|
|
Post by pim on Nov 2, 2012 18:14:04 GMT 10
Which I've read many times - all three of the trilogy. In fact I used to read it all again every five or so years. I also read the "Silmarillion" but it started to pall. Tried too hard to be a Middle Earth answer to the Book of Genesis.
I enjoyed The Hobbit. I've read it many times. I've taught it too, to Year 7s. They'd enjoy making diaramas of Mirkwood Forest with the spiders and Bilbo facing them with his sword "Sting". I also saw a French translation of The Hobbit in Geneva - Le Hobbit. I bought it and read it. It was a good translation and it worked. Not all translations do ...
In Le Seigneur des Anneaux, or "Lord of the Rings", Frodo is called "Frodon". Vairy Fransh. I mention the French translation because to me Tolkien's prose style is among the finest English I've read. I read it for the language and I loved allowing the language to sweep me along. That's the English version. I wanted to see if Tolkien's prose style lent itself to a foreign linguistic register or whether it only works in English. Shakespeare, for instance, in my view should only be experienced in English. I'd hate to see a play by Shakespeare in another language. I mean, in the Dutch version of Hamlet his father's ghost calls himself "de spook van je pa". Hard to take seriously! But Tolkien on the other hand translates well into other languages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2012 12:16:58 GMT 10
Im surprised at your comparison Buzzo.
Can you find any archaelogical or historical backup for Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter or Star Wars?
Have any of these works been so profound as to make 2 billion people on this planet take them as their fundamental belief system?
Must say buzzo not at all impressed by your comparison.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2012 15:13:35 GMT 10
Im surprised at your comparison Buzzo. Can you find any archaelogical or historical backup for Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter or Star Wars? Have any of these works been so profound as to make 2 billion people on this planet take them as their fundamental belief system? Must say buzzo not at all impressed by your comparison. "Something doesn't have to be true to be believed." Christianity is not about blind faith but reasonable faith. The Apostle Paul tells people to test things. You did say you attended Bible college didn't you? Did you sleep through it? If Christianity were not true of course it would be idiotic to believe it, our angle is that it is true. |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 3, 2012 15:57:55 GMT 10
Frodo and Bilbo Baggins went into the West with Gandalf and the Elves. Arwen stayed though. She wanted to be with Aragorn. Aragorn became the King. So if you believe it, it must be true. Its in an old book Snoopy has developed a religion based on an expectation that one day the Great Pumpkin will arrive, and the purpose of existence is to prepare for its arrival ...  It's in an old comic strip, so it must be true ...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2012 16:04:18 GMT 10
It is about blind faith. Show me one historian or writer from the first century who mentions Jesus or any part of that story. You can't because there aren't any. Two were there the whole time and never mention a word of Jesus or the story. OK from source - www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html
The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44)
from same source -
Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”
Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).
Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.
The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.
There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 4, 2012 8:50:05 GMT 10
There's a few problems with your analogy, Buzz.
1. Tolkien made no claims of the book being true.
2. LotR only had 1 author, in one language, in one lifetime, on one continent.
3. LotR contains no fulfilled messianic prophecies.
4. There is no historical record supporting the existence of a hobbits, much less one named "Frodo Baggins."
5. The Bible isn't one book. They are 66 books, written by 40 different men.
6. No one has ever changed their life, as a result of reading the Hobbit.
7. No archeologist or historian has ever used the LotR as a geographical guideline for digs and surveys. (They have depended on the accuracy of the Bible)
8. The Bible has archeological evidence supporting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 4, 2012 8:54:44 GMT 10
It is about blind faith. Show me one historian or writer from the first century who mentions Jesus or any part of that story. You can't because there aren't any. . You mean aside from the NT itself, which you dismiss solely on anti-religious bias? You haven't quite explained why there is a requirement for a 1st century historian, since most events recorded by historians were political in nature. I see no reason for your belief that Jesus ought to be mentioned. To the Romans (until 325 AD), Jesus was nothing more than a Jewish heretic. "The thesis that Jesus never existed has hovered around the fringes of research into the New Testament for at least a century but it has never been accepted as a mainstream theory. This is for good reason. It is simply a bad hypothesis based on arguments from silence, special pleading, and an awful lot of wishful thinking. It is ironic that certain atheists will buy into this idea and leave all their pretensions of critical thinking behind." James Hannam, "Is Jesus Christ a Myth?" (Part One), Patheos, 2010, para. 1 "Scholarship, like everything else, is subject to fashion, and it was the fashion, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, for some to deny that Jesus existed. No serious scholar holds that view now, and it is hard to see how it ever took hold, for the evidence of Jesus's existence is abundant." Paul Johnson, Jesus: A 21st Century Biography, New York: Viking, 2010, Introduction |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2012 15:24:45 GMT 10
There is no archaeological back up to the Bible at all. In fact the archaeological finds disprove what is written in the Bible.  Sorry Buzzo but that is an astonishing claim - Please consider - www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.htmlHere are some examples:
Clay Tablet, Ebla. Photo copyrighted.The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan†was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deepâ€) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom†was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.
It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom†(Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness†nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology. from www.gotquestions.org/biblical-archaeology.htmlTel Dan Inscription: This stone tablet contains an inscription that is the first reference to the Davidic dynasty outside of the Bible. It was erected by Hazael, king of Aram, which is present-day Syria. The inscription makes reference to a military victory and corresponds to the biblical account in 2 Chronicles 22. This inscription dates to the 9th century B.C., thus giving us accurate dating to the Davidic dynasty as well verifying its existence. This is the only extra-biblical reference to the House of David that has been discovered to date.
Ketef Hinnom Amulets: In 1979, two silver scrolls that were worn as amulets were found in a tomb at Ketef Hinnom, overlooking the Hinnom Valley, where they had been placed around the 7th century B.C. The delicate process of unrolling the scrolls while developing a method that would prevent them from disintegrating took three years. Brief as they are, the amulets rank as the oldest surviving texts from the Hebrew Bible. Upon unrolling the amulets, biblical archeologists found two inscriptions of significance. One is a temple priest blessing from the book of Numbers: “The Lord bless you and protect you. The Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you. The Lord lift up his countenance to you and give you peace†(Numbers 6:24-26). The other is the tetragrammaton YHWH, the name of the Lord, from which we get the English Jehovah. The amulets predate the Dead Sea Scrolls by 500 years and are the oldest known example of the Lord’s name in writing.
House of God Ostracon: Ostraca—writings on pottery—are common finds in archeological digs. The House of God Ostracon was found in Arad, a Canaanite city in the Negev. Over 100 pieces of ostraca were found and have been dated to the early part of the 6th Century BC. Of significance are the references to the temple in Jerusalem and to names of people that are recorded in Scripture. This not only helps to date the temple, but it verifies the existence of people listed in the biblical text.
Pilate Inscription: This stone tablet was found in Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast. The tablet was found in the theater of Caesarea and bears an inscription mentioning the name of Pontius Pilate the procurator of Judea, and the Tiberium, which was an edifice built in honor of the Emperor Tiberius by Pilate. There has been much written to discredit the biblical narrative in regard to the existence of Pilate; this tablet clearly says that it was from "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea" and verifies that he was a person that lived during the time of Jesus, exactly as written in the biblical narrative.
from www.allabouttruth.org/is-the-bible-true-c-2.htmIn Josh McDowell's classic treatise on the historical evidences supporting the Bible's veracity, renowned archaeologist Nelson Glueck is quoted as saying, "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." (McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Here's Life Publishers Inc., 1979, p. 65.)
Is the Bible True? - The Authors
Is the Bible true? Consider the integrity of the Bible's authors -- men who claimed to be inspired by God. Take for example Luke, who authored approximately one-quarter of the entire New Testament. Luke is regarded as an authoritative historian -- one of the greatest of antiquity. Dr. John McRay, Professor of New Testament and Archaeology at Wheaton University in Illinois, explains, "The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as a historian. He's erudite, he's eloquent, his Greek approaches classical quality, he writes as an educated man, and archaeological discoveries are showing over and over again that Luke is accurate in what he has to say." (John McRay, quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Zondervan, 1998, p. 129.)
Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archaeologists of modern times, declared, "Luke is a historian of the first rank." (Sir William Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915, p. 222.) www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htmThe noted Jewish archeologist Nelson Glueck summed it up very well:
It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible1.
When compared against secular accounts of history, the Bible always demonstrates amazing superiority. The noted biblical scholar R.D. Wilson, who was fluent in 45 ancient languages and dialects, meticulously analyzed 29 kings from 10 different nations, each of which had corroborating archeological artifacts. Each king was mentioned in the Bible as well as documented by secular historians, thus offering a means of comparison. Wilson showed that the names as recorded in the Bible matched the artifacts perfectly, down to the last jot and tittle! The Bible was also completely accurate in its chronological order of the kings. On the other hand, Wilson showed that the secular accounts were often inaccurate and unreliable. Famous historians such as the Librarian of Alexandria, Ptolemy, and Herodotus failed to document the names correctly, almost always misspelling their names. In many cases the names were barely recognizable when compared to its respective artifact or monument, and sometimes required other evidence to extrapolate the reference.
Discoveries ranging from evidence for the Tower of Babel, to Exodus, to the Walls of Jericho, all the way to the tombs of contemporaries of St. Paul, have greatly enhanced the believability of the Bible. Though this vast archeological evidence does not prove God wrote the Bible, it surely must compel the honest skeptic to at least acknowledge its historical veracity. For the believer its yet another reassuring testimony to the reliability of the Bible. In the words of the University of Yale archeologist Millar Burrows:
...Archeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archeologist has found respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine.
Buzzo Your statement "There is no archaeological back up to the Bible at all." is so categorically wrong and simply astonishing against the backdrop of scholarship on the matter. |
|
