(April 19, 2017 at 9:37 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:Neo-Scholastic Wrote:When stories are borrowed, they are written to describe events that occurred long before but incorporate factual elements inconsistent with the period described. Unlike this, there is good evidence to suggest that the OT accounts where written within or very close to the events described. First there is a correspondence between names used in the biblical text and naming conventions found in outside contemporary sources. The second reason has to do with the price of goods. The few times prices for goods are given in the bible they also generally correspond with the prices and forms of payment found in outside contemporary sources. I'm sure with a little digging I can find those papers somewhere in my library. I send them to you when I find them. I'm sure you will find them interesting.
An example of a borrowed story is Jaws, based on Moby Dick. It seems like the type of analysis you're proposing would indicate that Jaws is not based on Moby Dick. A borrowed story wouldn't likely be a copy-and-paste, the details would be updated and the elements of the story preserved. That's how borrowing stories works. I think you're getting off the mark because you're assuming that the story being borrowed from actually it happened, when it was likely also fiction.
In Jaws, the basic concept and some of the plot of Moby Dick is used, and Moby Dick itself is based on an actual event. But you're not going to find the connection to Moby Dick based on anachronisms in Jaws.
I agree, but this is still a dodge on his part regardless. It still would not make magic real or babies/men with super powers real. He'd admit that Jesus was Jewish maybe, but still ignore that the Yahweh character is a stolen name from the prior polytheism of the Canaanites where Yahweh was not the head god, but a lesser god under the head GOD "El".
Religion competes just the same way Coke and Pepsi compete. Coke comes out with a cherry flavored soda, not to be outdone Pepsi looks at that, creates its own unique recipe for a cherry soda, calls it something different, even puts out adds comparing it's soda to the Coke products to put Pepsi in a good light. But saying "Coke was the first soda" would still not make it the first beverage humans drank.
But if either Coke or Pepsi started making fantastic claims about how their products could magically make you fly, or when you open them, magically popped out a hot chick, no sane person would buy that. But somehow, when religion makes bullshit fantastic claims, people suddenly don't want to employ the same skepticism.
