OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real

pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real

In discussions with Caposkia on his thread regarding his recommended book (New Atheist Crusaders) we have mutually agreed to open a discussion on the OT discussing reality versus myth for stories in the OT. My position is that the OT is largely myths and legends with little basis in reality. There may be stories that may be considered literature as Rook has suggested though it still incorporates myths and legends as well in my opinion. The intent is to examine major stories and discuss the mythical components versus the interpretations by Christians and Jews that these events were real. Caposkia has indicated in many of his posts that he agrees that some of the stories are reality based and in those areas I'm interested in understanding his reasoning or any other believer for acceptance versus others where he does not consider them to be. It may be there are a few where we may find agreement as to a story being a myth or it being real though my inclination is little more is reality based other than kingdoms existed in Palestine that were called Israel and Judah and they interacted with other nations in some fashion.

Since the basis of Christian beliefs started with creation and the fall of man we'll begin there and attempt to progress through Genesis in some sort of logical order sort of like Sunday School for those of you that went. I’m not particularly concerned about each little bit of belief in these stories but I’m more interested in the mythology aspects. We could for pages argue over original sin or free will but that isn’t even necessary in my opinion as the text discredits itself with blatant assertions and impossibilities. Instead consider for example Eve is created in one version from Adam’s rib which can be directly compared to the Sumerian goddess of the rib called Nin-ti which Ninhursag gave birth to heal the god Enki. Other comparisons can be made to the Sumerian paradise called Dilmun to the Garden of Eden as well. These stories predate the OT by thousands of years and tell the tale of the ancient Annuna gods that supposedly created the world. Visit www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/# for more information and some of the translated stories, click on corpus content by number or category.

In order for salvation through Christ from our supposed sins against the God the events of Genesis must have occurred in some fashion. If the Genesis stories are largely mythical or they are simply a parable then this basis is poorly founded and weakens the entire structure of Christian belief. Caposkia claims I error at square one because I don't acknowledge a spiritual world. I suggest that he and other followers error by accepting that which there is no detectable basis. This is done by interpreting parables and myths by the ancients to be more than inadequate understanding by unknowing people that looked for an answer to why things were in the world they observed.

In Genesis 1 is the supposed creation of the world by God. In this account illogical explanations start immediately with the description of the Earth being without form and darkness was upon it. Light is then created and explained as day and night. Next God molded his creation into better detail by creating Heaven above meaning the sky and waters on the earth. He then caused dry land to appear calling it the Earth and the waters the Seas. On this same day he created vegetation with the requirement that it bring forth after its kind by duplication through seeds. The following day he created the heavenly bodies to divide day from night and to be signs for seasons and for years. He made the great light to rule the day and the lesser light the night as well as all the stars. On the 5th day he created all the life in the seas and air with the requirement they reproduce after their own kind. The 6th day he created all the land animals including man both male and female. The gods in this case made man after their image as male and female in their own likeness. He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth.

Problems start with this account immediately. The Earth according to science is leftover material from the forming of our star, the Sun. This material would have been a glowing mass of molten material. The land in any event would emerge first before water could exist as a liquid upon it due to the extreme heat.  Light would already exist in the form of the Sun which according to current science is not as old as other stars in our galaxy not to mention in the Universe. The account mentions that day and night were made but this is not so except for a local event on the planet. An object not on the Earth would have no such condition or a different form of night and day. The account further errors in claiming the Sun, Moon, and stars were all formed following the creation of the Earth. In theories of planet formulation the star is formed first and planets afterwords. In the case of the moon multiple theories occur though not one where it zapped into the Universe suddenly. The statement that the heavenly bodies were created for signs and seasons is more evidence of a legend. The other planets and stars are purposeful in ways that aid in life existing or continuing to do so on Earth. Jupiter for example is a great big vacuum cleaner sucking into its gravitational field all sorts of debris that could eradicate life on Earth. Is this then a design by the god or just part of the situation that helped to allow life to progress as it did on the Earth? The observation of specific planets or stars in specific areas of the sky is just that, an observation no more and not placed there by a god to indicate the change of seasons.

One can also see some similarity between Genesis 1 and the Egyptian creation myth Ra and the serpent, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/StudTxts/raSerpnt.html . In this myth Ra is the first on the scene and he creates all the creatures himself doing so before he made the wind or the rain. Ra does not create man but the gods he created gave birth to the people of Egypt who multiplied and flourished.

Some Jewish sects as well as Catholic belief allow for evolution to have been the method for creation of life on Earth. This however is in contradiction to Genesis in that all vegetation and animals were to reproduce only after their own kind. If this is so, then evolution is not compatible with the creation story. Simply put the life could not alter and produce different versions not after its kind. Since obvious examples exist for variation in species such as evolution even as simple as fish in caves without eyes or color versus those that are in streams outside there is obvious adaption thus discrediting this part of Genesis as myth.

The creation of man in Genesis 1 also suggests multiple gods as man was created in their likeness male and female thus following Canaanite gods such as Yahweh and his Asherah or Ba'al and Athirat that may be a reflection of an older tradition from either Egypt or Sumer. Genesis 2 on the other hand has a slightly different version from a variant I'll discuss in a later post.

I consider Genesis 1 to be a myth, legend or a parable based on all the problems discussed with basis in ancient stories from Sumer and Egypt. I leave it to Caposkia and other believers to indicate where they accept parts of Genesis 1 as reality and to indicate their reasoning if they do so.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
caposkia wrote:
Several statements in Exodus indicate that Moses wrote certain sections of the book.

Produce the sections and show what the indications are.

If i do this will you produce your research as I've asked?  probably not... either way (don't worry, I know you've given some links)

Ex. 17:14 - God tells Moses to write what is written in the book. (easy to make up though right?)

Ex. 24:4 - "Moses wrote..."

Ex. 334:27 - another command to Moses to write something down

Many other books make reference as I've already presented to Moses' authorship to parts.

As I've already said, you can look it up yourself, but to determine authorship, they also take into consideration writing style, language and verbiage in teh writing.  Everyone has their own style.  They've researched the differences.  

Everything I present to you is likely false according to you, so I think it'd be benificial for you to research that yourself.  It's harder to refute what you discover on your own and it's a dangerous thing for me to say if I'm trying to hide something from you.

 

Those are nothing but observing internal consistency on the part of the author. It has nothing to do with who wrote it or when. The same can be done for the Wizard of Oz and Harry Potter.

Do you truly not understand that evidence can only consist of congruence with archaeology and real history?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
...

...and in ancient times, people didn't waste expensive parchment and years of their lives scribing a fictional story.

Illiad, Odyssey, dozens of plays, Aesop's Fables and stories of gods all come to mind showing they did do what you say they did not. Add to that papyrus was much cheaper. Add to that only rich could read and costs were not that important to them.


You are creating a fantasy around your chosen beliefs.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
...

Again, I take into consideration everything you present and have an open mind to all information given to me.  You have an adjenda.  Is it that I'm gullible and foolish, or is it that what you have to present is not as substantial as you would like it to be.  A gullible person will believe anything.  A foolish person will take everything at face value... which one of us is gullible and foolish?

Two of the important things to take into account are the absence of physical evidence corroborating the story and that all the available archaeological evidence is contrary to the stories.

How do you take that into account other than by believing physical evidence should take second place to stories of magic? And to imagine no one would have written fiction despite massive evidence to the contrary?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
caposkia wrote:
people know their history.  some of it is bloodline, some of it is not.  We would have to sit here and go through each lineage to consider whether that sect is bloodline or not.

Those statements are so detached from reality it is impossible to respond. People are not born with knowledge

That's what you get from that?  People are born with knowledge?  Wow dude. 

Reality is found in history which has provenance and in archaeology. Your claims are unrelated to either.

You claim "people know their history" and I observe people are not born with knowledge. By what means do you suggest "people know their history" when the Septuagint/OT are without provenance? All we know about the Septuagint is the collection appeared in history about the mid 2nd c. BC along with a forgery claiming it was a translation from another source. The Book of Mormon appeared with a sworn affidavit to the existence of the golden plates. The latter has greater provenance.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:

 As I look through the links.  Some issues give rise that we've already covered.  I will reiterate why their basis doesn't hold water.

One link claims the dating of writing is far beyond the actual events and therefore should be taken with caution.  Most of history was written down far beyond the actual events and all of history needs to be taken in the same manner.  This places the Bible in the same category as the rest of history still.

Also, the other link quesitons the numbers (we've talked about how they're exaggerated)

They add that exaggerations suggest a made up story (which must apply to all historical writings with exaggerations... which applies to 99% of history as we know it.. we've covered this as well)

Also, The article is assuming Egypt is meaded out and boardered as clearly as it is today.  We've covered way back that the writers... who are scribing events, probably on notes or fragments themselves are referencing location based on waht they know that day and not neccessarily what was when the events took place.. what is Egypt when the writers compiled the information may not have been at the time.  It may have likely been open territory.  There are no specific references to parts of Egypt other than some unnamed pharohs and temples.  It is well known the history of Egypt to the point that the Biblical accounts could have happened in the Torah.  

I think the biggest thing to take from these links is their assumption of specific boarders as to which there weren't and taht history is written differently than the Bible.  

yea, was able to read the links sooner than I thought I would... If I missed something, let me know.

You are mere expressing your ignorance of what is called history as separate from archaeology. The oldest writings called history are by Herodotus from the mid 5th c. BC. There is nothing older. All the recountings of the histories of ancient civilizations are modern reconstructions by archaeologists and in some cases antiquarians particularly regarding pre 5th c. Greece. What is written about their "history" was not written by them.

But you want us to believe Moses and others were writing history before it was invented by Herodotus. I presume at this point you are going to deny Herodotus invented the writing of history even though that has been a recognized fact since he invented it.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
Your issue was a declaritive sentence that specified 1 god... now that I've given that to you, you're abandoning that and trying another excuse???  What gives?  Are you being serious right now?  I'm trying to keep this thread focused and serious... with the occasional crack at humor for fun.


Can you possibly be so lacking in reading skills that you did not realize the declarative sentence has to be that there is only one god? I find it easier to believe you are playing games than to believe you did not understand the required nature of the sentence.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1576
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Would it almost have to be moderated ?

Quote:
You can show by questioning.  Make them think about why their idea might be wrong rather than telling them it's wrong.

    Please find irony as humorous as I do when those ethical implications were not on the christian nor Theist side, in my case.  Bad information, often it's the Web, unsubstantiated claims paraded as common knowledge, I dont know what to make of. I was not able to deal with it as quickly as I had wanted. In the end, 'if' or 'when' it ends, it may be for the best. Half of the time spent in general helpful instead of coming out of initial demands for some evidence and substantiation. That being the fact, it may have turned out better. I need to research because I wasnt able to deal with the glaring utter incorrectness. I can be happy at the  repeated  attempts to be of better assistance upfront. So, Nothing to complain about. I even got a shiny new book out of it Smiling Back to the initial concern is can you have exchanges with these questions ? Judging my your remarks you could be a valuable help to us, one and all. There is a great deal of difficulty in separating something where fraud or unsupportable claims were at play with general disagreements. I was re-reading an exchange about interpretations of various OT passages. You have heard many times pauljohntheskeptic's view and many of  how christians historically have misconstrued, misunderstood, and misinterpretation key OT passages used in for example in the foretelling of Christ? This has a long board history. About that. Dont christians consistently as theists often times crouch everything in mist and "mysteriousness", it doesnt always help. Almost as if it is unknowable. As you might have noticed these exchanges might end up where nobody is allowed to get a word in edge wise. On both sides. Perhaps the only answer is something moderated. With free exchange and back and forth  I dont think you'd be able to sit down and ask a series of questions. How does this work in realworld terms, we are talking a online forum, remember ?.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
  ..claims and ideas must be considered and the claimant must be shown why his paper, project, theory or idea is illogical, impossible, .. Or in this case impossible to have actually happened due to the evidence to the contrary

 

caposkia wrote:
Caposkia said, I've learned after 5 years on RRS, that posting like you know things gives rise to those who ignore what you're saying and post as if they have all the answers and you dont. Asking questions makes us think about how we're going to respond.

 

 

   I have always assumed if someone states something with a great amount of conviction and it is wrong. They were the victim [of] bad information. But There is always another possibility, we seldom consider. Remember Jan Hendrik Schon, a star researcher in electronics, was fired after the outside committee found he falsified experimental data, whole programs on PBS and the science channel aired on Jan Hendrik Schon. Falsification became so infamous, it reached the general public (in the forementioned). I found upon researching  you've dismantled  any  other conclusion.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Scientific-fraud-found-at-Bell-Labs-1096933.php  http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Scientific-fraud-found-at-Bell-Labs-1096933.php

  

Asking questions can help you understand what the person claims and sometimes why. The why is important though, do they have somehow found something all of us missed. In the case in point, reality suggests otherwise as evidence is to the contrary.

Then of course it can always be that the other possibility comes into play, that deception and fakery are in play.

Generally I don't consider the believers are involved in known deception creation but are deceived by their own preconceived views it must be true. After all, if not true then what?

The what then is not faced.

I do understand the why of many believers, I just do not agree with it.

That I consider the OT to be based in myths, legends, and storytelling should be obvious by now. What may have really happened is so wrapped in it one can't tell storytelling from anything that may have actually occurred. Unless of course it has magic and Sci-Fi or impossibilities, then one  probably should  doubt the story. That all ancients did such is easy to see. Similarities in storytelling does not mean that the story has basis, only that writers or originators perhaps had inspiration from something. Perhaps ancient Sumer, perhaps ancient Egypt or combinations. The ancient Sumerians had many tales as well, most believers do not consider them plausible, however they aren't really much different then the OT. They were written long ago, far older than any Bible book, contain much which appears to be fantasy. Gods and goddeses, impossible events, much storytelling, and many many praises to the gods including prayers. Yet these are not considered by Christians to be anything more than ignorant people attributing stories to legends and mytrhs. One should wonder why these ancients took the time to write on clay tablets and fire them so they'd be preserved. Oh, they were ignorant right? Ignorant of what is the question. Confused perhaps, attributing things to gods they bothered to name, pray to, construct many temples, and wrote thousands of clay tablets in regard, also far more than the meager amount that survived from Palestine for the Bible. Just why is the Bible to be accepted and the writings of Sumer not. If one is storytelling why should not both be considered in the same light.

One story I tell is how Jesus was made into a miracle worker.

One day Jesus was in the market preaching to some people. On the far side was a salesman trying to sell a new style of olive press. He is using all of the time honored techniques of sales, ending his spiel with the proven method of "It's a miracle," loudly voiced. Meanwhile Benjamin from Mizpah overhears part of the discussion Jesus is having with a lame man. He is then distracted by the salesman who is hawking his olive press especially when he hears "It's a miracle." Many people are shouting and yelling at this point. He later turns back and the lame man seems to be walking fine so he thinks Jesus healed him. Really though, Jesus gave him a better crutch to walk with.

The next day Benjamin is on his way home and stops by a tavern for some food and wine. He meets his friend Levi who is also on his way home from the big market in Jerusalem. He tells him about Jesus and the salesman as well, since a better olive press would really help him out as he had many olive trees. Nearby a man named Joash from Joppa overhears part of the conversation. He heard them talk about Jesus and the lame man. About that time his food arrives so he didn't notice they had moved on to the olive press. He then hears Benjamin say, "It's a miracle," and thinks it meant that he was healed.

Joash goes home the next day. His neighbor Mathias who had been helping out at his place while he was at market is there. He tells him about the desert  prophet named Jesus who had healed a lame man in Jerusalem. The next thing you know is this story is exaggerated to include blind men, lepers, and even a dead person.

Just saying. People do not always hear what really happened or write what really happened.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1576
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Other lines of evidence that may never be followed up on

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
    The next thing you know is this story is exaggerated to include blind men, lepers, and even a dead person.

Just saying. People do not always hear what really happened or write what really happened.

 One story I tell is how Jesus was made into a miracle worker.

   I think there is an a level of discussion everyone misses out on. Beyond mere 'exaggeration'. I was reading the other day about some scholars who were talking about "spitting used in healing", this was deep in the archives of academia. The potential use, begin to examine how that might have been seen in the broader regional context. I honestly cannot imagine academia ever being that helpful, it inform us. It did reminded me of a level of argumentation Brian37 would never be able to use (sweet caring guy that we all know him to be), you know how he is. There is no way he would ever have read about that. Obvious, NT example is the Ex. John 9:6a -- " ..  When he had said this, Jesus spat on the ground, made mud with the saliva, anointed the blind man's eyes with the mud, etc. ..  ". Maybe someday . . .


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
caposkia wrote:
Several statements in Exodus indicate that Moses wrote certain sections of the book.

Produce the sections and show what the indications are.

If i do this will you produce your research as I've asked?  probably not... either way (don't worry, I know you've given some links)

Ex. 17:14 - God tells Moses to write what is written in the book. (easy to make up though right?)

Ex. 24:4 - "Moses wrote..."

Ex. 334:27 - another command to Moses to write something down

Many other books make reference as I've already presented to Moses' authorship to parts.

As I've already said, you can look it up yourself, but to determine authorship, they also take into consideration writing style, language and verbiage in teh writing.  Everyone has their own style.  They've researched the differences.  

Everything I present to you is likely false according to you, so I think it'd be benificial for you to research that yourself.  It's harder to refute what you discover on your own and it's a dangerous thing for me to say if I'm trying to hide something from you.

 

Those are nothing but observing internal consistency on the part of the author. It has nothing to do with who wrote it or when. The same can be done for the Wizard of Oz and Harry Potter.

Do you truly not understand that evidence can only consist of congruence with archaeology and real history?

 

you apparently didn't read the whole post.  By your reasoning, Harry Potter actually wrote Harry Potter.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...

...and in ancient times, people didn't waste expensive parchment and years of their lives scribing a fictional story.

Illiad, Odyssey, dozens of plays, Aesop's Fables and stories of gods all come to mind showing they did do what you say they did not. Add to that papyrus was much cheaper. Add to that only rich could read and costs were not that important to them.

 

You are creating a fantasy around your chosen beliefs.

Be it that we established that other gods are real, are you saying all those god stories are false?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...

Again, I take into consideration everything you present and have an open mind to all information given to me.  You have an adjenda.  Is it that I'm gullible and foolish, or is it that what you have to present is not as substantial as you would like it to be.  A gullible person will believe anything.  A foolish person will take everything at face value... which one of us is gullible and foolish?

Two of the important things to take into account are the absence of physical evidence corroborating the story and that all the available archaeological evidence is contrary to the stories.

How do you take that into account other than by believing physical evidence should take second place to stories of magic? And to imagine no one would have written fiction despite massive evidence to the contrary?

 

Again, i recommend you look into the archaelogical study Bible


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
caposkia wrote:
people know their history.  some of it is bloodline, some of it is not.  We would have to sit here and go through each lineage to consider whether that sect is bloodline or not.

Those statements are so detached from reality it is impossible to respond. People are not born with knowledge

That's what you get from that?  People are born with knowledge?  Wow dude. 

Reality is found in history which has provenance and in archaeology. Your claims are unrelated to either.

You claim "people know their history" and I observe people are not born with knowledge. By what means do you suggest "people know their history" when the Septuagint/OT are without provenance? All we know about the Septuagint is the collection appeared in history about the mid 2nd c. BC along with a forgery claiming it was a translation from another source. The Book of Mormon appeared with a sworn affidavit to the existence of the golden plates. The latter has greater provenance.

 

You're trying to cover so much ground you're getting lost.  Jews take pride in their bloodline if they have one in their family history and therefore are very educated about it by their parents throughout their childhood.  Nothing to do with anything you posted just now.  this goes back to the bloodlines conversation.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:You are

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You are mere expressing your ignorance of what is called history as separate from archaeology. The oldest writings called history are by Herodotus from the mid 5th c. BC. There is nothing older. All the recountings of the histories of ancient civilizations are modern reconstructions by archaeologists and in some cases antiquarians particularly regarding pre 5th c. Greece. What is written about their "history" was not written by them.

But you want us to believe Moses and others were writing history before it was invented by Herodotus. I presume at this point you are going to deny Herodotus invented the writing of history even though that has been a recognized fact since he invented it.

I'm not doing this petty stuff with you here.  I've allowed this conversation to continue because you've for the most part stuck with the idea of history, archaeology and how that ties into the Bible.  

If you're going to start insinuating, I think we're done here.  anyone who's been following this thread from the beginning will know how far off base you are here, especially seeing as we've already established the dating of the books that we've gotten to so far and none date earlier than I think it was 3rd century B.C. by content.  

Maybe you should sit back for a bit and let PJTS and I continue... you might learn something


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Your issue was a declaritive sentence that specified 1 god... now that I've given that to you, you're abandoning that and trying another excuse???  What gives?  Are you being serious right now?  I'm trying to keep this thread focused and serious... with the occasional crack at humor for fun.

 

Can you possibly be so lacking in reading skills that you did not realize the declarative sentence has to be that there is only one god? I find it easier to believe you are playing games than to believe you did not understand the required nature of the sentence.

 

We're going in circles again.  We've established the existence of many gods with the idea that the God of the Bible being believed by His followers to be the one True God.  Let's open our eyes here.  Good job deterring the focus off you by the way.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

Quote:
You can show by questioning.  Make them think about why their idea might be wrong rather than telling them it's wrong.

    Please find irony as humorous as I do when those ethical implications were not on the christian nor Theist side, in my case.  Bad information, often it's the Web, unsubstantiated claims paraded as common knowledge, I dont know what to make of. I was not able to deal with it as quickly as I had wanted. In the end, 'if' or 'when' it ends, it may be for the best. Half of the time spent in general helpful instead of coming out of initial demands for some evidence and substantiation. That being the fact, it may have turned out better. I need to research because I wasnt able to deal with the glaring utter incorrectness. I can be happy at the  repeated  attempts to be of better assistance upfront. So, Nothing to complain about. I even got a shiny new book out of it Smiling Back to the initial concern is can you have exchanges with these questions ? Judging my your remarks you could be a valuable help to us, one and all. There is a great deal of difficulty in separating something where fraud or unsupportable claims were at play with general disagreements. I was re-reading an exchange about interpretations of various OT passages. You have heard many times pauljohntheskeptic's view and many of  how christians historically have misconstrued, misunderstood, and misinterpretation key OT passages used in for example in the foretelling of Christ? This has a long board history. About that. Dont christians consistently as theists often times crouch everything in mist and "mysteriousness", it doesnt always help. Almost as if it is unknowable. As you might have noticed these exchanges might end up where nobody is allowed to get a word in edge wise. On both sides. Perhaps the only answer is something moderated. With free exchange and back and forth  I dont think you'd be able to sit down and ask a series of questions. How does this work in realworld terms, we are talking a online forum, remember ?.

 

yes, I remember.  Good question.  

You are right, though it is the dispensationalists and religious sects that like to cloud things.  I love asking them questions.

In the real world it is a fast pace thinking game.  You need to ask the right questions and keep your focus no matter how effective they are at derailing, which is usually the imediate tactic when an answer can't be said strait out.  (in other words, you need to know the angles before getting into it)  Derailing is cleaver in the real world because they will begin with what sounds like an answer to the question and next thing you know, you're talking about something completely different.  In the real world, you can't forget the point of your question no matter how far it goes.  I also try to make sure they don't get more than 2 steps away from the point.  If they derail too far, I stop them in mid.... lecture... and bring them back to my point and repeat the question.  

The biggest thing in the real world is not what you ask, but how you ask it.  If you act like you're asking as a challenge, you're going to lose them who don't want to face the facts.  You always need to ask as if you really want to know their understanding or perspective.  Keep your attitude in check.  Then when their perspective comes out, bring up a contradiction in their understanding and see where it goes.  

Another big point is to admit when you don't have an answer.  If they gave you a response that literally caught you off guard, admit you need the time to look into it more and move on from there.  Invite a followup to address the issues you weren't ready for.  
 

In the real world, an honest discussion takes many many sessions, not just one sitting.  There's just too much information to cover in one sitting


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: As I look

caposkia wrote:

 As I look through the links.  Some issues give rise that we've already covered.  I will reiterate why their basis doesn't hold water.

One link claims the dating of writing is far beyond the actual events and therefore should be taken with caution.  Most of history was written down far beyond the actual events and all of history needs to be taken in the same manner.  This places the Bible in the same category as the rest of history still.

The OT is not the same category as other history because it is a propaganda book promoting a specific god and religion. Other writings were not specifically written as propaganda to promote a specific god(s) except of course the Greek storytelling myths and the Sumerian god storytelling which were. The OT could be in the same category as the Greek storytelling but not the Sumerian. The Sumerian are either original documents or close to them and the OT is not.

caposkia wrote:

Also, the other link quesitons the numbers (we've talked about how they're exaggerated)

They add that exaggerations suggest a made up story (which must apply to all historical writings with exaggerations... which applies to 99% of history as we know it.. we've covered this as well)

Excessive claims do indicate parts are made up, even in other history. If not told specifically as it ocurred the embelishment represents fictional additions in all.

This again makes it difficult to determine if Herakles actually did anything or really existed just as much as the creativity used in the David stories creates severe doubts as to any of it actually happening.

caposkia wrote:

Also, The article is assuming Egypt is meaded out and boardered as clearly as it is today. 

 

I do not see where either article did this. Be specific on where?

caposkia wrote:

We've covered way back that the writers... who are scribing events, probably on notes or fragments themselves are referencing location based on waht they know that day and not neccessarily what was when the events took place.. what is Egypt when the writers compiled the information may not have been at the time.  It may have likely been open territory.  There are no specific references to parts of Egypt other than some unnamed pharohs and temples.  It is well known the history of Egypt to the point that the Biblical accounts could have happened in the Torah.  

I think the biggest thing to take from these links is their assumption of specific boarders as to which there weren't and taht history is written differently than the Bible.  

yea, was able to read the links sooner than I thought I would... If I missed something, let me know.

Again, I'm not getting that the articles specified specific borders for Egypt.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I let this pass originally but . . .

Just because writing indicates in it that the name of a person wrote such and such or is written in the 1st person ascribing it to an individual does not make it so.

L Ron Hubbard's 10 book series Mission Earth was written as the confessions of Soltan Gris in the 1st person.

It is however Sci-Fi and not of reality.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You say unknown authors, I say no one knows.

I wait you revealing which books have known authors along with the source of that knowledge. Knowledge of a tradition about a fact is not knowledge of the fact.

Several statements in Exodus indicate that Moses wrote certain sections of the book.  In addition Josh 8:31 references to Mosaic authorship as well as the NT claiming Mosaic authorship in various passages (Zondervan)  

As researched and understanding the process of determining authorship, the statement "statements in X indicate"  are taken into consideration literary style, verbage, personality and literary traits (wording) which would inidcate it would unlikely be others who wrote those sections.  Again only sections here because all the books are fragments put together.

All this actualy indicates is the writer who wrote these particular storytale sections was likely the same. It does not make him to be Moses who has no establishment as a basis in history as a point of reference.

caposkia wrote:

Skipping ahead, most of the Book of Joshua is written by Joshua simply based on the personal references e.g. the pronoun "us" in 5:8 suggesting it is written by the subject.

Again, this is not proof it was not fiction. Joshua has no reference point in history either.

caposkia wrote:

Skipping the books that don't have known authorship, we get to Ezra.  Certain materials from Ezra are first person extracts from his memoirs.  Other sections are written in the third person.  We know for certain that the memoirs are Ezra's (Zondervan)

Or so one guesses. How do you know Ezra wrote personal memoirs. Is there a copy still around?

caposkia wrote:

Going through a few more, Psalms is just too in depth to get into.  Most of the Psalms have superscriptions.  34 lack superscriptions of any kind.  Some of the ones who do have superscriptions are in question as to the validity of the superscriptions, but some of them are known by the clarity of the superscirptions.  Not getting into it here... moving on

Psalms which we haven't covered also has stories in them based on Sumerian and Canaanite myths and perhaps Egyptian as well.

caposkia wrote:

proverbs:  Solomon authored at least some of psalms, again many fragments, many parts.  It is known not all of it is solomons, but the books references itself by referencing Solomon as the author.  1:1 "The proverbs of Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel"  It's in the writing

As Solomon has no hard fastened point in any history other than the OT stories this again is a guess.

caposkia wrote:

Ecc and Songs has parts, and strong suggestions, but nothing definite, we'll move on to Isaiah.

Though scholars have tried to question the authorship of Isaiah, son of Amos, there is nothing anywhere suggesting it's not him. 

Clearly the guy named Isaiah did not write all of the book, there are events in the 2nd part that happened long  after he was worm food.

Once again, there are no documents that establish he existed other than the OT.

caposkia wrote:

Again, we get a self referencing book "The words of Jeremiah, the son of Hilkiah"  making it very clear that the book of Jeremiah was written by Jeremiah.  Dont' need to reference sources for these types of books other than researching the languages, translations and fragments for authenticity.  There is no question from any scholar that these are Jeremiah's words, therefore, i see no reason to question it either.

Another book with the same style is Deuteronomy which Richard Elliot Friedman details as to why in his book 'Who wrote the Bible'.

This seems to fly in the face of Mosaic authorship. Thus the writer of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy was the same and it was this writer who created The Book of the Law.

So a priest or supposed prophet created it, pretty much eliminating it was handed out on etched tablets by the god.

caposkia wrote:

Lamentations is Anonymous

As were they all pretty much.

caposkia wrote:

Ezekiel is one of the major prophets and is written by Ezekiel again by writing style and verbage.  These would reference again back to the fragments and the translation.

The writer of Ezekiel has many issues with accuracy, we will eventually get to it.

caposkia wrote:

The book of Daniel references Daniel as the author many times

I spent over a year and a half debating the Book of Daniel with Gramps. I consider it was a 2nd century BCE origin which I went into extreme detail in discussing, so no not written by Daniel.

caposkia wrote:

Amos was written by Amos as referenced in teh book "The words of Amos"

Obediah was written by Obediah as referenced in the book

See above, Did Soltan Gris really write a confession in Hubbard's books?

caposkia wrote:

Jonah does not identify its author

Probably with good reason, because of the problems found within. We'll also get to it someday.

caposkia wrote:

Not much is known about Micah or Nahum or Habakkuk though they are understood to be the authors

Leaves a lot of room for guessing doesn't it?

caposkia wrote:

Zephaniah is a self referencing book

Haggai is self referencing

Zechariah is self referencing

This does not indicate it was so, only the writer said so.

In Bart Ehrman's book Forged, he details how writers used the name of a supposed well known person to give the writing legitimacy. Many NT books are in fact forgeries by writers using the names of the supposedly well known, as for example Ephesions, Colossians, 1 & 2 Tim, Titus, 2 Thessolonians which were not written by Paul.

The book of Enoch is an example as well, though not in most bibles, it is in the Ethiopian and was not written by Enoch right before the supposed flood.

caposkia wrote:

some thing Malachi was written by malachi, others think it was just a reference... unknown here because not much is known about him

Generally speaking, my source was Zondervan for this brief overview of authorship.  Zondervan if you research has their own sources to go by.  I figure you're capable of going further into their sources if you doubt their research. 

I do doubt their research and have mentioned it in regard to the books we have analyzed and specifically in extreme detail for the Book of Daniel to Gramps.

caposkia wrote:

The books that are self referencing are further supported by again verbage, literary style and source.  
these were not just concluded on a whim, but thoroughly researched and referenced.  If there was any doubt of authorship, it is referenced just as you saw with some of the books who has exerpts of the assumed author but possible other sources.  

I'll stop here for now.

We can go into this more as we go through these books.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
... 

Those are nothing but observing internal consistency on the part of the author. It has nothing to do with who wrote it or when. The same can be done for the Wizard of Oz and Harry Potter.

Do you truly not understand that evidence can only consist of congruence with archaeology and real history?

you apparently didn't read the whole post.  By your reasoning, Harry Potter actually wrote Harry Potter.

I have read it again. I see nothing that addressed evidence external to the Septuagint that Moses actually existed or that the events described actually occurred. Nor do I see anything you wrote being other than the 6th grade composition skill of consistency of perspective.

Would you show me what you think I am missing?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
caposkia wrote:
...

...and in ancient times, people didn't waste expensive parchment and years of their lives scribing a fictional story.

Illiad, Odyssey, dozens of plays, Aesop's Fables and stories of gods all come to mind showing they did do what you say they did not. Add to that papyrus was much cheaper. Add to that only rich could read and costs were not that important to them.

You are creating a fantasy around your chosen beliefs.

Be it that we established that other gods are real, are you saying all those god stories are false?

The cities and culture of Mycanae are known from external evidence such as archaeology and history. Information from archaeology and history contradicts the existence of the culture, people and events described in the Septuagint.

I have established that parchment was in fact used to record fiction. There are many other examples. Therefore your argument from expense if false by inspection.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
caposkia wrote:
...

Again, I take into consideration everything you present and have an open mind to all information given to me.  You have an adjenda.  Is it that I'm gullible and foolish, or is it that what you have to present is not as substantial as you would like it to be.  A gullible person will believe anything.  A foolish person will take everything at face value... which one of us is gullible and foolish?

Two of the important things to take into account are the absence of physical evidence corroborating the story and that all the available archaeological evidence is contrary to the stories.

How do you take that into account other than by believing physical evidence should take second place to stories of magic? And to imagine no one would have written fiction despite massive evidence to the contrary?

Again, i recommend you look into the archaelogical study Bible

 

In this forum it is obligatory on you to present what you have found which is convincing to you.

"Go read a book and you will agree with me" is never an acceptable reply.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
2 kings 12 & 2 Chron 10

2 Kings 12

Verse 1 says all Israel went to Shechem to make Rehoboam king. Would that be the 1000 -5000 people?

Rehoboam starts off by consulting with the old wise men who advised him to reduce tribute or taxes. He also consults with his younger advisers who told him to increase the burdens and punishments.

So Rehoboam follows the ill advised younger generation and raises the burdens and punishments.

This was the cause of Israel to revolt against the house of David and form their own kingdom. Then all Israel heard Jeroboam was back from Egypt they made him king over all except Judah.

Rehoboam plans to go to war bringing 100,000 plus warriors against Israel. Though there weren't 100,000 people anywhere in Palestine at the time.

But the god intervenes and tells them not to fight their brethren.

So Jeroboam leads Israel into sin against the god.

He thought that if the people continued to worship and sacrifice in Jerusalem they would eventually go back to the house of David. So he had 2 calves of gold made placing one at Bethel and one in Dan. The people then worshiped in both places with priests that were drawn of the lowest of people and not of the tribe of Levi.

2 Chron 10 is similar but with the following additions:

Supposedly Rehoboam fortified the cities of Judah for defense including: Bethlehem, Etam, Tekoa, Beth-zur, Sho-co, Adul-lam, Gath, Mareshah, Ziph, Adoraim, Lachish, Azekah, Zorah, Aijalon, and Hebron. He put stores of food, wine and oil in each. He also put captains and weapons stores in each.

Inclusion of Gath is erroneous as it was a Philistine city at the time and was destroyed by King Hazel of Aram-Damascus circa 830 BCE.

The only city that possibly was actually fortified in this period would be Lachish which archeology indicates dates to probably the early 9th century BCE, though it also had a history as an Egyptian administration.

Supposedly the Levites left all the cities of Jeroboam's kingdom and went to Jerusalem as they were prevented from doing their jobs as priests by Jeroboam.

This story pretty much sounds like a justification of the establishment of the 2 city state kingdoms, that's the goal of the writer anyway.

However, it fails at go.

The unreasonable attitude of Rehoboam is plainly stupid. He's just become king, instead of just starting off where he was he somehow needs more cash and tells them he will be a complete tyrant providing severe punishment to all that opposed him.

Pretty stupid! Or a storytellers fictional enhancement to give basis for the split of the never existing United kingdom.

Pretty much this attitude might have resulted in a very short reign, like 5 minutes.

The 2 calves of gold are part of the myth creation by the writers to connect to the storytale of the golden calf in Exodus.

However, the symbol of El the Canaanite god was a bull. See the correlation here?

In the 2 Chron version Jeroboam kicks out or prevents the Levites from performing the tasks so they flee. Another stupid action to help put forth the storytale. As the Levites were supposedly the priests of all, their presence would have been more beneficial than detrimental. So this would mean that Jeroboam would have to create an entire new priest class and a religion all at once. This enables the storytale of the north falling into idol worship even though that's what was always the case in Palestine.

Not needed, as this area is well established as following the Canaanite gods in archeology so the institution of 2 golden calves and the associated storytales attached with it is a buildup for the north becoming evil and falling away from the god Yahweh. Not that anything suggests from archeology that the god Yahweh was ever as described in the OT or that the city states of Shechem-Samaria and the village of Jerusalem were ever a combined nation.

The Rehoboam-Jeroboam split is needed to build the fantasy story to show why evil Israel is eventually destroyed by Assyria and Judah is supported by the god, at least for a while. Eventually Judah must be destroyed as well to fit into current history as some people might have knowledge of the facts before Babylon came into the area in the 6th century BCE and forced obedience and tribute.

But more on this as we go along.

So these versions I see as more storytelling.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The OT is not the same category as other history because it is a propaganda book promoting a specific god and religion. Other writings were not specifically written as propaganda to promote a specific god(s) except of course the Greek storytelling myths and the Sumerian god storytelling which were. The OT could be in the same category as the Greek storytelling but not the Sumerian. The Sumerian are either original documents or close to them and the OT is not.

Correction, the compilation of the fragments into stories and the compilation of the stories turns it into a book about a specific God.  Though funny you should say that because the books we're in now... happen to have a different focus... but anyway the propaganda idea is literally that, just speculation into the purpose or intent of any of the writings.  

From a Christian perspective, you're taking what many would consider eye witness or first hand accounts and claiming them to be propaganda.  It'd be like me reporting a bank robbery and you accusing me of supporting criminals.  It goes beyond our purpose.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Excessive claims do indicate parts are made up, even in other history. If not told specifically as it ocurred the embelishment represents fictional additions in all.

Just as you said though... doesn't nullify the story, only parts.. which again we've already agreed on.  We also know that references to specific places is only in perspective of the writer and not necessarily exactly where or how it happened.  Regardless, it doesn't in any way indicate it didn't happen... whatever "it" may be.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This again makes it difficult to determine if Herakles actually did anything or really existed just as much as the creativity used in the David stories creates severe doubts as to any of it actually happening.

If the severe doubts were universal, there'd be no debate as to their place in history.  You say severe doubts, I've seen enough reasoning from my own research as well as the stuff you've made me investigate to have less doubt vs. more.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I do not see where either article did this. Be specific on where?

The article was general... it said the Bible claimed X happened in Egypt and then they proceeded to explain why it may not have happened in the country of Egypt.  In order for that to be true, Egypt would have had to have the same boarders during the occurence as it did when the writer wrote it down and as it does today.  We all know that is unlikely.  Therefore, any attempt to discredit the Bible by trying to claim something the Bible says happened in location Y didn't actually happen in Y holds no water for 2 reasons.

1.  Boundaries aren't the same they were now, when it was written and/or when it actually occured

2.  Authors wrote by currant knowledge, not what might have been historically true.  They didn't have historical records or access to accurate history like we do today.  Most knew history by word of mouth only, which was the most reliable way of getting information from one point to another at the time.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Again, I'm not getting that the articles specified specific borders for Egypt.

 

My take on it was they assumed.  They didn't specify specific boarders but proceeded to explain location issues without referencing to where Egypt was considered to span.  It leads me to believe they looked at current maps and assumed.   

*edit* (addition)

There's a lot of the longer link i still have to look at.  The Egyptian establishment I think from skimming it again is a small matter.  Maybe I was looking into it too much... There are bigger fish to fry in that link... Like their research yielding that no other history writes about Solomon or David.  No mention that it is theorized that the names might not be their real names.... as written in the Bible.  I'll give them the benefit of the doubt... they may have mentioned it later in the article... I need to read it further.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Just because writing indicates in it that the name of a person wrote such and such or is written in the 1st person ascribing it to an individual does not make it so.

L Ron Hubbard's 10 book series Mission Earth was written as the confessions of Soltan Gris in the 1st person.

It is however Sci-Fi and not of reality.

I didn't claim it was solely that that proved authorship did I...  It only affirmed it.  I'm also not aware of such creative works in history quite like your example where authorship is given to a fictional character, do you have some research on that?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

All this actualy indicates is the writer who wrote these particular storytale sections was likely the same. It does not make him to be Moses who has no establishment as a basis in history as a point of reference.

remember my mentioning writing style, verbiage and terminology?  All have a part... these were not wild assumptions just because they couldn't put another name to the common writings.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Again, this is not proof it was not fiction. Joshua has no reference point in history either.

Joshua is a difficult book to defend in history on either ground.  Again, not wild assumptions made by educated people here.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Or so one guesses. How do you know Ezra wrote personal memoirs. Is there a copy still around?

It's my understanding that scholars have little if any doubt they are directly written by Ezra.  there is evidence of an unknown compiler of the memoirs.  They would have been responsible for the final, cannonical form.   This would suggest to me we don't have the originals, but likely compiled copies.  It's important to note Ezra and Nehamia were 1 book until the middle ages.  They were later separated.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Psalms which we haven't covered also has stories in them based on Sumerian and Canaanite myths and perhaps Egyptian as well.

A lot of influence from all 3 sources shows up throughout the OT

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As Solomon has no hard fastened point in any history other than the OT stories this again is a guess.

In all my research, one thing I know for sure is a Biblical scholar doesn't take a guess... if they really don't know, instead of guessing, they will say; "we don't know".  This has been consistent with literally everything I've looked into.  We can admit that there's no shame in not knowing something.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Another book with the same style is Deuteronomy which Richard Elliot Friedman details as to why in his book 'Who wrote the Bible'.

This seems to fly in the face of Mosaic authorship. Thus the writer of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy was the same and it was this writer who created The Book of the Law.

So a priest or supposed prophet created it, pretty much eliminating it was handed out on etched tablets by the god.

authorship aside, how does that in any way suggest how any part of any book was originally written?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I spent over a year and a half debating the Book of Daniel with Gramps. I consider it was a 2nd century BCE origin which I went into extreme detail in discussing, so no not written by Daniel.

a year and a half debate!  Dude I hope you have some notes on that... i want!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Not much is known about Micah or Nahum or Habakkuk though they are understood to be the authors

Leaves a lot of room for guessing doesn't it?

naw, i was just getting lazy.  Took a lot of homework to go through the research on authorship for the whole OT.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Zephaniah is a self referencing book

Haggai is self referencing

Zechariah is self referencing

This does not indicate it was so, only the writer said so.

again, I have yet to see in history such evidence of writings claiming fictional characters as authors.  I'm pretty sure that's a more modern day thing.. (modern being the last 500 years or so)

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In Bart Ehrman's book Forged, he details how writers used the name of a supposed well known person to give the writing legitimacy. Many NT books are in fact forgeries by writers using the names of the supposedly well known, as for example Ephesions, Colossians, 1 & 2 Tim, Titus, 2 Thessolonians which were not written by Paul.

Some of those you referenced were named after a location and/or people and not a specific well known name like you suggested.  NT books in a few cases were titled what they were because it was who they were written to or for, not by.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The book of Enoch is an example as well, though not in most bibles, it is in the Ethiopian and was not written by Enoch right before the supposed flood.

a fun read either way

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I do doubt their research and have mentioned it in regard to the books we have analyzed and specifically in extreme detail for the Book of Daniel to Gramps.

can't wait to get to that book with you


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
... 

Those are nothing but observing internal consistency on the part of the author. It has nothing to do with who wrote it or when. The same can be done for the Wizard of Oz and Harry Potter.

Do you truly not understand that evidence can only consist of congruence with archaeology and real history?

you apparently didn't read the whole post.  By your reasoning, Harry Potter actually wrote Harry Potter.

I have read it again. I see nothing that addressed evidence external to the Septuagint that Moses actually existed or that the events described actually occurred. Nor do I see anything you wrote being other than the 6th grade composition skill of consistency of perspective.

Would you show me what you think I am missing?

 

I was responding specifically to your statement: "those are nothing but observing internal consistency on the part of the author"... as to which I referred back to the post because I also said they on top of that take into consideration (the part your missing) "verbiage, literary style, writing style and language..."  At this moment in time, there was no reference or suggestion of any outside sources.... take that back... I did mention a few times to look into the Archaelogical study bible


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:The

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The cities and culture of Mycanae are known from external evidence such as archaeology and history. Information from archaeology and history contradicts the existence of the culture, people and events described in the Septuagint.

I have established that parchment was in fact used to record fiction. There are many other examples. Therefore your argument from expense if false by inspection.

 

Please give me a link to this contradictory evidence... I've been looking for it for years. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote: In this

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

In this forum it is obligatory on you to present what you have found which is convincing to you.

"Go read a book and you will agree with me" is never an acceptable reply.

 

Not what I said, but that's beside the point.  

You seem to keep going back to the "archealogical evidence" point, so I gave you a reference to look into.  It's better to discover it youself than to hear it from me... why?  mainly because for every piece of information I give you, likely you're going to ask me for a link or a source... I'm giving you a source.  

It is also evident that no matter what I present to you, you're not going to hear it because your mind is already made up.  Therefore I defer you to the sources.  If you care to know for sure, you'll take the time to look... if you're just here to prove me wrong, you'll make a statement such as the one you just made above.  I see where you stand.

this forum by the way is a historical runthrough of scripture between PJTS and I.  We welcome those to add their input while sticking to the progress of this forum.  You have chosen to stray from the progress and take on the whole Bible for a bit... which is fine if you stick to the historical and factual focus.... but we... or at least I do want to get back to a focus on the step by step progress of this forum soon.  I don't think it's YOUR say on what is obligatory for me on THIS forum.  PJTS knows where I stand and how I present my knowledge.  If he has a problem with it on this forum, he can let me know.  I will be sure to stay as honest and objective as possible.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:2

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

2 Kings 12

Verse 1 says all Israel went to Shechem to make Rehoboam king. Would that be the 1000 -5000 people?

Rehoboam starts off by consulting with the old wise men who advised him to reduce tribute or taxes. He also consults with his younger advisers who told him to increase the burdens and punishments.

So Rehoboam follows the ill advised younger generation and raises the burdens and punishments.

This was the cause of Israel to revolt against the house of David and form their own kingdom. Then all Israel heard Jeroboam was back from Egypt they made him king over all except Judah.

Rehoboam plans to go to war bringing 100,000 plus warriors against Israel. Though there weren't 100,000 people anywhere in Palestine at the time.

But the god intervenes and tells them not to fight their brethren.

So Jeroboam leads Israel into sin against the god.

He thought that if the people continued to worship and sacrifice in Jerusalem they would eventually go back to the house of David. So he had 2 calves of gold made placing one at Bethel and one in Dan. The people then worshiped in both places with priests that were drawn of the lowest of people and not of the tribe of Levi.

2 Chron 10 is similar but with the following additions:

Supposedly Rehoboam fortified the cities of Judah for defense including: Bethlehem, Etam, Tekoa, Beth-zur, Sho-co, Adul-lam, Gath, Mareshah, Ziph, Adoraim, Lachish, Azekah, Zorah, Aijalon, and Hebron. He put stores of food, wine and oil in each. He also put captains and weapons stores in each.

Inclusion of Gath is erroneous as it was a Philistine city at the time and was destroyed by King Hazel of Aram-Damascus circa 830 BCE.

The only city that possibly was actually fortified in this period would be Lachish which archeology indicates dates to probably the early 9th century BCE, though it also had a history as an Egyptian administration.

Supposedly the Levites left all the cities of Jeroboam's kingdom and went to Jerusalem as they were prevented from doing their jobs as priests by Jeroboam.

This story pretty much sounds like a justification of the establishment of the 2 city state kingdoms, that's the goal of the writer anyway.

However, it fails at go.

The unreasonable attitude of Rehoboam is plainly stupid. He's just become king, instead of just starting off where he was he somehow needs more cash and tells them he will be a complete tyrant providing severe punishment to all that opposed him.

Pretty stupid! Or a storytellers fictional enhancement to give basis for the split of the never existing United kingdom.

Pretty much this attitude might have resulted in a very short reign, like 5 minutes.

The 2 calves of gold are part of the myth creation by the writers to connect to the storytale of the golden calf in Exodus.

However, the symbol of El the Canaanite god was a bull. See the correlation here?

In the 2 Chron version Jeroboam kicks out or prevents the Levites from performing the tasks so they flee. Another stupid action to help put forth the storytale. As the Levites were supposedly the priests of all, their presence would have been more beneficial than detrimental. So this would mean that Jeroboam would have to create an entire new priest class and a religion all at once. This enables the storytale of the north falling into idol worship even though that's what was always the case in Palestine.

Not needed, as this area is well established as following the Canaanite gods in archeology so the institution of 2 golden calves and the associated storytales attached with it is a buildup for the north becoming evil and falling away from the god Yahweh. Not that anything suggests from archeology that the god Yahweh was ever as described in the OT or that the city states of Shechem-Samaria and the village of Jerusalem were ever a combined nation.

The Rehoboam-Jeroboam split is needed to build the fantasy story to show why evil Israel is eventually destroyed by Assyria and Judah is supported by the god, at least for a while. Eventually Judah must be destroyed as well to fit into current history as some people might have knowledge of the facts before Babylon came into the area in the 6th century BCE and forced obedience and tribute.

But more on this as we go along.

So these versions I see as more storytelling.

 

Not much i can add to it at this point.  The timeline's still consistent.   The numbers exaggerated obviously.  Validity in history?  Hard to say either way when it stands by itself.  Referencing to the Bible as a whole, it's self supporting to be valid in history.  Unrelated authorship paints a pretty steady timeline through these harder to support stories.  That's hard to do if in fact false.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
The OT is not the same category as other history because it is a propaganda book promoting a specific god and religion. Other writings were not specifically written as propaganda to promote a specific god(s) except of course the Greek storytelling myths and the Sumerian god storytelling which were. The OT could be in the same category as the Greek storytelling but not the Sumerian. The Sumerian are either original documents or close to them and the OT is not.

Correction, the compilation of the fragments into stories and the compilation of the stories turns it into a book about a specific God.

Correction. From the perspective of a person who has looked into the archaeology of bibleland one must observe there is no evidence of a literate culture which could have produced anything of which there would be fragments. Fragments are your invention for which there is zero physcial evidence of such a possiblity of existing. 

ALL the archaeological evidence is that there was no literate culture which could have recorded anything in the first place. Your faith leads you to believe in things which could not have existed.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
It's my understanding that scholars have little if any doubt they are directly written by Ezra. 

Calling believers scholars does not make them any more credible than any other believer. They start with unsubstantiated, unevidenced assumptions. In this case they assume there was a time in Babylon and that an Ezra existed even though it is only found in the Septuagint stories.

Archaeology only says that the Babylonians replaced one king with another. Nothing is said about taking people to Babylon. That is a myth believers love to confuse with the only real evidence.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
... 

Those are nothing but observing internal consistency on the part of the author. It has nothing to do with who wrote it or when. The same can be done for the Wizard of Oz and Harry Potter.

Do you truly not understand that evidence can only consist of congruence with archaeology and real history?

you apparently didn't read the whole post.  By your reasoning, Harry Potter actually wrote Harry Potter.

I have read it again. I see nothing that addressed evidence external to the Septuagint that Moses actually existed or that the events described actually occurred. Nor do I see anything you wrote being other than the 6th grade composition skill of consistency of perspective.

Would you show me what you think I am missing?

I was responding specifically to your statement: "those are nothing but observing internal consistency on the part of the author"... as to which I referred back to the post because I also said they on top of that take into consideration (the part your missing) "verbiage, literary style, writing style and language..."  At this moment in time, there was no reference or suggestion of any outside sources.... take that back... I did mention a few times to look into the Archaelogical study bible

I still do not see your point. To make an issue of such things one must have a body of unrelated literature for comparison. There is none. To show a thing has contemporaneous style and such one must show the literature from the same time.

As there is NO evidence of a literate culture in bibleland until after the arrival of the Greeks you clearly have nothing to use for comparison.

 

 


 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The cities and culture of Mycanae are known from external evidence such as archaeology and history. Information from archaeology and history contradicts the existence of the culture, people and events described in the Septuagint.

I have established that parchment was in fact used to record fiction. There are many other examples. Therefore your argument from expense if false by inspection.

Please give me a link to this contradictory evidence... I've been looking for it for years.

Are you really saying you want links to the existence of Greek plays and fiction including Aesop's fables? If they exist they show fiction was preserved. QED

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:


In this forum it is obligatory on you to present what you have found which is convincing to you.

"Go read a book and you will agree with me" is never an acceptable reply.

Not what I said, but that's beside the point.  

You seem to keep going back to the "archealogical evidence" point, so I gave you a reference to look into.  It's better to discover it youself than to hear it from me... why?  mainly because for every piece of information I give you, likely you're going to ask me for a link or a source... I'm giving you a source.

I want it solely from you so I can refer back to your refusal to present physical evidence to show you have no knowledge of any physical evidence in support of your claims.

If you claim there is physical evidence then you MUST know exactly what it is. And therefore you must be able to recite exactly what it is.

Your continued refusal to do so demosntrates to anyone who cares to read your replies that you are blowing smoke out your ass on this subject. 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Correction. From the perspective of a person who has looked into the archaeology of bibleland one must observe there is no evidence of a literate culture which could have produced anything of which there would be fragments. Fragments are your invention for which there is zero physcial evidence of such a possiblity of existing. 

ALL the archaeological evidence is that there was no literate culture which could have recorded anything in the first place. Your faith leads you to believe in things which could not have existed.

 

be it that you've been making such a claim and in future posts are basically refusing to look at a resource I suggested, I need to to cite your research so that I may respond to it properly.   You claim there is no evidence of a literate culture.  What is there evidence of then?  What of those literate monks that history accepts as the go to guys for translations... are they myth as well?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Calling

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Calling believers scholars does not make them any more credible than any other believer. They start with unsubstantiated, unevidenced assumptions. In this case they assume there was a time in Babylon and that an Ezra existed even though it is only found in the Septuagint stories.

support your assumption that Bible scholars are no more credible than any other believer.  I really need to see this because I know that not all Bible scholars are believers... 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I still

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I still do not see your point. To make an issue of such things one must have a body of unrelated literature for comparison. There is none. To show a thing has contemporaneous style and such one must show the literature from the same time.

As there is NO evidence of a literate culture in bibleland until after the arrival of the Greeks you clearly have nothing to use for comparison.

this it taking the perspective that each book is literally one literary piece from the author.. in many cases that's not true.  Basically compare any other piece of literature to it... they're taking their writing style...

What it comes down to is it is a particular person.  Maybe that person's name isn't really what they claim, regardless, it doesn't change who wrote it.  Ezra might really have been called Billybob and through the generations the name got lost... either way, that same person still wrote it and is still the same person that is understood to have written the book and is known to those who they were writing to or for.  It's the unique style and language of each piece that makes it clear of a specific author and character in history.  These people in most cases are talked about in other unrelated writings in the Bible.  

another mistake in perspective is to assume that all the books in teh Bible are there because they are "related"  they may be congruent with the timeline, but they were written over 100's of years by many different unrelated people.  Unless you're specifically looking for a piece of literature that woudl be "unrelated" by not talking about the subject of God, the literature is in the Bible.  It would be unrealistic to look for literature that focus on a different subject be it that most authors dont' write about many different topics.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The cities and culture of Mycanae are known from external evidence such as archaeology and history. Information from archaeology and history contradicts the existence of the culture, people and events described in the Septuagint.

I have established that parchment was in fact used to record fiction. There are many other examples. Therefore your argument from expense if false by inspection.

Please give me a link to this contradictory evidence... I've been looking for it for years.

Are you really saying you want links to the existence of Greek plays and fiction including Aesop's fables? If they exist they show fiction was preserved. QED

 

Was the issue me questioning the "existence" of fiction in history? Or was it the care at which this alleged fiction was preserved and the self titled fictional character?  

I want links to the method of preservation of the fiction in history and a list of fiction authored by a fictional character.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I want it

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I want it solely from you so I can refer back to your refusal to present physical evidence to show you have no knowledge of any physical evidence in support of your claims.

If you claim there is physical evidence then you MUST know exactly what it is. And therefore you must be able to recite exactly what it is.

Your continued refusal to do so demonstrates to anyone who cares to read your replies that you are blowing smoke out your ass on this subject. 

I gave you a source.  In my experience on this site of "telling people" what I know, the followup always is "show me the studies"... I like to skip the BS on this thread and go right to the studies.  I don't expect you to take my word on it and if you do, you're a fool... Look it up.  They didn't make a whole Bible based on archeology because they were trying to "blow smoke out their asses".  

Also, maybe you should look back in this thread.  I really don't like going in circles.  We've covered a bit already.  I've also got a science vs. religion thread, not as long, but that covers a geological and scientific angle to Bible miracles and God's work.  

I gave a rational case why we can't find clear evidence of the particular temple in question.  lack of evidence in this case only leads to assumption of the conclusion because of the refusal to allow archaeological digs in the area.  Evidence of the later temple is there and it's not completely out of the question that an earlier smaller temple was built on the very spot hundreds of years prior.  We can't dispute a conclusion based on that.  

If you're waiting for "physical evidence" of history this far back, maybe you should just follow this thread for a while longer until the opportunity comes up.  I can tell you don't have much experience in history and that's fine.  It's ignorant to base conclusions on nothing.  You're no better than any other dispensationalist believer out there that takes the word of the church with that perspective.  

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
step by step through a link

Because one link is so long, I'd rather go through it step by step with some issues I have.

Right off the link says; "the evidence of the empire of Solomon is deceptively abundant.  It is abundant in the Jewish scriptures and nowhere else!"  

This is a bit shortsighted be it that there is other writings in reference to Solomon including citation of Tyrian court records and Menander in Against Apion gives a specific year that Hiram of Tyre sent materials to Solmon for the construction of the temple.  No material evidence to back that up, but again archaeological digs in the area are restricted.  

He may be hard to find in history.  Assuming Solomon's kingdom was very small, which is more likely than not, Kenneth Kitchen (Professor Emeritus of Egyptology and Honorary Research fellow at the school of Archaeology) calculates taht a kingdom of the theorized size of Solomons would have to be, over 30 years could accumulate up to 500 tons of gold... which is small compared to Alexandre the Great who took 1,180 tons of Gold from Susa.  Therefore the wealth that Solomon is said to have would be considered to be a modest amount which also fits the idea of the size Solomon's kingdom would have to be to fit into this part of history.

They then go into the exaggerated numbers of Solomon's kingdom and try to use that to further discredit the possibility and yet fail to take into consideration the information about numbers we've already discussed a few times over.  

Before going futher, is there anything more you want to add or dispute on that PJTS?

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Correction. From the perspective of a person who has looked into the archaeology of bibleland one must observe there is no evidence of a literate culture which could have produced anything of which there would be fragments. Fragments are your invention for which there is zero physcial evidence of such a possiblity of existing. 

ALL the archaeological evidence is that there was no literate culture which could have recorded anything in the first place. Your faith leads you to believe in things which could not have existed.

be it that you've been making such a claim and in future posts are basically refusing to look at a resource I suggested, I need to to cite your research so that I may respond to it properly.   You claim there is no evidence of a literate culture.  What is there evidence of then?  What of those literate monks that history accepts as the go to guys for translations... are they myth as well?

What do monks have to do with bibleland?

The evidence which does exist is of an agrarian, pre-literate culture. All literate cultures have left copious written material to find.  The material has been sufficient to reconstruct their culture and history independent of any stories about them. Additionally the reconstruction has been able to correct false stories about them such as the nonsense about Egypt in Genesis and Exodus.

The majority of the written material found is government decrees and legal documents. The least material found is religious.

Contrast this with next to nothing at all found in bibleland keeping in mind that special pleadings for bibleland are not permitted. Further note what has been found is in early Phoenician script which is a known written language used in the region.

This is what literature leave to be found. These are not found in bibleland.

Therefore the invention of "fragments" is a fantasy without foundation in fact.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Calling believers scholars does not make them any more credible than any other believer. They start with unsubstantiated, unevidenced assumptions. In this case they assume there was a time in Babylon and that an Ezra existed even though it is only found in the Septuagint stories.

support your assumption that Bible scholars are no more credible than any other believer.  I really need to see this because I know that not all Bible scholars are believers... 

Read what I said. I did not say all scholars are believers. I said calling believers scholars does not make them more credible. I am a nationally recognized scholar in the US and I have a 1963 National Merit Scholarship certificate saying so. Does that make me more credible? Scholar has a meaning which has nothing to do with credibility.

I am my own example being called a scholar has no bearing upon credibility.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
I still do not see your point. To make an issue of such things one must have a body of unrelated literature for comparison. There is none. To show a thing has contemporaneous style and such one must show the literature from the same time.

As there is NO evidence of a literate culture in bibleland until after the arrival of the Greeks you clearly have nothing to use for comparison.

this it taking the perspective that each book is literally one literary piece from the author.. in many cases that's not true.  Basically compare any other piece of literature to it... they're taking their writing style...

Style per se immaterial. DATING the style is the issue here.

Quote:
What it comes down to is it is a particular person.  Maybe that person's name isn't really what they claim, regardless, it doesn't change who wrote it.  Ezra might really have been called Billybob and through the generations the name got lost... either way, that same person still wrote it and is still the same person that is understood to have written the book and is known to those who they were writing to or for.  It's the unique style and language of each piece that makes it clear of a specific author and character in history.  These people in most cases are talked about in other unrelated writings in the Bible.

Or a 2nd c. BC Greek educated person was the author. You say nothing that could lead to dating the material.

Quote:
another mistake in perspective is to assume that all the books in teh Bible are there because they are "related"  they may be congruent with the timeline, but they were written over 100's of years by many different unrelated people.  Unless you're specifically looking for a piece of literature that woudl be "unrelated" by not talking about the subject of God, the literature is in the Bible.  It would be unrealistic to look for literature that focus on a different subject be it that most authors dont' write about many different topics.

Again no evidence of when they were written. You repeat an unevidenced rationalization supposedly explaining differences  but which cause their own problems. As you insist upon Ezra and friends writing the material from prior to their time everything they wrote would be in the same style and consistent. Attempts to get around that merely add complexity when the simplest answer is a mess of stories from 2nd c. BC Egypt.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The cities and culture of Mycanae are known from external evidence such as archaeology and history. Information from archaeology and history contradicts the existence of the culture, people and events described in the Septuagint.

I have established that parchment was in fact used to record fiction. There are many other examples. Therefore your argument from expense if false by inspection.

Please give me a link to this contradictory evidence... I've been looking for it for years.

Are you really saying you want links to the existence of Greek plays and fiction including Aesop's fables? If they exist they show fiction was preserved. QED

Was the issue me questioning the "existence" of fiction in history? Or was it the care at which this alleged fiction was preserved and the self titled fictional character?  

I want links to the method of preservation of the fiction in history and a list of fiction authored by a fictional character.

You now want to argue the cited items were not preserved? Are you going to say you think Aesop and Homer were real people?

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
Because one link is so long, I'd rather go through it step by step with some issues I have.

Right off the link says; "the evidence of the empire of Solomon is deceptively abundant.  It is abundant in the Jewish scriptures and nowhere else!"  

This is a bit shortsighted be it that there is other writings in reference to Solomon including citation of Tyrian court records and Menander in Against Apion gives a specific year that Hiram of Tyre sent materials to Solmon for the construction of the temple.  No material evidence to back that up, but again archaeological digs in the area are restricted.

Against Apion was written by Flavius Josephus in the late 1st c. AD. It includes the prototype for outrageous claims of antisemitism by endorsing clear nonsense and declaring anyone who refuses to believe the nonsense refuses only because they hate (or envy) Judeans. (Which is a copyrighted methodology used by Jews still today.)

Citing Against Apion puts your claims in a very, very bad light for another reason. One of the things Josephus claims to be doing is refuting the ideas of Apion on the origin of the Judeans. That raises several problems. Why did not Apion know of Genesis and Exodus if they existed in his time? Even more interesting, if the Septuagint were considered a credible history of the origin of the Judeans, it is very difficult to explain why Josephus never mentions it when in fact it would be the trump card to the entire refutation.

Instead Josephus claims the Judeans were originally Hittites and ruled Egypt for a hundred years -- yes, he invented that nonsense. But what is interesting is he did not consider Exodus credible else he would know the "true" story. Maybe he did not know of it at all.

Odd that a priest of the Yahweh cult would demand people believe the Hittite story under penalty of being called an antisemite and also know nothing about Exodus.

That you do raise Against Apion is confirmation to me you believers know nothing about the subject but sling crap and claim the crap is proof positive.

And that is WHY I insist YOU present the physical evidence. The sources believers "recommend" never turn out to be what they claim and it turns out believers have never read what they recommend. You would never have mentioned Against Apion if you had both a) read it and b) were in your right mind.

Quote:
He may be hard to find in history.  Assuming Solomon's kingdom was very small, which is more likely than not, Kenneth Kitchen (Professor Emeritus of Egyptology and Honorary Research fellow at the school of Archaeology) calculates taht a kingdom of the theorized size of Solomons would have to be, over 30 years could accumulate up to 500 tons of gold... which is small compared to Alexandre the Great who took 1,180 tons of Gold from Susa.  Therefore the wealth that Solomon is said to have would be considered to be a modest amount which also fits the idea of the size Solomon's kingdom would have to be to fit into this part of history.

This is very unclever save as it also scotches biblical Israel. That is not biblical Israel therefore there was no biblical Israel. Further the archaeology of the Jerusalem region supports Egyptian records, that it was one of their outposts. The pyramid and sphinx were common motifs in Jerusalem down to the 2nd c. AD before Harian rebuilt the city. Additionally there is no mention of any Solomon in any records of any contemporary kingdom while the contemporary kingdoms mention each other.

Quote:
They then go into the exaggerated numbers of Solomon's kingdom and try to use that to further discredit the possibility and yet fail to take into consideration the information about numbers we've already discussed a few times over.  

Before going futher, is there anything more you want to add or dispute on that PJTS?

This is a very old gimmick too. The issue is a kingdom ruled by Solomon from the Nile to the Euphrates while believers try to limit it all to the one place they can't dig. The only archaeological evidence from the supposed "time" of Solomon is of a preliterate, agrarian culture. THEREFORE biblical Israel has already been discredited and there is no point in considering it further regardless of any magic temple.

Exaggeration is also a method used by Atlantis types to salvage their beliefs.

The real world does not work that way. Once something is shown to be nonsense it remains nonsense. Retreating from the original position is only an attempt to salvage the nonsense. Sort of like saying the Land of Oz is just a child's misunderstanding of St. Louis and trying to declare the Wizard was really the major.

What is gone is gone. Rationalization does not make it still a little bit real.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
I want it solely from you so I can refer back to your refusal to present physical evidence to show you have no knowledge of any physical evidence in support of your claims.

If you claim there is physical evidence then you MUST know exactly what it is. And therefore you must be able to recite exactly what it is.

Your continued refusal to do so demonstrates to anyone who cares to read your replies that you are blowing smoke out your ass on this subject. 

I gave you a source.  In my experience on this site of "telling people" what I know, the followup always is "show me the studies"... I like to skip the BS on this thread and go right to the studies.  I don't expect you to take my word on it and if you do, you're a fool... Look it up.  They didn't make a whole Bible based on archeology because they were trying to "blow smoke out their asses". 

You gave a source not the physical evidence you claim is in the source. As with Against Apion I do not believe you have read the source and that you are blowing it out your ass by "giving" a source you have never read.

I agree it was not fair to lump you in with all the other believers who give references they have never read and which do not produce the physical they claim before you mentioned Against Apion where you demonstrated beyond all doubt that you recite things you have never read, i.e. that you blow smoke out your ass.

Quote:
Also, maybe you should look back in this thread.  I really don't like going in circles.  We've covered a bit already.  I've also got a science vs. religion thread, not as long, but that covers a geological and scientific angle to Bible miracles and God's work.  

I gave a rational case why we can't find clear evidence of the particular temple in question.  lack of evidence in this case only leads to assumption of the conclusion because of the refusal to allow archaeological digs in the area.  Evidence of the later temple is there and it's not completely out of the question that an earlier smaller temple was built on the very spot hundreds of years prior.  We can't dispute a conclusion based on that.

It is your fantasy that the issue has only been a particular temple. The issue has always been physical evidence of the Israel described in the bible. It is a silly trick to try to claim it is all about what is in the only place they can't dig. The sillyness is thinking you can get away with it.

Quote:
If you're waiting for "physical evidence" of history this far back, maybe you should just follow this thread for a while longer until the opportunity comes up.  I can tell you don't have much experience in history and that's fine.  It's ignorant to base conclusions on nothing.  You're no better than any other dispensationalist believer out there that takes the word of the church with that perspective.

Again, demonstrate your knowledge of they physical evidence in support of your claims and show how it supports your claims. I have called you bluff and let you reveal yourself as ignorant of what you claim to be fact.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:What do

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

What do monks have to do with bibleland?

Have you been here?  They're the go to people for all texts to be transcribed and translated throughout history

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The evidence which does exist is of an agrarian, pre-literate culture. All literate cultures have left copious written material to find.  The material has been sufficient to reconstruct their culture and history independent of any stories about them. Additionally the reconstruction has been able to correct false stories about them such as the nonsense about Egypt in Genesis and Exodus.

The majority of the written material found is government decrees and legal documents. The least material found is religious.

Contrast this with next to nothing at all found in bibleland keeping in mind that special pleadings for bibleland are not permitted. Further note what has been found is in early Phoenician script which is a known written language used in the region.

This is what literature leave to be found. These are not found in bibleland.

Therefore the invention of "fragments" is a fantasy without foundation in fact.

see, that's great in all, but it sounds a lot like personal perspective and opinion.  Please give me links or citations to your research, specifically the links that might clarify where you got the information that the "fragments" are fantasy and that all literate cultures have left copious written material to find and how this does not tie in with the bible stories.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Read what

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Read what I said. I did not say all scholars are believers. I said calling believers scholars does not make them more credible.

great!  be it that I never said believers are scholars it made me assume you thought I thought all scholars are believers.  where did you get that idea from?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I am a nationally recognized scholar in the US and I have a 1963 National Merit Scholarship certificate saying so. Does that make me more credible? Scholar has a meaning which has nothing to do with credibility.

I agree, but what you are a scholar in and recognized for does make you more credible in that field.  What are you a scholar in?  A scholar is someone by definition who has a profound knowledge in a particular subject matter.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I am my own example being called a scholar has no bearing upon credibility.

 

Can't argue with you there, however does that make most scholars or even half of them not credible?  

Being called a scholar has no bearing upon credibility... actually being one does have bearing on the particular subject matter one is a scholar of.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Style per

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Style per se immaterial. DATING the style is the issue here.

Or a 2nd c. BC Greek educated person was the author. You say nothing that could lead to dating the material.

Again no evidence of when they were written. 

that's because we were talking about authorship, not dating.  Granted they go hand in hand, but the dating comes first, then the authorship question.  

Are we going into the dating?  We've covered that as well in this thread... might want to read back before continuing.  We will continue to cover that throughout the other books we cover..  one step at a time


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:caposkia

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The cities and culture of Mycanae are known from external evidence such as archaeology and history. Information from archaeology and history contradicts the existence of the culture, people and events described in the Septuagint.

I have established that parchment was in fact used to record fiction. There are many other examples. Therefore your argument from expense if false by inspection.

Please give me a link to this contradictory evidence... I've been looking for it for years.

Are you really saying you want links to the existence of Greek plays and fiction including Aesop's fables? If they exist they show fiction was preserved. QED

Was the issue me questioning the "existence" of fiction in history? Or was it the care at which this alleged fiction was preserved and the self titled fictional character?  

I want links to the method of preservation of the fiction in history and a list of fiction authored by a fictional character.

You now want to argue the cited items were not preserved? Are you going to say you think Aesop and Homer were real people?

 

 

are you going to ignore the request for support for your perspective... again?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Against

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Against Apion was written by Flavius Josephus in the late 1st c. AD. It includes the prototype for outrageous claims of antisemitism by endorsing clear nonsense and declaring anyone who refuses to believe the nonsense refuses only because they hate (or envy) Judeans. (Which is a copyrighted methodology used by Jews still today.)

Citing Against Apion puts your claims in a very, very bad light for another reason. One of the things Josephus claims to be doing is refuting the ideas of Apion on the origin of the Judeans. That raises several problems. Why did not Apion know of Genesis and Exodus if they existed in his time? Even more interesting, if the Septuagint were considered a credible history of the origin of the Judeans, it is very difficult to explain why Josephus never mentions it when in fact it would be the trump card to the entire refutation.

He didn't know Genesis and Exodus for the same reason most "believers" today don't know the Apocrypha.  They were not compiled into a book or recognized as related writings.  They also were not accessible on the internet yet.   Understanding the many directions people could go in at the time, regardless of its credibility it may not have been recognized as such.  That's just taking a guess obviously, but there are many other reasons why it may not have been mentioned including the author may not have wanted to reference it due to personal belief.  

I'm not sure if we could empirically answer it, but either way, it does not seem so far to put the reference in that bad of light... regardless, there are 2 sources, one more credible than this that is also an outside source... the issue again was no source outside the Bible.  This refuted that claim regardless of credibility.  The credibility in question, does not refute the whole of all 3 sources.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Instead Josephus claims the Judeans were originally Hittites and ruled Egypt for a hundred years -- yes, he invented that nonsense. But what is interesting is he did not consider Exodus credible else he would know the "true" story. Maybe he did not know of it at all.

I would agree... those stories did not spread as quickly as we might think they would.  Word of mouth was the way of passing stories through cultures and generations, not hard copies.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Odd that a priest of the Yahweh cult would demand people believe the Hittite story under penalty of being called an antisemite and also know nothing about Exodus.

Odd that high Jewish leaders would crucify the rescue of the humankind as prophesied in their writings as well... but it happened. (don't tangent on Jesus, just making a point that you made yourself.. just because you're called something doesn't mean you're credible.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That you do raise Against Apion is confirmation to me you believers know nothing about the subject but sling crap and claim the crap is proof positive.

It was one of 2 outside sources that were claimed to not have existed.  That was the point.  Regardless, I got that information from a credible source... wiki mentions it too if you look it up.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

And that is WHY I insist YOU present the physical evidence. The sources believers "recommend" never turn out to be what they claim and it turns out believers have never read what they recommend. You would never have mentioned Against Apion if you had both a) read it and b) were in your right mind.

You're right, i hadn't read Against Apion.  Regardless, its credibility is not in question.  Even if it was a false story, the point was it mentioned Solomon, which means the story was at least known if not the person actually being real.  We've established that typically false stories have true aspects to them regardless of how fictional the story can be.  The level of truth that this particular source holds is not the source for which decides the fate of Solomon.  Be it that the court records agree with this book, i would lean toward the truth side of it... you're really stuck on this aren't you.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

This is very unclever save as it also scotches biblical Israel. That is not biblical Israel therefore there was no biblical Israel. Further the archaeology of the Jerusalem region supports Egyptian records, that it was one of their outposts. The pyramid and sphinx were common motifs in Jerusalem down to the 2nd c. AD before Harian rebuilt the city. Additionally there is no mention of any Solomon in any records of any contemporary kingdom while the contemporary kingdoms mention each other.

so you're saying every contemporary kingdom mentions every other kingdom in existence throughout time?

 the point still remains that through the gold perspective, it was possible and not out of the question.  It fits it in history.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

This is a very old gimmick too. The issue is a kingdom ruled by Solomon from the Nile to the Euphrates while believers try to limit it all to the one place they can't dig. 

 

Dude, we're talking about a specific kingdom, of course we're talking about ONE PLACE right now.  

Instead of coming up with honest rational counters to what is being presented, you're reaching for any excuse you can find without looking at the bigger picture... this is typical of believers who are close minded and unwilling to consider any possibility that their understanding might be flawed.   These are your Jehovah's Witnesses and hardcore Catholics as well as Mormon and other sects of the like... you fall into that category.   

You again and again try to downplay anything I present and yet don't present anything that would further support your perspective.  You've also ignored many requests to further support your own perspective... I don't want you to explain it to me, I want to see the sources.  Thats' how I learn.  If your perspective holds water, I will see it through those links or books, whatever they may be.  

I think I need to remind you that this thread is a walkthrough of the Bible... step by step... when you came in, we were talking about Solomon, specifically a temple.. I have not moved on from that because this thread hasn't.  Then you come in with "believers try to limit it allt o the one place they can't dig".  In this light, it was a very ignorant statement.  believers also get stuck on the few things that might make the opposing side look less credible.  Is that how you want to go out? 

I want to move on with this thread.  stop coming up with excuses and do some actual research or just stop.  Also read back before you post.  We've covered many of the issues you bring up already.  If you want to have a circle battle, we can start another thread.  I'll play all the games you want there.