what actually happened? Do we have a biblical scholar somewhere in our audience? Anyone? Well, seems not.
So, okay, shall we assume that the Israelites did exterminate every Canaanite? Would anyone mind if we supposed that? No? Okay, I shall continue. Well, what if Canaanite DNA was already mixed in with some other ethnicity and therefore Canaanite DNA did continue, just as even if those Neanderthals became extinct their DNA was beforehand mixed in with Human DNA.
However, it's not been proven that the Israelites exterminated every Canaanite as God requested as written in the Bible and so therefore saying the Bible was wrong because Canaanite DNA still exists is not correct. Not at all. That's why these kind of articles expected to be taken totally true and accurate on a forum that is supposed to have us use critical thinking, pisses me off.
So, therefore, Bob's question in his subject line asking if the Bible can be wrong, I'd answer yes, or at least not in the way we understand a lot of what it says compared to a scientific explanation. However, has it been proven in this case that the Bible was wrong? My answer would be no.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 29, 2017 20:54:34 GMT -5
Yes, Bob does like to post link without any comment of his own. Annoying. I don't know if he's saying "this is interesting" or "what a load of rubbish." Yes, many people carry about 3 or 4 percent (whatever the figure is) Neanderthal dna, but the species is otherwise extinct (as far as we know). Where did Bob say otherwise? I post articles that I think are interesting for discussion. And we got a good discussion going on this one, didn't we? Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 29, 2017 20:58:09 GMT -5
Okay, let's take this passage from Bob's article: Okay, that's apparently what God requested. But is that what actually happened? Do we have a biblical scholar somewhere in our audience? Anyone? Well, seems not. So, okay, shall we assume that the Israelites did exterminate every Canaanite? Would anyone mind if we supposed that? No? Okay, I shall continue. Well, what if Canaanite DNA was already mixed in with some other ethnicity and therefore Canaanite DNA did continue, just as even if those Neanderthals became extinct their DNA was beforehand mixed in with Human DNA. However, it's not been proven that the Israelites exterminated every Canaanite as God requested as written in the Bible and so therefore saying the Bible was wrong because Canaanite DNA still exists is not correct. Not at all. That's why these kind of articles expected to be taken totally true and accurate on a forum that is supposed to have us use critical thinking, pisses me off. So, therefore, Bob's question in his subject line asking if the Bible can be wrong, I'd answer yes, or at least not in the way we understand a lot of what it says compared to a scientific explanation. However, has it been proven in this case that the Bible was wrong? My answer would be no. About 3 to 4% of modern human dna is from Neanderthals. The article says that 90% of modern Leabonese dna is from ancient Canaan. The two cases are not the same. Not even close. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 21:27:17 GMT -5
The point was not about the percentage of DNA that gets passed along. The point was why they get passed along in certain cases where populations co-mingle. However in the case in question, the Canaanites were not proven to have been totally exterminated so DNA proved to be superfluous to the argument. I was using it as an argument if one believed that the Canaanites were almost totally exterminated except for a certain number and/or population that contained that DNA.
Who's on first?
I hope this explanation suffices because I'm not intending to spend another minute on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 29, 2017 22:12:20 GMT -5
The point was not about the percentage of DNA that gets passed along. The point was why they get passed along in certain cases where populations co-mingle. However in the case in question, the Canaanites were not proven to have been totally exterminated so DNA proved to be superfluous to the argument. I was using it as an argument if one believed that the Canaanites were almost totally exterminated except for a certain number and/or population that contained that DNA. Who's on first? I hope this explanation suffices because I'm not intending to spend another minute on it. Yes it is about the percentage of dna. Since 90% of the dna of the present population is Canaanite dna, it is quite apparent that the vast majority of ancient Canaanites survived. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 22:41:51 GMT -5
Explain why it would have to be the vast majority. And remember, this would have happened several thousand years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jul 30, 2017 14:07:50 GMT -5
Regarding the assertion from bible.org/article/canaanites-genocide-or-judgment that God was speaking in hyperbole, and didn't really mean it when he told the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child - - - The Bibles that we read today are translations of ancient languages. Sometimes they are translations of older translations, but they are never from the original document from the hand of the original writer, and they are always from versions that have been rewritten and redacted and edited many times over the centuries. So it is certainly possible what the Bible says in English, and how we understand what it says today, is different from what was originally written and how ancient people would have understood it, and it is all but certain that errors have crept into the text over time. But these passages, where God seems to command genocide, have been rendered to English in the same way for centuries. So if they were originally not understood literally, if they originally were some sort of colloquial expressions, or if it was understood at the time that people just talked that way in certain situations, then the translators have all missed that crucial detail since at least as far back as the Geneva Bible (the oldest version I have). Still, maybe this interpretation is correct. But I would need to hear it from several respected scholars publishing articles in reputable journals before I could consider believing it. For now, I will file this away as an interesting idea that needs more support. As I said in a earlier post, the bible is not a history book (although it does have historical elements). It doesn’t matter what someone wrote 3000 years ago. It doesn’t matter whether God really mean to exterminate the enemy or just expel them from the area. It doesn't matter whether or not Jonah was eaten by a big fish and later escaped unharmed. It doesn't matter whether or not Joshua destroyed Jericho by blowing trumpets. It doesn't matter whether or not the Garden of Eden or the Tower of Babel ever really existed. Because it's not a history book. We read the Bible for the lessons it teaches us about who and what we are, how we should live, and our place in the universe. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jul 30, 2017 21:32:58 GMT -5
Explain why it would have to be the vast majority. And remember, this would have happened several thousand years ago. 90% of the ancestry is from ancient Canaanites. 90% qualifies as a vast majority. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2017 22:14:42 GMT -5
No. The 90% was not about how many Canaanites survived, it was about that 90% of Canaanite DNA survived. And I explained how that could happen with only a few Canaanites surviving the requested extermination.
DNA, People. Not the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Aug 1, 2017 17:26:16 GMT -5
>Do we have a biblical scholar somewhere in our audience? Anyone?
Well, I'm not a Biblical expert, but I play one on TV. 8->
Actually, God promised ALL the land of Canaan to the Hebrews and told them to kill all the men, women, children and animals who already lived there. But the Hebrews disobeyed God (which should not have been a surprise to a deity that knows everything, right?), and so in return God broke his promise and told the Hebrews that they couldn't have all the land in the original promise. So the Hebrews only killed off most of the Canaanites, not all of them. At least that's the story in the Bible.
Archaeologically speaking, the Hebrews didn't come from Egypt - they came from the hill country in eastern Israel and invaded the coastal areas. And then later there were all those invasions by Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, etc. So genetically, modern Jews, Syrians, Palestinians, etc., are all pretty much the same people.
|
|
