Is God...sexist?

[D-D-W]

Without ketubah

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/465168/jewish/The-Jewish-Marriage-Contract-Ketubah.htm

The Ketubah (marriage contract - the word literally means writing) was not in existence during most (if not all) of the OT time period, and especially not during Abraham's day. The earliest known surviving ketubah is from the 400s bc while Abraham was about 2000 bc. There seemed to be predecessors in Babylon during the captivity, but no examples survived.

Everything You Need to Know About the Ketubah Signing

The ketubah is a Jewish marriage contract that couples sign before Jewish weddings. If you're planning on partaking in this important ritual, we asked Rabbi Sarah Newmark to address some of the most frequently asked questions. Learn everything to know about the Ketubah signing here.

www.brides.com

 

[stovebolts]

The Ketubah (marriage contract - the word literally means writing) was not in existence during most (if not all) of the OT time period, and especially not during Abraham's day. The earliest known surviving ketubah is from the 400s bc while Abraham was about 2000 bc. There seemed to be predecessors in Babylon during the captivity, but no examples survived.

Everything You Need to Know About the Ketubah Signing

The ketubah is a Jewish marriage contract that couples sign before Jewish weddings. If you're planning on partaking in this important ritual, we asked Rabbi Sarah Newmark to address some of the most frequently asked questions. Learn everything to know about the Ketubah signing here.

www.brides.com

That’s very interesting and thanks for bringing that up. I have a great book on ancient Israel and will need to look into that a bit deeper today if there is anything on this subject. I’ll get back with you on my findings.

In the meantime, I found this on Chabad.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/465162/jewish/The-Jewish-Marriage-Ceremony.htm

Before the revelation (at Sinai), a man would meet a woman on the street and if both desired marriage, he would bring her into his home and have intercourse privately [without the testimony of witnesses] and she would become his wife. When the Torah was given, the Jews were instructed that in order to marry a woman, the man should "acquire her" in the presence of witnesses and then she would become his wife.

 

[T. E. Smith]

The Ketubah (marriage contract - the word literally means writing) was not in existence during most (if not all) of the OT time period, and especially not during Abraham's day. The earliest known surviving ketubah is from the 400s bc while Abraham was about 2000 bc. There seemed to be predecessors in Babylon during the captivity, but no examples survived.

Everything You Need to Know About the Ketubah Signing

The ketubah is a Jewish marriage contract that couples sign before Jewish weddings. If you're planning on partaking in this important ritual, we asked Rabbi Sarah Newmark to address some of the most frequently asked questions. Learn everything to know about the Ketubah signing here.

www.brides.com

Yes, although the Torah is generally dated 539-333 BCE by modern scholars so the time period could fit.

 

[jasonc]

My mom has my grandparents ketubah .it's written in Aramaic .the chuppah!

 

[D-D-W]

Yes, although the Torah is generally dated 539-333 BCE by modern scholars so the time period could fit.

"Modern" scholarship has been absolutely atrocious. It put the book of Isaiah as first century ad until the Dead Sea Scrolls were carbon dated and the Isaiah scroll fragments there were dated back to the 200s bc.

I put the 5 books of Moses at circa 1500 bc.

 

[T. E. Smith]

"Modern" scholarship has been absolutely atrocious. It put the book of Isaiah as first century ad until the Dead Sea Scrolls were carbon dated and the Isaiah scroll fragments there were dated back to the 200s bc.

I put the 5 books of Moses at circa 1500 bc.

Yes, scholarship improves over time and corrects errors. 1500 B.C. is even further off than modern scholarship was with Isaiah in the past.

 

[T. E. Smith]

"Modern" scholarship has been absolutely atrocious. It put the book of Isaiah as first century ad until the Dead Sea Scrolls were carbon dated and the Isaiah scroll fragments there were dated back to the 200s bc.

I put the 5 books of Moses at circa 1500 bc.

Also I love how many conservative Biblicists selectively trust carbon dating in cases like these while rejecting carbon dating that shows that the earth is older than 6-10,000 years.

 

[christian1724]

Also I love how many conservative Biblicists selectively trust carbon dating in cases like these while rejecting carbon dating that shows that the earth is older than 6-10,000 years.

Is carbon dating valid in a world with different conditions? How would the great flood effect it?

 

[T. E. Smith]

Is carbon dating valid in a world with different conditions? How would the great flood effect it?

Pure conjecture. Not a shred of scientific evidence supports this idea.

 

[christian1724]

Pure conjecture. Not a shred of scientific evidence supports this idea.

Actually it is scientific observation. Do you have scientific evidence to suggest otherwise?

Carbon dating, unfortunately for your position, requires either a predictable, relatively steady world environment or detailed knowledge of the past catastrophes of this world in order to adjust its results.

Is it really 'pure conjecture' or just an unexpected actuality to be dealt with?

What is it that you are hoping to accomplish in your time here?

 

[eddif]

When we see a shadow streak across an area, we may think bird.
We go get a camera to get a picture.

What do we photograph?
The shadow?
The bird?

When we examine creation we are examining a shadow of things to come.

Oh no you say. It is reality!
What we really should be looking at is the nature of God. Romans 1:20

God wants a people / sons / offspring? To know Him.

There are pains in accomplishing this. God himself suffered.

We are made in his image. We are a shadow. We will be changed into the reality.

eddif

 

[Randy]

Just a clarification question. Is it OK to assume that you really seek to know "Does God Discriminate?" and if so "Is it Evil for God to Discriminate?" (based on gender, race, sexual orientation, kind...whatever)

God created Male and Female in the beginning and forms the spirit of man within him. Every living soul belongs to Him.
No one loves more than the Father and no fault can be found in Him. His faithfulness endures forever. God does not do evil. He gives His Spirit to His Sons and Daughters. So why are you, who know evil, looking for fault in Him, that has no evil?

 

[stovebolts]

Also I love how many conservative Biblicists selectively trust carbon dating in cases like these while rejecting carbon dating that shows that the earth is older than 6-10,000 years.

On paper, carbon dating is only good to about 60,000 years assuming it decays at a constant rate.
The half life of c-14 is about 5600 years if memory serves me. We trust carbon dating in some situations because there are historical markers that affirm their dates.

The further back in history you go, the more unreliable carbon dating is because it assumes a constant decay rate and we know, and it has been proven that there are events that can skew the decay rate including contamination.

Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination?

Internet posts continue to accuse the RATE team of ignoring clear evidence of contamination. But is this really the case?

answersingenesis.org

 

[T. E. Smith]

On paper, carbon dating is only good to about 60,000 years assuming it decays at a constant rate.
The half life of c-14 is about 5600 years if memory serves me. We trust carbon dating in some situations because there are historical markers that affirm their dates.

The further back in history you go, the more unreliable carbon dating is because it assumes a constant decay rate and we know, and it has been proven that there are events that can skew the decay rate including contamination.

Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination?

Internet posts continue to accuse the RATE team of ignoring clear evidence of contamination. But is this really the case?

answersingenesis.org

Yes carbon dating goes back only that far, but more than far enough to refute the young earth narrative. RATE has been refuted many times and was clearly undertaken with theological bias.

 

[T. E. Smith]

christian1724 stovebolts If the biblical flood recorded in the Tanakh were to occur, it would have no effect on the dynamics of the carbon geochronological clock, no adjustments would be required. No carbon would have been added or removed from the carbon cycle. The isotopic ratio of atmospheric carbon, land plants, and marine organisms would be untouched.

Why would we think such a flood would cause massive effects? It would be a brief geological event, leaving only an event bed recording the chaotic conditions during the event. Such an event as this specific one would have to be widespread. The suddenness of the event would have to imply that all fossil material within it would give a single consistent date, within the error of measure. This is the case with ash fall deposits and the K-T boundary.

Half of C14 changes into C12 every 5,730 years. This is true everywhere, no matter what conditions. It's just one of those things that is a property of the element and not any of the conditions it is in. A flood would not change this at all (there have been many floods in the earth's history, though probably not a global one); that is just not how half-life decay works.

Yes, carbon dating cannot go back very far. But U235 to Pb207 or U238 to U234 shows us much older, more helpful dates. Now, OSL dating could be impacted by a flood since it could expose quartz crystals to light. Now here would be conclusive evidence of a global flood: a worldwide layer of crystals each having an OSL dating of about 6,000 years ago. Needless to say, such a thing would cause a revolution in geological science, but we don't have anything like it.

 

[D-D-W]

I would submit that the basic laws of physics underwent a change at a certain point. And that point is the fall of Adam in the garden. As Paul wrote:

Romans 8: 20
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

IT sounds like the laws of thermodynamics (specifically the inability of entropy/corruption to decrease) was changed by God Himself. So how that affects carbon dating is a guess. But radioactive breakdown is part of entropy increasing.

 

[T. E. Smith]

I would submit that the basic laws of physics underwent a change at a certain point. And that point is the fall of Adam in the garden. As Paul wrote:

Romans 8: 20
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

IT sounds like the laws of thermodynamics (specifically the inability of entropy/corruption to decrease) was changed by God Himself. So how that affects carbon dating is a guess. But radioactive breakdown is part of entropy increasing.

Paul's statement is not scientific but theological, furthermore we have no date for the Fall.

 

[D-D-W]

Paul's statement is not scientific but theological,

A nice dodge.

furthermore we have no date for the Fall.

True enough. But over the millenia, scholars have worked hard to try and nail that down. According to Jewish calculations, creation happened in the autumn 5782 years ago. That is why Rosh HaShanah (head of the year) happens with the fall feasts rather than in the Spring, where God said was the first of the year. Ex 12.2

 

[stovebolts]

Yes carbon dating goes back only that far, but more than far enough to refute the young earth narrative. RATE has been refuted many times and was clearly undertaken with theological bias.

We don’t have any historical landmarks from 60,000 years that we can compare c-14 with.
Just because something can be refuted does not mean something is right or wrong.

When we go back to argue young earth or old earth, each view is no longer operating in observational science because we don’t have concrete evidence from 60 thousand years ago.

Each view has assumptions. Each view will and should change when those assumptions are dismissed with observational science.

 

[T. E. Smith]

To avoid getting off-topic though, it might be good to post about this age issue in this thread https://christianforums.net/threads/why-im-not-a-ye-creationist.90488/