Making Covenants

[Dr Exiled]

Why on earth would you want to discuss with atheists and agnostics about covenant keeping with an invisible god?

I’m hoping that there are others here in addition to atheists and agnostics who might find the topics I’m interested in also interesting to them. And that they might engage. kairos and msnobody recently engaged a bit.

There may be others that might be willing to come out of the woodwork. But until then those folks can observe and appreciate the varying points of view being discussed. Rather than only seeing one point of view from the vantage point of skeptic/unbeliever.

Folks can be a bit intimidated when the majority view of the critics and unbelievers is the only one that the echo chamber throws around. But those folks are listening in. They can decide who is truthful or not. And who knows, they may join in in greater numbers.

Regards,
MG

Sure, whatever you say. You're posts say otherwise, but whatever.

[huckelberry]

MG meanders some and makes some generalized statement and a whole posse comes after him in attack mode.He dodges deflects and hopes to survive and any hope of a conversation on the subject matter drowns.He is close to being the only representative of a point of view of significance to this board (an actual Mormon believer).One could wish he wouldn't get tangled up but I see little point in the gang attack.

You're a better man than I, Huck.

better? probably not.

With my comment I was still hoping for a bit more exchange on the subject so attempted a gentle push. MG's opening proposal and subject was met by simple but genuine counter observations by several people. MG blew those off simply by calling those reasonable views superficial which is both condescending and empty. It is understandable that people would be put off by that. MG is hardly guiltless for the merry go round of personal complaints that replaced discussion of the subject.

[Gadianton]

On the actual topic of covenants, tell me if my understanding is correct, or if Muhlestein knows more than I do about how covenants work. I created this graphic to explain:

[drumdude]

For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

6 And as pertaining to the anew and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

[MG 2.0]

In the case of Abraham we have conflicting narratives preserved in texts that are widely viewed as mythology. And we have no other evidence for his existence outside of those myths.

You are right in saying that through the fog of history there is very little direct physical evidence of the patriarch Abram/Abraham.

May I post a few quotes that might at least open up possibilities?

But what are we to say to those who argue the Biblical archeological record is incomplete? The answer is best delivered by another expert witness in the field, Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, historian and Professor Emeritus at Miami University. Yamauchi wrote a book entitled, The Stones and the Scripture, where he rightly noted that archaeological evidence is a matter of “fractions”:

Only a fraction of the world’s archaeological evidence still survives in the ground.

Only a fraction of the possible archaeological sites have been discovered.

Only a fraction have been excavated, and those only partially.

Only a fraction of those partial excavations have been thoroughly examined and published.

Only a fraction of what has been examined and published has anything to do with the claims of the Bible!

Old Testament scholar James Hoffmeier (who specializes in issues of Old Testament historicity and archaeology) says:

As a field archaeologist myself, I am keenly aware of how little has actually survived from the ancient past, owing to natural forces, such as moisture in many forms, deflation, and earthquakes, as well as human impact in the form of later occupation (in ancient times), reusing earlier building materials, human destruction (war and burning), and modern development (urban and agricultural). Realistic expectations about what archaeology can and cannot do for biblical studies must always be kept in mind.

the Archaeological Study Bible says this:

No mention of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel) has been found in extrabiblical documents from their era (c. 1950-1550 B.C.), nor should we expect to find such references. Living as nomads on the fringes of populated areas, the patriachs wandered between the great empires of Mesopotamia and Egypt, and their activities would have been insignificant to scribes and annalists of that period. The Biblical narratives, which from their side make few references to political events of those times, are nevertheless historical, not myth or fiction. Biblical writers simply selected material appropriate to their theological objectives.

There are various reasons (above and beyond basic faith commitments) for us to acccept the Biblical accounts as historically reliable, among them:

Because writing systems were in use by the third millenium B.C, it is unnecessary to assume that a long period of oral transmission existed between the events themselves and their documentation in written records. People of the late third millenium and the early second millenium B.C. maintained written records and did not depend on memory for matters they condisered to be important. The events of the patriarchal period may have been recorded soon after their occurrence in texts that the Biblical writers later utilized as sources.

Names similar to Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram/Abraham (Gen 11) and Jacob (ch. 25) appear in documents of the first half Old Testament he second millenium B.C., showing that these names were common during that period. The names of kings mentioned in Genesis 14 are difficult to account for, but the evidence does collaborate the story itself.

Apparently some locations mentioned in the patriarchal narrative were sparsely inhabited during the time of the patriarchs and thus are difficult to account for archaeologically. Other locations, however, had larger populations and are known from archaeology and/or texts contemporary to the lives of the patriarchs. There is strong evidence, for example, related to the location of the cities of the plain.

The patriarchs’ travel is not to be regarded as improbable. Texts from Ebla (c. 2300 B.C.) and Cappadocia (C. 2000 B.C.) indicate that travel, commerce and trade regularly occurred throughout the ancient Near East.

Hurrian family law, in force in Haran (see chs. 12; 24) and Nuzi, shed light on some of the activities of Abraham’s family that might otherwise perplex us. Another parallel has been found in a letter from Larsa (an ancient Summerian city on the Euphrates River), indicating that a childless man could indeed adopt his slave as his heir (see 15:2).

The patriarchal stories faithfully reflect customs that were not practiced and institutions that did not exist during later periods, some of which were even prohibited under the religious norms of later Israel. For example, marriage to a half sister (cf. Lev 18:9) or to tow sisters simultaneously (cf. Lev 18:18) was permissible during patriarchal times but forbidden in later Israelite society. This fact argues against the idea claimed by some critics that these stories were invented during the period of the Israelite monarchy.

Thus, various contemporary Near Eastern sources lend support to the historicity of the Genesis narrative.

All three quote sources are from:

https://cyberpenance.wordpress.com/2019 ... r-abraham/

My point in cut and pasting some references dealing with Abraham are simply to make the point that, as I said, the jury is out on Abraham as a historical figure. As we look through the fog of history we can, believer and disbeliever alike, find information and evidence that supports our point of view and presuppositions.

The critics, of course, would like to make a slam dunk in regards to the non existence of an Old Testament Patriarch named Abram/Abraham. In effect they can then discount everything that came after in regards to the Abrahamic Covenant and that covenantal relationship that Latter Day Saints claim to have with deity. Obviously it’s a big deal.

My response to critics is simply…not so fast. There are reasons to look at the historical Abraham as being a distinct possibility.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

There are reasons to look at the historical Abraham as being a distinct possibility.

There are reasons to believe the earth is flat as being a distinct possibility.

[malkie]

There are reasons to look at the historical Abraham as being a distinct possibility.

There are reasons to believe the earth is flat as being a distinct possibility.

Highly probable, too - right?

[drumdude]

There are reasons to believe the earth is flat as being a distinct possibility.

Highly probable, too - right?

As probable as a historical Abraham.

[huckelberry]

There are reasons to believe the earth is flat as being a distinct possibility.

Highly probable, too - right?

I am confused. The probability that the earth is flat is zero. Abraham is an old story and sometimes old stories refer to real people though not always. I do not know probability for Abraham but it would be a bit better than zero.

[MG 2.0]

There are reasons to look at the historical Abraham as being a distinct possibility.

There are reasons to believe the earth is flat as being a distinct possibility.

Your response causes me to think that you simply blew off my post.

Regards,
MG