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:
...

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.

I find the mind of the believer incredible. If its credibility is not in question then you negate all of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Leviticus and declare they are all false by definition. You also declare Joshua and everything leading up to and including Solomon is false. But that does not register on the mind that wants to believe.

Solomon was a Hittite and all of his gods are the Hittite pantheon. And do not forget you have agreed Ezra was a Hittite but you want him to reconstruct a non-hittite history. How can this be?

How can believers miss things so obvious?

And by Against Apion, the ONLY source of what might have been in "Apion" YOU acknowledge a priest of Yahweh knows nothing of Exodus. That means he knows nothing of Passover because Exodus is the only source of Passover. Jesus appears at Passover but it has nothing to do with Exodus.

Do you get the picture?

 

 

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: 2638
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I find

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I find the mind of the believer incredible. If its credibility is not in question then you negate all of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Leviticus and declare they are all false by definition. You also declare Joshua and everything leading up to and including Solomon is false. But that does not register on the mind that wants to believe.

heh, every time you get the ball, you like to just throw it way out into left field and make me go chase it.  

The credibility of the book in question is not in question.  The point was that there are outside writings besides what's written in the Bible mentioning Solomon.  There was a claim that there wasn't.. false or not.  I can't claim fiction or fact on that book because as I said i haven't read it.  I haven't investigated it nor analyzed it.  Regardless the credibility isn't what's in question.  How you get that to mean I have to take all the Ot books of the bible as false as well is beyond me.  

Stop searching for an excuse and actually show me a reason to not believe.  This isn't going to work.  If anyone is going to show me why I might be wrong, i believe at this moment it would be PJTS.  He seems to actually make an effort to understand both sides as I do.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

Solomon was a Hittite and all of his gods are the Hittite pantheon. And do not forget you have agreed Ezra was a Hittite but you want him to reconstruct a non-hittite history. How can this be?

How can believers miss things so obvious?

maybe it's not the believers who are missing something.  It seems that you mind can only wrap around one angle at a time.  

Why do we need to recontruct a non-hittite history again?  I think I missed that part.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

And by Against Apion, the ONLY source of what might have been in "Apion" YOU acknowledge a priest of Yahweh knows nothing of Exodus. That means he knows nothing of Passover because Exodus is the only source of Passover. Jesus appears at Passover but it has nothing to do with Exodus.

Do you get the picture?

I get your angle.  

let's put it simply for you.  I grew up catholic... As a catholic growing up, I knew that Jesus died for our sins.  I knew that Christmas was about the birth of Christ and the whole wisemen story.  I knew of the last supper and the rememberence of that night... but I had never read the Bible... how did i know what I knew?  family tradition.  I didn't listen when we went to church... all I knew is when the priest fed us Christ Chex, it'd be one more song and we'd get to finally leave.  Every Jew or decendant thereof celebrated the passover.  

Most people today in America celebrate Christmas... what percentage of them do you think celebrate it remembering the birth of Christ and why he was born?  Though people have heard the name of Jesus Christ, I'd say most people know nothing of him.  

Do you get the picture?  

We're getting off track... let's get back to where we left of in scripture.  

I would love to get in more depth with these conversations with you... just on another forum.  Your final statement of Jesus appearing at Passover but having nothing to do with Exodus has such depth to be discussed, but not here.  


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

caposkia wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I find the mind of the believer incredible. If its credibility is not in question then you negate all of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Leviticus and declare they are all false by definition. You also declare Joshua and everything leading up to and including Solomon is false. But that does not register on the mind that wants to believe.

heh, every time you get the ball, you like to just throw it way out into left field and make me go chase it.  

The credibility of the book in question is not in question.  The point was that there are outside writings besides what's written in the Bible mentioning Solomon.

If that were true it would be different. But you are the only person who claims to know of such a source. Please quote the external mention of Solomon NOT someone claiming there is a mention of Solomon nor a book claiming there is such a mention. The technical term for claims without physical evidence is bullshit.

Quote:
There was a claim that there wasn't.. false or not.  I can't claim fiction or fact on that book because as I said i haven't read it.  I haven't investigated it nor analyzed it.

Do you ever read anything that you claim is evidence of your position?

Quote:
Regardless the credibility isn't what's in question.  How you get that to mean I have to take all the Ot books of the bible as false as well is beyond me.

Physical evidence is the only issue but you never produce any.

Quote:
Stop searching for an excuse and actually show me a reason to not believe.  This isn't going to work.  If anyone is going to show me why I might be wrong, i believe at this moment it would be PJTS.  He seems to actually make an effort to understand both sides as I do.

What you believe is your business. As a participant here I take it on myself to point out lies when people post them. If you want to lie about an external mention of Solomon, fine with me but don't object when I point out you are lying. I realize lying is what believers do but this is not a forum for believers.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Solomon was a Hittite and all of his gods are the Hittite pantheon. And do not forget you have agreed Ezra was a Hittite but you want him to reconstruct a non-hittite history. How can this be?

How can believers miss things so obvious?

maybe it's not the believers who are missing something.  It seems that you mind can only wrap around one angle at a time.  

Why do we need to recontruct a non-hittite history again?  I think I missed that part.

The point is Josephus gives no indication he either heard of or believed the Torah contained anything factual.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
And by Against Apion, the ONLY source of what might have been in "Apion" YOU acknowledge a priest of Yahweh knows nothing of Exodus. That means he knows nothing of Passover because Exodus is the only source of Passover. Jesus appears at Passover but it has nothing to do with Exodus.

Do you get the picture?

I get your angle.  

let's put it simply for you.  I grew up catholic...

Noone's perfect.

Quote:
As a catholic growing up, I knew that Jesus died for our sins.  I knew that Christmas was about the birth of Christ and the whole wisemen story.  I knew of the last supper and the rememberence of that night... but I had never read the Bible... how did i know what I knew?  family tradition.  I didn't listen when we went to church... all I knew is when the priest fed us Christ Chex, it'd be one more song and we'd get to finally leave.  Every Jew or decendant thereof celebrated the passover.

But there is no indication Passover had anything to do with Exodus. From archaeology we know Exodus is a myth. And we know from Josephus Exodus was not taken as credible by everyone. So the question is what was Passover about before grafted onto the Exodus myth?

Quote:
Most people today in America celebrate Christmas... what percentage of them do you think celebrate it remembering the birth of Christ and why he was born? Though people have heard the name of Jesus Christ, I'd say most people know nothing of him.  

Do you get the picture?  

We're getting off track... let's get back to where we left of in scripture.

You have records of Solomon the Hittite?

Quote:
I would love to get in more depth with these conversations with you... just on another forum.  Your final statement of Jesus appearing at Passover but having nothing to do with Exodus has such depth to be discussed, but not here.

A priest of the Yahweh cult does not accept Genesis and Exodus as the origin of the Jews, claiming they were Hittite rulers who were driven out of Egypt by the military, and that Passover TODAY tells the Exodus story. That same priest knew about Passover. If Passover told the Exodus story he would know the Exodus story. But he tells an entirely different and contrary story of Hittite rulers.

So what was Passover about in the time of Josephus as it could not have been related to Exodus?

 

 

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
caposkia

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.  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.

When one reads the descriptions of the various kings In 1 & 2 kings as well as Chronicles one gets the impression that it is a propaganda book - such as: and ______ was king over _____ and did evil in the sight of the Lord (EITSOTL - useful later as it's said so many times). The repeated monotonous use of this phrase is certainly propaganda.

There was the repeated mention up to now that the Children of Israel fell away from the god as in "and the Children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord..." in Exodus, Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel .....

That appears to me to be propaganda.

If you reported on the bank robbery and did nothing more it would be news. If however you reported on the robbery and claimed that robberies such as this are proof positive that George Bush had caused the economic conditions leaving the poor no options but robbery due to his ill conceived policies it would be propaganda.

caposkia wrote:

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.

It also does not validate the story as one cannot tell for sure what the real story may have been as parts are fiction and false. So how can one ever know if any of it is reality based?

caposkia wrote:

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. 

If severe doubts were universal, such as a skeptic, these claims would not be held to be true until proven false.

Do you accept the stories of Herakles as true unless proven false? Do you accept the stories of Enki true unless proven false>

Or of Mohammad?

Why then use a different standard for the OT. The OT is but human words that are not inspired, the books themselves contradict one another, they are at odds to other cultures, they have exaggerations, thus showing human origins. As a product of humans they are imperfect, thus should be questioned.

Though the magic and impossibilities should be enough alone to question the validity, it is for me.

caposkia wrote:

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.  

The border issue seems to be insignificant to me, it's not specified as you indicate. Egypt had areas of influence that varied over the centuries. The area of Palestine was under their influence during and before the period in question. As to an exact border, none is given or important.

No history I have ever heard of discusses David or Solomon. I have never heard of other names being used for them. If you know of either a source circa the 9th or 10th century BCE or of some mention in foreign cultures please provide.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2638
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:If that

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

If that were true it would be different. But you are the only person who claims to know of such a source. Please quote the external mention of Solomon NOT someone claiming there is a mention of Solomon nor a book claiming there is such a mention. The technical term for claims without physical evidence is bullshit.

am i now.  so you've asked around and done some investigating to come to that conclusion?  I'm guessing not, because if you did you wouldn't have stated that.  

King Hiram and Solomon traded and worked on a trade route together.  Tyrian court records and... after some investigating, the apion story actually quoted Menander of Ephesus in reference to Solomon, so if you had read the book yourself, you would have known that to be the case and not made a big case out of the authenticity of the writing.  In fact it is noted that Josiphus quoted the Menander to further authenticate his own writing.   

Just in case it didn't jump out at you due to the fact that I didn't hug it with quotation marks, your request for a quote from the external mention of solomon is the first sentence in that paragraph above.  I didn't put it in quotes because after some research, I summarized.  It all had to do with how the 2 kings joined forces for financial gain and progression of their kingdoms. 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Do you ever read anything that you claim is evidence of your position?

yes, I would say everything though I tend to research and quote some references at times that further my point from reliable sources.  If it's a bad reference, it's a learning point for me about the reference... unless of course I'm talking to you... the I get lost in accusations and poor attempts at making my whole case look bad because of that particular source... no mention of the other one BTW... how come?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Physical evidence is the only issue but you never produce any.

We've been talking about.... dude never mind... Any historian knows when there's not physical evidence, to automatically conclude fiction is a poor state of mind.   

If that's how history was concluded, we'd have no history to look back on because apparently, when no evidence rears its head on the initial investigation, it's pointless to keep looking for it.  

BTW We have Menander's writing fragments... can't mail them to you.. I don't have the privileged access to them.  I must be assuming again... not reading before I claim it as a source... man, it's a bad habit you've gotten me into.  

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

What you believe is your business. As a participant here I take it on myself to point out lies when people post them. If you want to lie about an external mention of Solomon, fine with me but don't object when I point out you are lying. I realize lying is what believers do but this is not a forum for believers.

Your ignorance is killing me.

I love how you're trying to make me look bad... tell you what, I'll put my fate in those who oppose me.  Ask anyone on here who has really sat down and had an extensive discussion with me about whether I lie or not.  Let me know what they say.  I'll wait.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The point is Josephus gives no indication he either heard of or believed the Torah contained anything factual.

ok

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

But there is no indication Passover had anything to do with Exodus. 

except that anyone who celebrates it can only associate it with the story in Exodus.  There's no indication what-so-ever in history that the literal celebration of Passover was for anything other than the Exodus story... unless again you have something I don't know yet.. please send me the link.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You have records of Solomon the Hittite?

completely ignored the whole statement about people celebrating Christmas... good job... I gave you... um... 3-4 sources at this point.  the 4th source being referenced through one of the others, but historically we have physical evidence of it.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

A priest of the Yahweh cult does not accept Genesis and Exodus as the origin of the Jews, claiming they were Hittite rulers who were driven out of Egypt by the military, and that Passover TODAY tells the Exodus story. That same priest knew about Passover. If Passover told the Exodus story he would know the Exodus story. But he tells an entirely different and contrary story of Hittite rulers.

So what was Passover about in the time of Josephus as it could not have been related to Exodus?

This goes back to the Christmas celebration.  what percentage of people who celebrate it in America really know and understand the holiday, its origin, its purpose and meaning and how it came to be what it is today?   Do you know?  

Jehovah's Witnesses don't' accept that Jesus was and is equal to God, nor to they believe they are under the Law of God.  therefore God doesn't exist

Many Germans believe the Holocaust never actually happened despite the historical evidence and eye-witness accounts (like scripture)  Therefore, it never happened.

A priest that follows the same God does not accept part of the history yet celebrates the traditional celebrations... apparently that person also determines whether something actually happened or not.  

My conclusion... Christmas is actually a ploy to get people to buy buy buy and boost our economy and only after was it tied into Jesus Christ and that whole history.  By your approach to conclusion, that would be rational to conclude.. .unfortunately I have history and eye-witness accounts going against this conclusion.  Ultimately, I have no ground to stand on other than the here and now and what I can see with my own eyes and what I have decided in my own head... (I feel I need to add that this is in reference to the Christmas conspiracy theory stated here)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2638
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

When one reads the descriptions of the various kings In 1 & 2 kings as well as Chronicles one gets the impression that it is a propaganda book - such as: and ______ was king over _____ and did evil in the sight of the Lord (EITSOTL - useful later as it's said so many times). The repeated monotonous use of this phrase is certainly propaganda.

Or simply Chronology same as it's written today.  the evil part added by the... writer?  likely to make a point that even the kings weren't seen as perfect in God's eyes though people of the time would view their kings as perfect.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

There was the repeated mention up to now that the Children of Israel fell away from the god as in "and the Children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord..." in Exodus, Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel .....

That appears to me to be propaganda.

It's paiting a progressive picture of how we ended up needing the coming savior.

Either way, propaganda for what exactly?  to promote the god of the bible?  How is repeatedly telling people that everyone's falling short of Gods expectations including the kings promoting God?  If anything wouldn't that be anti-propaganda if it were propaganda at all?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It also does not validate the story as one cannot tell for sure what the real story may have been as parts are fiction and false. So how can one ever know if any of it is reality based?

Like I mentioned a while back when we started in the Kings section through Samuel, it would be hard to tell, near impossible taking these books by themselves without any other referencing.  I need a timeline that would take their place in order to fully determine that they could not have existed, there doesn't seem to be one.  You need more historical information regarding these books... There is minimal.  These books are hard to discuss historically.  

My take is they do fit the timeline panted from the books we have more evidence or reasoning in history to support as we've discussed, so that there supports these in history.  We have minimal support in history, but none to replace them in history.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If severe doubts were universal, such as a skeptic, these claims would not be held to be true until proven false.

Do you accept the stories of Herakles as true unless proven false? Do you accept the stories of Enki true unless proven false>

Or of Mohammad?

Why then use a different standard for the OT. The OT is but human words that are not inspired, the books themselves contradict one another, they are at odds to other cultures, they have exaggerations, thus showing human origins. As a product of humans they are imperfect, thus should be questioned.

I did not accept these stories as true until proven false.  My understanding started with the New Testament.  I went backward from there starting to understand the OT books.  There are some Christians out there believe it  or not who do not accept the OT stories as part of their history.  

You have to keep in mind you're getting me from a point where they've already been proven to me.  It's as if you'd been reading a story you were convinced was written about a fictional character until you got to meet that character in person.  Obviously I'm still learning and we always are, but from what I've presented so far and the connection each book has to each other as we've revieled thus far, I have only seen further reason to accept it as true.  Because I have a relationship with the God of the Bible, it allows me to realize the truth of the books in history.  

Don't get me wrong.  Many times have I questioned, why these books... why not the hundreds of others that talk about the God of the Bible that were in and aren't anymore, or never were considered as part of the whole book in the first place.  In many cases it has to do with the timline I've found out and their place in history is more easily understood than many of the others.  It also has to do with their focus among other things.  I'm still trying to figure it all out.  considering all that, I still see a OT book as more likely than not just a story.  We'll talk about it when we get to it.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The border issue seems to be insignificant to me, it's not specified as you indicate. Egypt had areas of influence that varied over the centuries. The area of Palestine was under their influence during and before the period in question. As to an exact border, none is given or important.

No history I have ever heard of discusses David or Solomon. I have never heard of other names being used for them. If you know of either a source circa the 9th or 10th century BCE or of some mention in foreign cultures please provide.

You're right about the boarders, but they're significant if someone's claiming that something may have happened near Egypt, but not in it.  What would that mean when boarders weren't clearly established?

Anyway, Menander of Ephesus would be the best reference I could give you for mentioning Solomon.  At least with that source, we have physical fragments of it.


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

caposkia wrote:

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?

I did mention Ehrman's book Forged which goes into that.

Then there is the Book of Daniel, which is not Daniel. There was Enoch as well, not written by Enoch.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

All this actually 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.

Style of scribes would also be included. Most are unknown writers. That men wrote these books means errors, omissions and exaggerations are included. So far that is what we find.

caposkia wrote:

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.

As archeology discredits much of the account in Joshua I personally have doubts of a guy called Joshua being a real person.

As nothing attests to him other than the stories that have issues proof of his existence is required.

caposkia wrote:

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. 

So no copy of memoirs exists I take it.

caposkia wrote:

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.

With source material from other cultures and religions in it, what does that say about the story tales to you?

To me the inclusion of religious fairytales from other cultures indicates borrowing of ideas to include. It does not make any of them realistic as many involve impossible occurrences.

caposkia wrote:

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. 

So do you mean there is evidence Solomon existed? Signed documents? What? I know of nothing outside the Bible that mentions him other than writings that depend on the Bible such as Josephus.

caposkia wrote:

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?

Friedman concluded that Jeremiah created the tales and the Book of the Law. Who exactly Jeremiah was and what he had in mind would take an interview. I don't think he's available though.

caposkia wrote:

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!

I have reams of notes.

This was on the thread - Just ask Grandpa that you came to for a while. It proceeded in great depth.

My counter arguments are summarized from post 1377 to 1450 on this thread - http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/20506?page=27

My overall summary is on p 28 in post 1444.

caposkia wrote:

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. 

When we get to Micah and Nahum we can discuss more and why Micah does not support the Jesus character as the mashiach if you want. Only a short time to get there, Micah discusses the period which involves Assyria and the city state of Samaria.

 

caposkia wrote:

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 Ephesians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Tim, Titus, 2 Thessalonians 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.

I'm not just talking about the title of the books here, but the attributed authorship. Many believers have no idea that books such as these were forgeries or well intended later believers that had agendas to promote on their interpretation of what should be or not be. The books I mentioned were forged and not written by Paul. The reasons Ehrman gives is what you claim as well style, theology advocated etc.

Please read Ehrman's book and then let me know what you think about the usage of names to promote legitimacy. In 2 Thessalonians 1:1 the lie is put forth that Paul wrote it also in 3:17. But he did not. 1 & 2 Tim have the same lie put forth in v 1. Ephesians also perpetuates the lie that Paul wrote it writing supposedly in the 1st person, but yet he did not write this book. There are more, but we are in the OT not the NT right now, that is another long discussion. But Ehrman's book can shred light on these issues for you and help you to see how there are contradictory beliefs put forth in the forged books contrary to that which Paul advocated.

caposkia wrote:

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

Yes, Enoch is someone's attempt to fill in the holes left in Genesis especially in regard to Genesis 6. There are others such as the 1st and 2nd Book of Adam & Eve, clearly not written by the mythical characters but a fun story book tale.

caposkia wrote:

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

After we get to the decimation tale by Nebuchadrezzar we can take up several of the assorted books discussing there issues.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2638
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I did mention Ehrman's book Forged which goes into that.

Then there is the Book of Daniel, which is not Daniel. There was Enoch as well, not written by Enoch.

I'm pretty sure those Bible books referenced were later titled and were not titled such by the author... They were also not written as if those people actually wrote it... with exception of Enoch...  likely written somewhere between 200 B.C. and 100 B.C.  obviously not written by Enoch.  Pretty sure all the works dated between those dates, i'll get to that in a second.  But that was a good reference.  It was common of writings of that time to take on the title of another name than the author.  Most though did not try to assume the named person wrote it, moreso that the name was who it was written for.  

Enoch was a good reference and good point that it was a book written to sound like Enoch wrote it, but there's one problem.  It is a compilation of many sources again and not literally one literary work that tried to claim Enoch wrote it.  It was a bunch of smaller works written between the time frame referenced above.  When it was compiled into one book and titled "Enoch" I'm not really sure.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Style of scribes would also be included. Most are unknown writers. That men wrote these books means errors, omissions and exaggerations are included. So far that is what we find.

The Bible supports itself as written by men via the word of God.  It is widely accepted that due to the fact that "man" is the middleman if you will to the word of God that there are going to be some errors... these are found throughout all history and not just fictional history.  So far, we find it is congruent with all historical writings of the time with exception of the content being focused on God.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As archeology discredits much of the account in Joshua I personally have doubts of a guy called Joshua being a real person.

As nothing attests to him other than the stories that have issues proof of his existence is required.

I would agree that there is little... not nothing that attests to him beyond the stories, but from the links you've provided and the research I've done in the past and because of this forum, I have not seen this counter archeological evidence you seem to be suggesting.  Did I miss something specific?  I posted a comment to you btw on one of the links you sent me.  i had mentioned it might be easier to go through it step by step made comments and asked you for your thoughts.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So no copy of memoirs exists I take it.

From what I get from the research I did at this point... There are "copies".. no originals in our possession at this time.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

With source material from other cultures and religions in it, what does that say about the story tales to you?

 if they were really trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, the last thing an author would want to do is use a known source from another popular following to support an opposing god.  That would more likely than not put less validation on the stories for the people at that time, not more.  The Bible makes no attempt to hide or deny the other followings or its own people being involved in the other followings.. very unusual for a religion to admit that.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

To me the inclusion of religious fairytales from other cultures indicates borrowing of ideas to include. It does not make any of them realistic as many involve impossible occurrences.

Ultimately, I don't feel that particular piece of information really does anything as far as validating or invalidating the possibility of the story in history regardless of any assumed impossibilities mentioned.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So do you mean there is evidence Solomon existed? Signed documents? What? I know of nothing outside the Bible that mentions him other than writings that depend on the Bible such as Josephus.

There are a small handful of other writings not in the Bible that I have mentioned that reference Solomon.  Archeology has also found some artifacts... they can't directly be associated necessarily with Solomon, but it points in the direction of possibility, one of them was a known top of a staff... I think... that had an inscription to the God of the Bible "YHWH"... this particular artifact is understood to be part of something that would be held by a person of high stature like a King.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Friedman concluded that Jeremiah created the tales and the Book of the Law. Who exactly Jeremiah was and what he had in mind would take an interview. I don't think he's available though.

all in all, Friedman made an assumption based on the idea that many Christians want to claim that Moses authored all of the first 5 and didn't... he's also making an assumption that there was a single author for all of it despite the evidence that there were likely many different authors.  (this is what I get from what you wrote anyway.. maybe an assumption on my part, but please clarify)

Again, I don't see how this information in any way gives light to how the original pieces of the book were written, whether on tablets or not.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have reams of notes.

This was on the thread - Just ask Grandpa that you came to for a while. It proceeded in great depth.

My counter arguments are summarized from post 1377 to 1450 on this thread - http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/20506?page=27

My overall summary is on p 28 in post 1444.

Oh no kidding!  Guess I missed that.  I'll have to look through it.. thank you

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

When we get to Micah and Nahum we can discuss more and why Micah does not support the Jesus character as the mashiach if you want. Only a short time to get there, Micah discusses the period which involves Assyria and the city state of Samaria.

which likely goes into why Jews of today and Christians are not on the same page.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm not just talking about the title of the books here, but the attributed authorship. Many believers have no idea that books such as these were forgeries or well intended later believers that had agendas to promote on their interpretation of what should be or not be. The books I mentioned were forged and not written by Paul. The reasons Ehrman gives is what you claim as well style, theology advocated etc.

A good study Bible clarifies any discrepencies and misunderstandings as well as squelches any assumptions in this department.  what is not known is clearly stated and what is known is clearly stated as well.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Please read Ehrman's book and then let me know what you think about the usage of names to promote legitimacy. In 2 Thessalonians 1:1 the lie is put forth that Paul wrote it also in 3:17. But he did not. 1 & 2 Tim have the same lie put forth in v 1. Ephesians also perpetuates the lie that Paul wrote it writing supposedly in the 1st person, but yet he did not write this book. There are more, but we are in the OT not the NT right now, that is another long discussion. But Ehrman's book can shred light on these issues for you and help you to see how there are contradictory beliefs put forth in the forged books contrary to that which Paul advocated.

I'll have to read that... especially seeing as not only is there internal evidence of Paul's authorship in 1 Thessalonians, but external as well.  It'll be interesting to see what "new" evidence he has to provide in this front.

2nd Thessalonians has more question to Pauls authorship and I have a feeling that's where he tries to generalize the whole. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

After we get to the decimation tale by Nebuchadrezzar we can take up several of the assorted books discussing there issues.

sounds good


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2638
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Erhman's book

I have not read it yet, but looked into the person a bit.  It seems the biggest arguement against his perspective is that he fails to take into consideration a lot of factors that determine legitimacy of authorship including the acceptance of such books in early churches.  Also that many may have had scribes as referenced in Acts... um... forget what chapter and verse at the moment, but it's in the earlier sections... 8???  anyway, Peter is one such example where there seems to be reference to Silas being a possible scribe for Peter for the 2nd book which would clarify the discrepencies.  Silas is referenced to a few times including in acts as a trustworthy person and a scribe. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2638
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Nebuchadnezzar

In the upcoming discussion on Nebuchadnezzar, is there going to be question of his existence as a real person as well?  I ask because I've been given light to an artifact that would support his existence through the name of one of his chief officers Nabu-sharrussu-ukin as mentioned in Jeremiah 39. 


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

caposkia wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


I did mention Ehrman's book Forged which goes into that.

Then there is the Book of Daniel, which is not Daniel. There was Enoch as well, not written by Enoch.



I'm pretty sure those Bible books referenced were later titled and were not titled such by the author... They were also not written as if those people actually wrote it... with exception of Enoch...  likely written somewhere between 200 B.C. and 100 B.C.  obviously not written by Enoch.  Pretty sure all the works dated between those dates, i'll get to that in a second.  But that was a good reference.  It was common of writings of that time to take on the title of another name than the author.  Most though did not try to assume the named person wrote it, moreso that the name was who it was written for. 

Enoch was a good reference and good point that it was a book written to sound like Enoch wrote it, but there's one problem.  It is a compilation of many sources again and not literally one literary work that tried to claim Enoch wrote it.  It was a bunch of smaller works written between the time frame referenced above.  When it was compiled into one book and titled "Enoch" I'm not really sure.


Enoch was quite popular in the 1st century CE as well indicating that creative writing passed as legitimate. The NT shows knowledge of it such as in Revelation among other places. There were multiple copies of it found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). Actually more copies of Enoch were found (25) than of Daniel (Cool, Jeremiah (6), Ezekiel (6), and 1 & 2 Samuel (4) combined. Maybe the scribes liked the storytelling of Enoch for the vivid descriptions of the sex, violence, and torture of the angels more than the errors in Ezekiel and Jeremiah, who knows.

caposkia wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


Style of scribes would also be included. Most are unknown writers. That men wrote these books means errors, omissions and exaggerations are included. So far that is what we find.



The Bible supports itself as written by men via the word of God.  It is widely accepted that due to the fact that "man" is the middleman if you will to the word of God that there are going to be some errors... these are found throughout all history and not just fictional history.  So far, we find it is congruent with all historical writings of the time with exception of the content being focused on God.


The crux of the question is the assertion you make that the Bible was "written by men via the word of God". That is the whole problem here and the claim requires proof. Errors of substance do not help validate this assertion, rather they discredit it.

The Enki stories have the same exact problem, they were etched in clay by men. Perhaps they missed a few points here and there too.

No, we don't both find the history congruent with that of other cultures. There are problems with kingdoms being in the area dominated by others. This only gets worse as we go along in our adventure.



caposkia wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


As archeology discredits much of the account in Joshua I personally have doubts of a guy called Joshua being a real person.

As nothing attests to him other than the stories that have issues proof of his existence is required.



I would agree that there is little... not nothing that attests to him beyond the stories, but from the links you've provided and the research I've done in the past and because of this forum, I have not seen this counter archaeological evidence you seem to be suggesting.  Did I miss something specific?  I posted a comment to you btw on one of the links you sent me.  i had mentioned it might be easier to go through it step by step made comments and asked you for your thoughts.


Where did any other culture mention Joshua? What artifacts support the invasion of the Israelite Horde? The claims in regard to cities destroyed are false as I showed you. No invasion of Ai, it was already ruins. No walls in Jericho at the time. No evidence of massive destruction throughout the area at the time, especially since Egypt, the Mitani, the Hittites, and the Assyrians were all involved in the area. No room for Joshua and an invading force at all. Rather, archeology indicates as in Finkelstein's books that Palestine was settled by nomadic tribes that all did the same. The area called Judah was no different than any other part of Palestine.

caposkia wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


So no copy of memoirs exists I take it.



From what I get from the research I did at this point... There are "copies".. no originals in our possession at this time.

I searched both Google and my Hebrew Jewish sources and haven't found this.

I have not heard this before. Provide a link to your research on this please.

Or when we get to Ezra we can go through it, your choice.

caposkia wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


With source material from other cultures and religions in it, what does that say about the story tales to you?



 if they were really trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, the last thing an author would want to do is use a known source from another popular following to support an opposing god.  That would more likely than not put less validation on the stories for the people at that time, not more.  The Bible makes no attempt to hide or deny the other followings or its own people being involved in the other followings.. very unusual for a religion to admit that.

I'm not saying anyone was trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes. Using storytales of others indicates divergence of the god beliefs. This was very common. See the stories of Mesopotamia for examples. Some were also morphed into Canaanite and Greek stories as well.

caposkia wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


So do you mean there is evidence Solomon existed? Signed documents? What? I know of nothing outside the Bible that mentions him other than writings that depend on the Bible such as Josephus.



There are a small handful of other writings not in the Bible that I have mentioned that reference Solomon.  Archeology has also found some artifacts... they can't directly be associated necessarily with Solomon, but it points in the direction of possibility, one of them was a known top of a staff... I think... that had an inscription to the God of the Bible "YHWH"... this particular artifact is understood to be part of something that would be held by a person of high stature like a King. 

Artifacts that have YWYH don't validate anyone in particular, whether it be a king or a priest working in a temple.

If so, clay tablets that discuss the adventures of Enki, Gilgamesh must validate them as well.

caposkia wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


Friedman concluded that Jeremiah created the tales and the Book of the Law. Who exactly Jeremiah was and what he had in mind would take an interview. I don't think he's available though.



all in all, Friedman made an assumption based on the idea that many Christians want to claim that Moses authored all of the first 5 and didn't... he's also making an assumption that there was a single author for all of it despite the evidence that there were likely many different authors.  (this is what I get from what you wrote anyway.. maybe an assumption on my part, but please clarify)

Again, I don't see how this information in any way gives light to how the original pieces of the book were written, whether on tablets or not.

Yes Friedman did make that unwarranted assumption based on similar content and writing styles for Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. Though easily those parts could have been the work of the same scribe.

caposkia wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


I have reams of notes.

This was on the thread - Just ask Grandpa that you came to for a while. It proceeded in great depth.

My counter arguments are summarized from post 1377 to 1450 on this thread - http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/20506?page=27

My overall summary is on p 28 in post 1444.



Oh no kidding!  Guess I missed that.  I'll have to look through it.. thank you

 

You're welcome. We will get to that soon.

caposkia wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


When we get to Micah and Nahum we can discuss more and why Micah does not support the Jesus character as the mashiach if you want. Only a short time to get there, Micah discusses the period which involves Assyria and the city state of Samaria.



which likely goes into why Jews of today and Christians are not on the same page.

Partly, there is more.

caposkia wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


I'm not just talking about the title of the books here, but the attributed authorship. Many believers have no idea that books such as these were forgeries or well intended later believers that had agendas to promote on their interpretation of what should be or not be. The books I mentioned were forged and not written by Paul. The reasons Ehrman gives is what you claim as well style, theology advocated etc.



A good study Bible clarifies any discrepancies and misunderstandings as well as squelches any assumptions in this department.  what is not known is clearly stated and what is known is clearly stated as well.

Some do so, others do not. Read Ehrman's book for the detail.

caposkia wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


Please read Ehrman's book and then let me know what you think about the usage of names to promote legitimacy. In 2 Thessalonians 1:1 the lie is put forth that Paul wrote it also in 3:17. But he did not. 1 & 2 Tim have the same lie put forth in v 1. Ephesians also perpetuates the lie that Paul wrote it writing supposedly in the 1st person, but yet he did not write this book. There are more, but we are in the OT not the NT right now, that is another long discussion. But Ehrman's book can shred light on these issues for you and help you to see how there are contradictory beliefs put forth in the forged books contrary to that which Paul advocated.



I'll have to read that... especially seeing as not only is there internal evidence of Paul's authorship in 1 Thessalonians, but external as well.  It'll be interesting to see what "new" evidence he has to provide in this front.

2nd Thessalonians has more question to Paul's authorship and I have a feeling that's where he tries to generalize the whole.

Ehrman details why 2 Thessalonians is forged and 1 Thess is probably Paul.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
caposkia wrote:In the

caposkia wrote:

In the upcoming discussion on Nebuchadnezzar, is there going to be question of his existence as a real person as well? 

 

There are plenty of artifacts establishing Nebuchadrezzar as a king of Babylon, so no question he existed.

Such as ABC5 - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html which we will get into when we get to him.

Search online at The British Musuem for a few. See AK Grayson as well.

Enough that some are even sold - http://www.sandsoftimeantiquities.com/order/itemDetail.asp?vprodid=1189&vOrder=

caposkia wrote:
I ask because I've been given light to an artifact that would support his existence through the name of one of his chief officers Nabu-sharrussu-ukin as mentioned in Jeremiah 39.

 

I'd guess this is what you mean - http://www.realdiscoveries.org/modules/articles/item.php?itemid=61

____________________________________________________________
"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
1 Kings 13 & 14

1 Kings 13
 

Jeroboam is burning incense at an altar, in the evil high places when a no name prophet shows up. The prophet tells Jeroboam in Verse 2 a future king would

appear  "A son named Josiah will be born to the house of David." (NIV) This is suugested to be possibly the mashiach. The sign is that this very altar of Jeroboam's would be rent into and the ashes be poured out by Josiah.

Josiah would be a future king that would do the actions claimed in v3, namely in 2 Kings 23:15. Nothing like writing the history of an event as a prophecy or writing the storytelling to appear to be historical, either way, clearly indicates that it has new origins.

Then, Jeroboam goes to strike at the prophet with no name and his hand is withered until he asks the prophet to ask the god to restore it.

Are prophets with no name like the man with no name from the Spaghetti Westerns? Probably not, the man with no name seemed to have a decent set of values. ( My view)

This same unnamed prophet is returning to Judah with the instruction from the god to not eat or drink in this place, Beth-el. He leaves. However another old prophet heard about the Judah prophet and went out to find him He lied to the Judah prophet telling him the god sent an angel to fetch him and he should return to Beth-el with him for food and drink. After, the Judah prophet is informed by the old prophet that the god came to him and told him that he had disobeyed and would not be buried with his fathers in his own sepulcher. He goes and is killed by a lion on the way back. The old prophet goes and gets him burying him in his own grave.

Meanwhile, Jeroboam continues to make priests of the lowest of the people. That the writer considers some people inferior indicates the origin is not inspired by a god that considers all people equal.

The inclusion of Josiah by specific name is proof positive of later writing. That many consider it prophecy is due to their beliefs that men somehow had a wireless or telepathic connection to the god. So far, modern technology has yet to discover this spectrum. Though A T & T probably is holding it for future use and it is currently jammed.

There are no time stamped dated documents for this verse, the oldest documents are about 800 years after the event herein described, namely the DSS.

No parallel in  Chronicles here

1 Kings 14

Now more storytelling.

The king of Israel, Jeroboam's son became ill, so he sent his wife to Shiloh to the prophet Ahijah, in disguise of course. When she gets there he knows it is her despite being blind (meaning he needed glasses but they hadn't been invented yet). The god used his wireless telepathic connection, probably 801.1 a to inform the prophet. He launches into a long discourse that starts with their son will die as soon as her feet enter her own house and ends with a prediction that Israel will be scattered beyond the river (meaning beyond the Jordan or perhaps the Tigris and Euphrates). In addition, Jeroboam's house would not continue as another would displace him. The reason of course is Israel sinned against the god by having pagan shrines.

Sure enough, as soon as she reached home her son dies.

Jeroboam reigned a total of 22 years over Israel. However, it seems that his other son Nadab ruled for 2 years following Jeroboam's death, more on this in 1 Kings 15.

So does 1 Kings really have a prophecy here in regard to the eventual destruction of the city state of Samaria (I don't use Israel for a country name)? I don't think so. Why, because the storytelling includes info created as with Josiah, clearly written far after the fact. The oldest fragments are again the DSS, dated to the 2nd century BCE, hundreds of years after. In addition, the goal of the writer is to continuous paint Samaria (You call it Israel) to be evil incarnate, as opposed to the southern city state of Judah. As all of this area clearly worshiped the gods of the land as they always did, the claim to sin against a god that has no established verification by archeology or artifacts is no more than storytelling. That's at least the way I see it. The future history must be constructed to follow the path as told by the priests of the Yahweh for their purposes. Which obviously is the depiction of Samaria as evil incarnate, which is hardly the case given the circumstances over the next 100 years or so. Again, at least from my perspective.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2638
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


The crux of the question is the assertion you make that the Bible was "written by men via the word of God". That is the whole problem here and the claim requires proof. Errors of substance do not help validate this assertion, rather they discredit it.

not at all.. unlike me telling you to write something down... e.g. "go to the store and buy eggs, milk and bread", you can come back and say, "I missed the last part, what was it again... whereas a conversation with God is a one time deal... in many cases, it was presented in a vision or dream, therefore, the writers were recollecting the vision they had from God or the words as they understood them.  Then after translations and scribes pass it through some things change a bit as well... some may have been for clarification purposes, some may have been misunderstood, but all were careful to keep the core details under scrutiny. 

Generally speaking, the Word of God was understood to be extremely important and therefore when recording what they were told, though details might be skewed, the basis of the information is still in tact.  E.g. they may have forgotten that God told them to have nice day, but they understood that God gave them a prophesy that told them of coming events that eventually took place.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No, we don't both find the history congruent with that of other cultures. There are problems with kingdoms being in the area dominated by others. This only gets worse as we go along in our adventure.

only if you have a specific boarder in mind... there were no such boarders during that time.  We've also established how a kingdom in question could possibly have existed as said.  It is found to be congruent with history.

Remember me metioning the values of the kingdoms and how some kingdoms worked together to make their profit?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


As archeology discredits much of the account in Joshua I personally have doubts of a guy called Joshua being a real person.

I don't believe you've shown me how archeology discredits the account of Joshua... only that there's a lack of evidence at this time due to circumstances we've discussed.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
 

As nothing attests to him other than the stories that have issues proof of his existence is required.

there is no evidence in history of anything happening in history outside of stories that have issues... even modern day documentation of events have issues.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
 

I would agree that there is little... not nothing that attests to him beyond the stories, but from the links you've provided and the research I've done in the past and because of this forum, I have not seen this counter archaeological evidence you seem to be suggesting....*edit*



Where did any other culture mention Joshua? What artifacts support the invasion of the Israelite Horde? The claims in regard to cities destroyed are false as I showed you. No invasion of Ai, it was already ruins. No walls in Jericho at the time. No evidence of massive destruction throughout the area at the time, especially since Egypt, the Mitani, the Hittites, and the Assyrians were all involved in the area. No room for Joshua and an invading force at all. Rather, archeology indicates as in Finkelstein's books that Palestine was settled by nomadic tribes that all did the same. The area called Judah was no different than any other part of Palestine.

We've talked about the name issue... Though Joshua may not have been mentioned by name of Joshua in other cultures, events that were mentioned in relation to Joshua are such as the long day and the Suzeranity Treaties.  The commonality within the writings leads historians to believe there is some connection.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
 

I searched both Google and my Hebrew Jewish sources and haven't found this.

I have not heard this before. Provide a link to your research on this please.

Or when we get to Ezra we can go through it, your choice.

...this in reference to 'memoirs'

The memoirs are mentioned in my basic Zondervan study Bible, it's hard to believe you can't find anything on them... lemme see about online links. 

We can go through this again when we get to Ezra, I might have more on it then too..

It's difficult to find any specific information.  instead of looking up Ezra's Memoirs, look up Nehemiah's Memoirs... there's more on that... especially seeing as they're considered to be possibly the same.  

As far as my book references go, it would be in the Zondervan Study Bible and the Archealogical Study Bible.  From a quick review online, it does seem that even the compiler would have had copies of the memoirs, but it doesn't seem to be in question that the copies exist or at least once existed... my guess is there are still copies out there.  Most of the sources I find seem to be talking about the alleged historian/person who compiled the writings.  I'll leave link below because the first part seems to go through it... it's over 300 pages and I not read past page 3 after the preface and index.    I'll have to do more homework on this and we'll get back to it in Ezra.  There are a lot of pieces to go through in that book.

http://emory.academia.edu/JacobWright/Books/877147/Rebuilding_Identity_The_Nehemiah_Memoir_and_Its_Earliest_Readers

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm not saying anyone was trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes. Using storytales of others indicates divergence of the god beliefs. This was very common. See the stories of Mesopotamia for examples. Some were also morphed into Canaanite and Greek stories as well.

We don't disagree in teh commonality of god beliefs during that time, even with the people of the Bible.  It is detailed in scripture and therefore not anything we need to get stuck on.  We agree

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

Artifacts that have YWYH don't validate anyone in particular, whether it be a king or a priest working in a temple.

If so, clay tablets that discuss the adventures of Enki, Gilgamesh must validate them as well.

This artifact was likened to somethign a king would have had.  i dont' know the details behind that.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Yes Friedman did make that unwarranted assumption based on similar content and writing styles for Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. Though easily those parts could have been the work of the same scribe.

could... we can only assume there.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Ehrman details why 2 Thessalonians is forged and 1 Thess is probably Paul.

 

This I think will tie into Ezra... There is talk about how one could not be authored by name for specific reasons... We'll get to that... still need to pick up Ehrman's book.. .Been a busy summer.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2638
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

In the upcoming discussion on Nebuchadnezzar, is there going to be question of his existence as a real person as well? 

 

There are plenty of artifacts establishing Nebuchadrezzar as a king of Babylon, so no question he existed.

Such as ABC5 - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/abc5/jerusalem.html which we will get into when we get to him.

Search online at The British Musuem for a few. See AK Grayson as well.

Enough that some are even sold - http://www.sandsoftimeantiquities.com/order/itemDetail.asp?vprodid=1189&vOrder=

caposkia wrote:
I ask because I've been given light to an artifact that would support his existence through the name of one of his chief officers Nabu-sharrussu-ukin as mentioned in Jeremiah 39.

 

I'd guess this is what you mean - http://www.realdiscoveries.org/modules/articles/item.php?itemid=61

yea, I believe that's it... sounds like we're on the same page here.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2638
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

oops... double post


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2638
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:1

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 Kings 13... *edit*
 


The inclusion of Josiah by specific name is proof positive of later writing. That many consider it prophecy is due to their beliefs that men somehow had a wireless or telepathic connection to the god. So far, modern technology has yet to discover this spectrum. Though A T & T probably is holding it for future use and it is currently jammed.

Not true... Look up The Aspect Experiment

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


There are no time stamped dated documents for this verse, the oldest documents are about 800 years after the event herein described, namely the DSS.

No parallel in  Chronicles here

1 Kings 14

*edit*

So does 1 Kings really have a prophecy here in regard to the eventual destruction of the city state of Samaria (I don't use Israel for a country name)? I don't think so. Why, because the storytelling includes info created as with Josiah, clearly written far after the fact. The oldest fragments are again the DSS, dated to the 2nd century BCE, hundreds of years after. In addition, the goal of the writer is to continuous paint Samaria (You call it Israel) to be evil incarnate, as opposed to the southern city state of Judah. As all of this area clearly worshiped the gods of the land as they always did, the claim to sin against a god that has no established verification by archeology or artifacts is no more than storytelling. That's at least the way I see it. The future history must be constructed to follow the path as told by the priests of the Yahweh for their purposes. Which obviously is the depiction of Samaria as evil incarnate, which is hardly the case given the circumstances over the next 100 years or so. Again, at least from my perspective.

 

yea, I get that.  be it that the carbon date of the stories and the date as to which they allegedly took place are vastly different, one can assume story telling without specific reference.  I'm not aware of any particular sources at this time that might further validate this part... fortunately that is not the case with all prophetic stories.  Be it that prophesy happens today, I have no reason to doubt the story solely based on the claim of prophesy here.  It is congruent with all other claims of the God of the Bible.  


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Goto Old Seers Corner

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

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.

In the general conversations thread. OS

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Strong possibilities of examples of syncretism (Trivia Game):

  Examples of syncretism in the Old Testament or what I like to call the ANE trivia game :

  Two examples of passages from the Old Testament, to my eyes, read like a strong possible 'syncretism' having taken place.

 Can you spot them ?

Hint : The god who was fleeing transforms to into one. Later he became brother-in-law to the sun.

Song of Solomon -- “My beloved is like "a gazelle" or a young stag. Behold, he is standing behind our wall,  He is looking through the windows, He is peering through the lattice. “My beloved responded and said to me,  ‘Arise, my darling, my beautiful one,  And come along.

 

Hint : Who is seen with Yahweh ? In a Phoeiician inscription he was also know as the 'gazelle god' but NOT primarily.

Habakkuk 3  -  God  ( אלוה ) comes from Teman,  And the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah.  His splendor covers the heavens,  And the earth is full of His praise.  His radiance is like the sunlight;  He has rays flashing from His hand,  And there is the hiding of His power.  Before Him goes pestilence,  And Resheph comes after Him.   He stood and surveyed the earth;  He looked and startled the nations.  Yes, the perpetual mountains were shattered,  The ancient hills collapsed.

     Syncretism? In light of the ancient Ras Shamra sources .. Some of the pertinent facts are not omitted purposefully but failed to be mentioned for  a lack of knowledge of these materials. A far greater example is the multi-headed Sea Serpent, of two neighboring cultures the Jews were  in  contact with. Namely where Ninurta dispatches Tiamat 'and' Baal dispatches Yamm.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
The 1st is from Sumerian story tablets (myths??)

danatemporary wrote:

  Examples of syncretism in the Old Testament or what I like to call the ANE trivia game :

  Two examples of passages from the Old Testament, to my eyes, read like a strong possible 'syncretism' having taken place.

 Can you spot them ?

Hint : The god who was fleeing transforms to into one. Later he became brother-in-law to the sun.

Song of Solomon -- “My beloved is like "a gazelle" or a young stag. Behold, he is standing behind our wall,  He is looking through the windows, He is peering through the lattice. “My beloved responded and said to me,  ‘Arise, my darling, my beautiful one,  And come along.

 

It is based on the story of Dumuzi and Inanna - see ETCSL links for the translated tablets

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.4.1#

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.4.4#

***Edit*** Added 2 more links from ETCSL on Dumuzi(d)

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.4.1.3#

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.4.3#

***end edit***

Dumuzi as the husband of Inanna shows little notice when she is gone in the underworld. she is considerablly pissed off. He goes to her brother Utu, the Sun god for help. He 1st turned him into a snake then a gazelle.

 When I have time I'll comment on the other if no one else gets it.

PJTS

____________________________________________________________
"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.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Abominations

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It is based on the story of Dumuzi and Inanna

I gather that the dying and rising god Dumuzi (Sumerian) is equated with Tammuz (Babylonian/Akkadian?) and Adonis (Greek).

Tammuz gets a mention in Ezekiel 8, seemingly as an example of the penalties for worshipping the wrong god.

13 He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do.

14 Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.

 

Tammuz is also the name of a month in various cultures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammuz_%28Babylonian_calendar%29

The festival for the deity Tammuz was held throughout the month of Tammuz in midsummer, and celebrated his death and resurrection. The first day of the month of Tammuz was the day of the new moon of the summer solstice. On the second day of the month, there was lamentation over the death of Tammuz, on the 9th, 16th and 17th days torchlit processions, and on the last three days, an image of Tammuz was buried.

 


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

x wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It is based on the story of Dumuzi and Inanna

I gather that the dying and rising god Dumuzi (Sumerian) is equated with Tammuz (Babylonian/Akkadian?) and Adonis (Greek).

Yes, same storytelling redone. Sumerian is the oldest version.

See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_to_the_underworld

and - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumuzid_the_Shepherd

and - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammuz_%28deity%29

and Inanna or Ishtar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inanna

Many Sumerian tablets are available on the ETCSL website in translations.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Gazelles

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

  Examples of syncretism in the Old Testament or what I like to call the ANE trivia game :

  Two examples of passages from the Old Testament, to my eyes, read like a strong possible 'syncretism' having taken place.

 Can you spot them ?

Hint : The god who was fleeing transforms to into one. Later he became brother-in-law to the sun.

Song of Solomon -- “My beloved is like "a gazelle" or a young stag. Behold, he is standing behind our wall,  He is looking through the windows, He is peering through the lattice. “My beloved responded and said to me,  ‘Arise, my darling, my beautiful one,  And come along.

 

It is based on the story of Dumuzi and Inanna - see ETCSL links for the translated tablets

 

I am confused though as to how one can be certain that the Song of Solomon references to gazelles are derived from the Sumerian tale.

I've read your links and have done searches, but I haven't found a passage that matches.

Is it partly because in the SoS, there is a reference to a "queenly maiden", which is also an epithet of Inanna?

 

The SoS seems to use gazelles as a variety of metaphors.

I see possibly breasts, sex, shyness, softness, vulnerability, speed.

 

Gazelles seem to be a common theme though, with Resheph being a war god with the head of a gazelle. The Akkadian Nergal is also connected with Resheph.

Enkidu, a prototype for Adam, in The Epic of Gilgamesh also grazes with gazelles.

 

Curse you Dana!! More research needed.


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

x wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

  Examples of syncretism in the Old Testament or what I like to call the ANE trivia game :

  Two examples of passages from the Old Testament, to my eyes, read like a strong possible 'syncretism' having taken place.

 Can you spot them ?

Hint : The god who was fleeing transforms to into one. Later he became brother-in-law to the sun.

Song of Solomon -- “My beloved is like "a gazelle" or a young stag. Behold, he is standing behind our wall,  He is looking through the windows, He is peering through the lattice. “My beloved responded and said to me,  ‘Arise, my darling, my beautiful one,  And come along.

 

It is based on the story of Dumuzi and Inanna - see ETCSL links for the translated tablets

 

I am confused though as to how one can be certain that the Song of Solomon references to gazelles are derived from the Sumerian tale.

I've read your links and have done searches, but I haven't found a passage that matches.

Is it partly because in the SoS, there is a reference to a "queenly maiden", which is also an epithet of Inanna?

 

The SoS seems to use gazelles as a variety of metaphors.

I see possibly breasts, sex, shyness, softness, vulnerability, speed.

 

Gazelles seem to be a common theme though, with Resheph being a war god with the head of a gazelle. The Akkadian Nergal is also connected with Resheph.

Enkidu, a prototype for Adam, in The Epic of Gilgamesh also grazes with gazelles.

 

From Dumuzi's Dream MK8 line 20 - " Utu looked down from his chariot in the sky where he served as patron god of the sun, and took pity. He transformed Dumuzi into a gazelle and showed him mercy. In this form Dumuzi was able to escape."

See - http://mcgill.academia.edu/MarkLamarre/Papers/1078373/Inanna_-_Dumuzi_Mythos_-_A_Comparative_Study

Utu 1st changed him into a snake then a gazelle. see p 3 in the above link.

See also - http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/gods/lords/lordutu.html

and - http://www.templeofsumer.org/myth04b.html

Do you see the gazelle now?

x wrote:

Curse you Dana!! More research needed.

Sumerian stories are very interesting providing new perspectives. Over the years I have read all that I have been able to find. This one is a classic tale.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Parallel gazelles

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Do you see the gazelle now?

Sumerian stories are very interesting providing new perspectives. Over the years I have read all that I have been able to find. This one is a classic tale.

I see the gazelle, but alone, it doesn't seem to precisely map onto the gazelle in SoS.

However, when I read the "Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi" it all started to fall into place.

The courtship seems quite like The Song of Solomon and I am now satisfied by the connection.

http://www.piney.com/BabCourship.html

 

The list of things to read gets longer and longer.

 

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
x wrote: The list of things

x wrote:

 

The list of things to read gets longer and longer.

  

Exactly! Kinda of how I got into Sumerian literature. The more you read, the more you want to. Knowledge is the way.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
More hints needed

danatemporary wrote:

Hint : Who is seen with Yahweh? In a Phoenician inscription he was also known as the 'gazelle god' but NOT primarily.

Habakkuk 3  -  God  ( אלוה ) comes from Teman,  And the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah.  His splendor covers the heavens,  And the earth is full of His praise.  His radiance is like the sunlight;  He has rays flashing from His hand,  And there is the hiding of His power.  Before Him goes pestilence,  And Resheph comes after Him.   He stood and surveyed the earth;  He looked and startled the nations.  Yes, the perpetual mountains were shattered,  The ancient hills collapsed.

     Syncretism? In light of the ancient Ras Shamra sources .. Some of the pertinent facts are not omitted purposefully but failed to be mentioned for  a lack of knowledge of these materials. A far greater example is the multi-headed Sea Serpent, of two neighboring cultures the Jews were  in  contact with. Namely where Ninurta dispatches Tiamat 'and' Baal dispatches Yamm.

Is it correct to read Habakkuk 3 as:

"Eloah comes from Teman and Yahweh from Mount Paran." giving El and Yahweh?

Then we have Deber and Resheph.

 

Then I quickly read

http://www.jtsa.edu/Documents/pagedocs/JANES/2001%2028/Shupak28.pdf

which argues for a partly Egyptian origin. The Aten certainly has rays ending in hands.

 

Quite a pantheon.

 

I also read that in a pesher on Habakkuk from the Dead Sea Scrolls, only Habakkuk 1 & 2 are analysed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habakkuk_Commentary

Anyway, that's as far as I got before research fatigue set in.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Well, You didnt miss a beat :)

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

  Examples of syncretism in the Old Testament or what I like to call the ANE trivia game :

  Two examples of passages from the Old Testament, to my eyes, read like a strong possible 'syncretism' having taken place.

 Can you spot them ?

Hint : The god who was fleeing transforms to into one. Later he became brother-in-law to the sun.

Song of Solomon -- “My beloved is like "a gazelle" or a young stag. Behold, he is standing behind our wall,  He is looking through the windows, He is peering through the lattice. “My beloved responded and said to me,  ‘Arise, my darling, my beautiful one,  And come along.

 

It is based on the story of Dumuzi and Inanna - see ETCSL links for the translated tablets

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.4.1#

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.4.4#

***Edit*** Added 2 more links from ETCSL on Dumuzi(d)

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.4.1.3#

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.4.3#

***end edit***

Dumuzi as the husband of Inanna shows little notice when she is gone in the underworld. she is considerablly pissed off. He goes to her brother Utu, the Sun god for help. He 1st turned him into a snake then a gazelle.

 When I have time I'll comment on the other if no one else gets it.

PJTS

  You didnt miss a beat, even without going to the links I could effortlessly tell. Smiling


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
1 Kings 14 cot'd and 2 Chronicles 12



1 Kings 14 cot'd and 2 Chronicles 12
Meanwhile in the other back storytale:
Rehoboam began his rule when he was 41, well past the normal life expectancy of the time. Reigning for 17 years in Jerusalem, which was a town village based on archeology for this period. His mother was a heathen of Ammon. Of course he did EITSOTL (evil in the sight of the lord) probably because evil was genetically transferred to him from mommy. Judah, the not proved to exist country also did EITSOTL as well. What was this evil? It was the construction and use of the high places with Asherah poles to worship the queen of heaven, the Yahweh's wife-consort or Ba'al's depending on whether you consider Ugaritic texts as relevant. In addition there were male prostitutes in the land and the people continued unabated in the practices of the other religions of Palestine. No surprise here, that's what they always did. Archeology supports that the gods of the land were continuously worshiped in Palestine, though there is nada for the Yahweh version of the supposed Judahites. And of course this cut into the revenue stream for the yahweh priests at the non-existent temple in the village of Jerusalem.


In the 5th year of Rehoboam's reign Shishak king of Egypt invaded the land and attacked the village of Jerusalem. (I'll use village until there is proof that invalidates the archaeological record). Shishak is the supposed Pharaoh Sheshonq I who invaded the area or more correctly reasserted Egyptian control and dominance in about 925 BCE. Sheshonq left the story of his campaign in Palestine on a wall in Karnak. What is not mentioned by him is the vast treasures of the mythical Solomon. The affect on the villages and towns in the Jezreel Valley according to Finkelstein was permanent, see pp 161-2 in Bible Unearthed.


See this link for list of towns/cities attacked - http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/sheshonqi.htm
Also note the assumed path on the map, including the village of Jerusalem which is obviously biblical influence and has no support from the Karnak inscription.


See this academic article by Fantalkin and Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University as well -
http://telaviv.academia.edu/AlexanderFantalkin/Papers/461973/The_Sheshonq_I_Campaign_and_the_8th-Century_BCE_Earthquake-More_on_th...
The above article is about 42 pages including references, and about 33 pages of discussion and arguments. It deals with far more than just Sheshonq I. I'll probably refer to it later on as well.


The account in Kings and 2 Chronicles indicates "He carried off the treasures of the temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including all the gold shields Solomon had made." 1 Kings 14:26 (NIV)
or 2 Chron 13:9 - " When Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem, he carried off the treasures of the temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including the gold shields Solomon had made."
Clearly the gold shields were semi-important, at least for symbolism, however as an actual weapon of war instead of a ceremonial ornament, not so much. The iron swords in use by Egypt at his point would have cut them like a hot knife through butter. So Rehoboam has the guard outfitted with shields of bronze.


Never the less, still no mention by the Egyptians of the great treasures taken from the Great Temple of Solomon. As it never existed, that is the likely reason. In fact, Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the account by Sheshonq I. There were 150 cities, towns and villages included but not it. Granted it could have been one of the unreadable names, though if the vast treasures of Solomon were taken, it would have been given special mention even if the city it was seized was unreadable.


In 1 Kings it indicates there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all of Rehoboam's reign, in contrast to the command of the god in 2 Chronicles 11:4 (NIV) "This is what the Lord says: Do not go up to fight against your fellow Israelites. Go home, every one of you, for this is my doing.’” So they obeyed the words of the Lord and turned back from marching against Jeroboam."


So they fought during all of Rehoboam's reign or they did not. Multiple choice answer here. As even the account in 2 Chron 12:15 (NIV) - "..There was continual warfare between Rehoboam and Jeroboam." So these accounts obviously can't be trusted as they contradict themselves even on the subject of war between the supposed 2 kingdoms. Rehoboam dies and is replaced by his son Abijah  aka Abijam (depending on whether it is in Chronicles or Kings) who continues the war against Jeroboam that they supposedly were not conducting based on one account.


My conclusion is the accounts in both Kings and Chronicles are likely not accurate as they are storytales based in the land of fantasy with minor additions of realism. As Sheshonq mentions nothing of the vast Treasures of Solomon being taken, it casts even more doubt on the storytales presented in regard to the David lineage, especially that of a United Kingdom and a super king named Solomon.


Next post - the short reign of Abijah/Abijam of Judah followed by the very long reign of Asa; the short reign of Nadab of Israel followed by the reign of Baasha.




 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2638
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:1

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:



1 Kings 14 cot'd and 2 Chronicles 12
Meanwhile in the other back storytale:
Rehoboam began his rule when he was 41, well past the normal life expectancy of the time. Reigning for 17 years in Jerusalem, which was a town village based on archeology for this period. His mother was a heathen of Ammon. Of course he did EITSOTL (evil in the sight of the lord) probably because evil was genetically transferred to him from mommy. Judah, the not proved to exist country also did EITSOTL as well. What was this evil? It was the construction and use of the high places with Asherah poles to worship the queen of heaven, the Yahweh's wife-consort or Ba'al's depending on whether you consider Ugaritic texts as relevant. In addition there were male prostitutes in the land and the people continued unabated in the practices of the other religions of Palestine. No surprise here, that's what they always did. Archeology supports that the gods of the land were continuously worshiped in Palestine, though there is nada for the Yahweh version of the supposed Judahites. And of course this cut into the revenue stream for the yahweh priests at the non-existent temple in the village of Jerusalem.


In the 5th year of Rehoboam's reign Shishak king of Egypt invaded the land and attacked the village of Jerusalem. (I'll use village until there is proof that invalidates the archaeological record). Shishak is the supposed Pharaoh Sheshonq I who invaded the area or more correctly reasserted Egyptian control and dominance in about 925 BCE. Sheshonq left the story of his campaign in Palestine on a wall in Karnak. What is not mentioned by him is the vast treasures of the mythical Solomon. The affect on the villages and towns in the Jezreel Valley according to Finkelstein was permanent, see pp 161-2 in Bible Unearthed.


See this link for list of towns/cities attacked - http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/sheshonqi.htm
Also note the assumed path on the map, including the village of Jerusalem which is obviously biblical influence and has no support from the Karnak inscription.


See this academic article by Fantalkin and Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University as well -
http://telaviv.academia.edu/AlexanderFantalkin/Papers/461973/The_Sheshonq_I_Campaign_and_the_8th-Century_BCE_Earthquake-More_on_th...
The above article is about 42 pages including references, and about 33 pages of discussion and arguments. It deals with far more than just Sheshonq I. I'll probably refer to it later on as well.


The account in Kings and 2 Chronicles indicates "He carried off the treasures of the temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including all the gold shields Solomon had made." 1 Kings 14:26 (NIV)
or 2 Chron 13:9 - " When Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem, he carried off the treasures of the temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including the gold shields Solomon had made."
Clearly the gold shields were semi-important, at least for symbolism, however as an actual weapon of war instead of a ceremonial ornament, not so much. The iron swords in use by Egypt at his point would have cut them like a hot knife through butter. So Rehoboam has the guard outfitted with shields of bronze.


Never the less, still no mention by the Egyptians of the great treasures taken from the Great Temple of Solomon. As it never existed, that is the likely reason. In fact, Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the account by Sheshonq I. There were 150 cities, towns and villages included but not it. Granted it could have been one of the unreadable names, though if the vast treasures of Solomon were taken, it would have been given special mention even if the city it was seized was unreadable.

How vast do you think Solomon's treasures were?  Remember he was a smaller kingdom, so his treasures in comparison to other larger kingdoms.  If anything, it seems Shishak bragged more about the places he concquered rather than what he took from them.  Detail from a relief in the Karnak Temple at Thebes details the raid into Palestine.  The artwork details Shishak holding a sword in one hand and in the other ropes, which are connected to 156 cartouches each containing the name of a place Shishak claims to have defeated. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In 1 Kings it indicates there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all of Rehoboam's reign, in contrast to the command of the god in 2 Chronicles 11:4 (NIV) "This is what the Lord says: Do not go up to fight against your fellow Israelites. Go home, every one of you, for this is my doing.’” So they obeyed the words of the Lord and turned back from marching against Jeroboam."


So they fought during all of Rehoboam's reign or they did not. Multiple choice answer here. As even the account in 2 Chron 12:15 (NIV) - "..There was continual warfare between Rehoboam and Jeroboam." So these accounts obviously can't be trusted as they contradict themselves even on the subject of war between the supposed 2 kingdoms. Rehoboam dies and is replaced by his son Abijah  aka Abijam (depending on whether it is in Chronicles or Kings) who continues the war against Jeroboam that they supposedly were not conducting based on one account.

2 Chronicles is in reference to a specific mission Rehoboam had to fight against Israel and restore the kingdom.  God told Him not to do so and so he didn't... nowhere does it reference his kingdom to be at peace for a while.  If anything, it details his plans to be at war be it that he continually built up defenses.   No contradiction here.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
My conclusion is the accounts in both Kings and Chronicles are likely not accurate as they are storytales based in the land of fantasy with minor additions of realism. As Sheshonq mentions nothing of the vast Treasures of Solomon being taken, it casts even more doubt on the storytales presented in regard to the David lineage, especially that of a United Kingdom and a super king named Solomon.


Next post - the short reign of Abijah/Abijam of Judah followed by the very long reign of Asa; the short reign of Nadab of Israel followed by the reign of Baasha.

As I covered Sheshik's focus on bragging and the war claims, I still see no reason to doubt these stories as historically accurate.  Solomon's temple details parallell so many others and even other details of Solomon's have come up in exevations like Solomon's stables (area 364 from the Megiddo excavation) as well as his gate systems. I'm finding out more as I do more homework on it.


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

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


The crux of the question is the assertion you make that the Bible was "written by men via the word of God". That is the whole problem here and the claim requires proof. Errors of substance do not help validate this assertion, rather they discredit it.

not at all.. unlike me telling you to write something down... e.g. "go to the store and buy eggs, milk and bread", you can come back and say, "I missed the last part, what was it again... whereas a conversation with God is a one time deal... in many cases, it was presented in a vision or dream, therefore, the writers were recollecting the vision they had from God or the words as they understood them.  Then after translations and scribes pass it through some things change a bit as well... some may have been for clarification purposes, some may have been misunderstood, but all were careful to keep the core details under scrutiny. 

Generally speaking, the Word of God was understood to be extremely important and therefore when recording what they were told, though details might be skewed, the basis of the information is still in tact.  E.g. they may have forgotten that God told them to have nice day, but they understood that God gave them a prophesy that told them of coming events that eventually took place.

As I said, the claim that what was written is the crux of the question. It is hearsay and impossible to verify. If one claims the god came to me in a dream and told me this or that there is no way to verify. Even if a prediction or prophecy were made back in ancient history it is impossible to validate as every word was written centuries later and/or edited.

In summary, the writers' claims are unproved hearsay that can never be verified. They contain extraordinary claims, supernatural events, stories that go against what can be supported today by both archeology and history from other cultures. This all together creates doubt that the stories have any possibility of occurring in the real world.

So, was it the "word of god" or like other cultures just storytales. In absence of validation or proof that a god transmitted data to the writer I hold it to be like any other ancient text dealing with god(s).

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No, we don't both find the history congruent with that of other cultures. There are problems with kingdoms being in the area dominated by others. This only gets worse as we go along in our adventure.

only if you have a specific boarder in mind... there were no such boarders during that time.  We've also established how a kingdom in question could possibly have existed as said.  It is found to be congruent with history.

Remember me metioning the values of the kingdoms and how some kingdoms worked together to make their profit?

It's not just the fluid borders of the countries in question, but history such as Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian that indicate otherwise to the claims. There is also archeology showing the cultures claimed for Judah/Jerusalem and Israel/Samaria were not as indicated.

caposkia wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


As archeology discredits much of the account in Joshua I personally have doubts of a guy called Joshua being a real person.

I don't believe you've shown me how archeology discredits the account of Joshua... only that there's a lack of evidence at this time due to circumstances we've discussed.

See our discussion on Jericho and Ai. There is also the hole in the story in regard to going around the Kingdom of Edom, which did not exist at the time of the Joshua/Moses supposed events. See Numbers 20:14-21. The kingdom of Edom was sparsely settled by pastoral nomads until the 7th century BCE. See also Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein p 68. See also the Battle of Kadesh (Qadesh), which occurs in circa 1274 BCE between Egypt and the Hittites. In Numbers 20:16, the Israelites are supposedly there. The area was disputed between Egypt and the Hittites for hundreds of years.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
 

As nothing attests to him other than the stories that have issues proof of his existence is required.

there is no evidence in history of anything happening in history outside of stories that have issues... even modern day documentation of events have issues. 

Agreed, there is no spoon. Are you and I actually real?


caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:


I would agree that there is little... not nothing that attests to him beyond the stories, but from the links you've provided and the research I've done in the past and because of this forum, I have not seen this counter archaeological evidence you seem to be suggesting....*edit*



Where did any other culture mention Joshua? What artifacts support the invasion of the Israelite Horde? The claims in regard to cities destroyed are false as I showed you. No invasion of Ai, it was already ruins. No walls in Jericho at the time. No evidence of massive destruction throughout the area at the time, especially since Egypt, the Mitani, the Hittites, and the Assyrians were all involved in the area. No room for Joshua and an invading force at all. Rather, archeology indicates as in Finkelstein's books that Palestine was settled by nomadic tribes that all did the same. The area called Judah was no different than any other part of Palestine.

We've talked about the name issue... Though Joshua may not have been mentioned by name of Joshua in other cultures, events that were mentioned in relation to Joshua are such as the long day and the Suzeranity Treaties.  The commonality within the writings leads historians to believe there is some connection. 

China would clearly have noted the "long day" or the Assyrians/Babylonians who were Astronomers and had basic science.

The treaties called Suzeranity were well known practices of the Hittites. Copy/paste in antiquity perhaps?

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
 

I searched both Google and my Hebrew Jewish sources and haven't found this.

I have not heard this before. Provide a link to your research on this please.

Or when we get to Ezra we can go through it, your choice.

...this in reference to 'memoirs'

The memoirs are mentioned in my basic Zondervan study Bible, it's hard to believe you can't find anything on them... lemme see about online links. 

We can go through this again when we get to Ezra, I might have more on it then too..

It's difficult to find any specific information.  instead of looking up Ezra's Memoirs, look up Nehemiah's Memoirs... there's more on that... especially seeing as they're considered to be possibly the same.  

As far as my book references go, it would be in the Zondervan Study Bible and the Archealogical Study Bible.  From a quick review online, it does seem that even the compiler would have had copies of the memoirs, but it doesn't seem to be in question that the copies exist or at least once existed... my guess is there are still copies out there.  Most of the sources I find seem to be talking about the alleged historian/person who compiled the writings.  I'll leave link below because the first part seems to go through it... it's over 300 pages and I not read past page 3 after the preface and index.    I'll have to do more homework on this and we'll get back to it in Ezra.  There are a lot of pieces to go through in that book.

http://emory.academia.edu/JacobWright/Books/877147/Rebuilding_Identity_The_Nehemiah_Memoir_and_Its_Earliest_Readers

Your link is very good, a 300 page plus book. In scanning it, it indicates multiple sources and editing over the years. Clearly a possibility. In such event, what may or may not have been in the original, is not easy to determine. Maybe by the time we get to Ezra and Nehemiah I will have read all of it.

caposkia wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

Artifacts that have YWYH don't validate anyone in particular, whether it be a king or a priest working in a temple.

If so, clay tablets that discuss the adventures of Enki, Gilgamesh must validate them as well.

This artifact was likened to somethign a king would have had.  i dont' know the details behind that.

I looked at it and that is why I made the comment I did. Even if a king, that proves little. There are many such artifacts from Mesopotamia with Sumerian and Babylonian gods and/or names I don't see how that would in and of itself validate anything other than someone believed in the god.


 

____________________________________________________________
"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
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 Kings 13... *edit*
 


The inclusion of Josiah by specific name is proof positive of later writing. That many consider it prophecy is due to their beliefs that men somehow had a wireless or telepathic connection to the god. So far, modern technology has yet to discover this spectrum. Though A T & T probably is holding it for future use and it is currently jammed.

Not true... Look up The Aspect Experiment

They don't mention A T & T spectrum...

Telepathy is not shown to be especially valid or reliable, maybe they do use A T & T, the dropped call network.

As to The Aspect Experiment as related to thought transmission originated by a god(s):

From Wiki on Alain Aspect "the experiment provides strong evidence that a quantum event at one location can affect an event at another location without any obvious mechanism for communication between the two locations. This has been called "spooky action at a distance" by Einstein (who doubted the physical reality of this effect). However, these experiments do not allow faster-than-light communication, as the events themselves appear to be inherently random."

1-FTL (faster than light) is not a possibility even with this method. This means the source would need to be somewhat nearby so that it could transmit said data accurately, while the being receiving it were still alive for example.

2-Even if data were transmitted in this manner, it would not be possiple to ascertain that the source were not just an advanced alien.

3-The events are also random, meaning not accurate. There are also loopholes and variables - see wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_loopholes

So, I don't know what is true or not in the end.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


There are no time stamped dated documents for this verse, the oldest documents are about 800 years after the event herein described, namely the DSS.

No parallel in  Chronicles here

1 Kings 14

*edit*

So does 1 Kings really have a prophecy here in regard to the eventual destruction of the city state of Samaria (I don't use Israel for a country name)? I don't think so. Why, because the storytelling includes info created as with Josiah, clearly written far after the fact. The oldest fragments are again the DSS, dated to the 2nd century BCE, hundreds of years after. In addition, the goal of the writer is to continuous paint Samaria (You call it Israel) to be evil incarnate, as opposed to the southern city state of Judah. As all of this area clearly worshiped the gods of the land as they always did, the claim to sin against a god that has no established verification by archeology or artifacts is no more than storytelling. That's at least the way I see it. The future history must be constructed to follow the path as told by the priests of the Yahweh for their purposes. Which obviously is the depiction of Samaria as evil incarnate, which is hardly the case given the circumstances over the next 100 years or so. Again, at least from my perspective.

 

yea, I get that.  be it that the carbon date of the stories and the date as to which they allegedly took place are vastly different, one can assume story telling without specific reference.  I'm not aware of any particular sources at this time that might further validate this part... fortunately that is not the case with all prophetic stories.  Be it that prophesy happens today, I have no reason to doubt the story solely based on the claim of prophesy here.  It is congruent with all other claims of the God of the Bible.  

We will go through whatever prophecies we encounter on our journey and discuss if they have validation or not.

As to whether or not prophecies occur today that are valid is beyond the scope of this discussion.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Gazelle II

 

danatemporary wrote:

Hint : Who is seen with Yahweh? In a Phoenician inscription he was also known as the 'gazelle god' but NOT primarily.

Habakkuk 3  -  God  ( אלוה ) comes from Teman,  And the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah.  His splendor covers the heavens,  And the earth is full of His praise.  His radiance is like the sunlight;  He has rays flashing from His hand,  And there is the hiding of His power.  Before Him goes pestilence,  And Resheph comes after Him.   He stood and surveyed the earth;  He looked and startled the nations.  Yes, the perpetual mountains were shattered,  The ancient hills collapsed.

     Syncretism? In light of the ancient Ras Shamra sources .. Some of the pertinent facts are not omitted purposefully but failed to be mentioned for  a lack of knowledge of these materials.

With the hints I find that the only god that seems to fit is Reshef.

Reshef being a Canaanite god that was later common as Resheph in Egypt around the 18th dynasty, though the oldest Egyptian reference to him is from the 12th dynasty.

He was mainly a warrior god, but also was a god of plague/pestilence and other things and his emblem was the head of a gazelle.

He is referred to in the Phoenician inscription at Karatepe.

Also associated with the Babylonian Nergal.


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

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:



1 Kings 14 cot'd and 2 Chronicles 12
Meanwhile in the other back storytale:
Rehoboam began his rule when he was 41, well past the normal life expectancy of the time. Reigning for 17 years in Jerusalem, which was a town village based on archeology for this period. His mother was a heathen of Ammon. Of course he did EITSOTL (evil in the sight of the lord) probably because evil was genetically transferred to him from mommy. Judah, the not proved to exist country also did EITSOTL as well. What was this evil? It was the construction and use of the high places with Asherah poles to worship the queen of heaven, the Yahweh's wife-consort or Ba'al's depending on whether you consider Ugaritic texts as relevant. In addition there were male prostitutes in the land and the people continued unabated in the practices of the other religions of Palestine. No surprise here, that's what they always did. Archeology supports that the gods of the land were continuously worshiped in Palestine, though there is nada for the Yahweh version of the supposed Judahites. And of course this cut into the revenue stream for the yahweh priests at the non-existent temple in the village of Jerusalem.


In the 5th year of Rehoboam's reign Shishak king of Egypt invaded the land and attacked the village of Jerusalem. (I'll use village until there is proof that invalidates the archaeological record). Shishak is the supposed Pharaoh Sheshonq I who invaded the area or more correctly reasserted Egyptian control and dominance in about 925 BCE. Sheshonq left the story of his campaign in Palestine on a wall in Karnak. What is not mentioned by him is the vast treasures of the mythical Solomon. The affect on the villages and towns in the Jezreel Valley according to Finkelstein was permanent, see pp 161-2 in Bible Unearthed.


See this link for list of towns/cities attacked - http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/sheshonqi.htm
Also note the assumed path on the map, including the village of Jerusalem which is obviously biblical influence and has no support from the Karnak inscription.


See this academic article by Fantalkin and Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University as well -
http://telaviv.academia.edu/AlexanderFantalkin/Papers/461973/The_Sheshonq_I_Campaign_and_the_8th-Century_BCE_Earthquake-More_on_th...
The above article is about 42 pages including references, and about 33 pages of discussion and arguments. It deals with far more than just Sheshonq I. I'll probably refer to it later on as well.


The account in Kings and 2 Chronicles indicates "He carried off the treasures of the temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including all the gold shields Solomon had made." 1 Kings 14:26 (NIV)
or 2 Chron 13:9 - " When Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem, he carried off the treasures of the temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including the gold shields Solomon had made."
Clearly the gold shields were semi-important, at least for symbolism, however as an actual weapon of war instead of a ceremonial ornament, not so much. The iron swords in use by Egypt at his point would have cut them like a hot knife through butter. So Rehoboam has the guard outfitted with shields of bronze.


Never the less, still no mention by the Egyptians of the great treasures taken from the Great Temple of Solomon. As it never existed, that is the likely reason. In fact, Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the account by Sheshonq I. There were 150 cities, towns and villages included but not it. Granted it could have been one of the unreadable names, though if the vast treasures of Solomon were taken, it would have been given special mention even if the city it was seized was unreadable.

How vast do you think Solomon's treasures were?

If there were any at all, I think they'd fit in a shoebox. How vast was the dominion of The Empire in Star Wars? To me, that's what you asked.

caposkia wrote:

Remember he was a smaller kingdom, so his treasures in comparison to other larger kingdoms.

Based on what I have researched, archealogy, the real kind not the one trying to verify the Bible to prove it real, has found no corelation with any other culture, nothing other than storytelling in Jewish tales. His kingdom was about as big as what fit on a partial roll of papyrus, meaning it didn't exist in reality.

caposkia wrote:

  If anything, it seems Shishak bragged more about the places he concquered rather than what he took from them.  Detail from a relief in the Karnak Temple at Thebes details the raid into Palestine.  The artwork details Shishak holding a sword in one hand and in the other ropes, which are connected to 156 cartouches each containing the name of a place Shishak claims to have defeated.

And, there is nothing in it suggesting he sacked the village of Jerusalem or even knew it existed. He did leave a monument in Meggido showing he was there. The map, though influenced by Christians, shows he didn't bother much with the backwoods area later called Judah.

Did you read the links? Especially the one from Fantalkin and Finkelstein?

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In 1 Kings it indicates there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all of Rehoboam's reign, in contrast to the command of the god in 2 Chronicles 11:4 (NIV) "This is what the Lord says: Do not go up to fight against your fellow Israelites. Go home, every one of you, for this is my doing.’” So they obeyed the words of the Lord and turned back from marching against Jeroboam."


So they fought during all of Rehoboam's reign or they did not. Multiple choice answer here. As even the account in 2 Chron 12:15 (NIV) - "..There was continual warfare between Rehoboam and Jeroboam." So these accounts obviously can't be trusted as they contradict themselves even on the subject of war between the supposed 2 kingdoms. Rehoboam dies and is replaced by his son Abijah  aka Abijam (depending on whether it is in Chronicles or Kings) who continues the war against Jeroboam that they supposedly were not conducting based on one account.

2 Chronicles is in reference to a specific mission Rehoboam had to fight against Israel and restore the kingdom.  God told Him not to do so and so he didn't... nowhere does it reference his kingdom to be at peace for a while.  If anything, it details his plans to be at war be it that he continually built up defenses.   No contradiction here.

The text says, "Do not go up to fight against your fellow Israelites. Go home, every one of you, for this is my doing.’” It is clear the god did not want warfare between the 2 kingdoms, as they were both of the god's chosen. The god does not define if he meant only the single event, or that they should never fight one another. It can be either way. You choose to see it as the single event, I on purpose took the other view.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
My conclusion is the accounts in both Kings and Chronicles are likely not accurate as they are storytales based in the land of fantasy with minor additions of realism. As Sheshonq mentions nothing of the vast Treasures of Solomon being taken, it casts even more doubt on the storytales presented in regard to the David lineage, especially that of a United Kingdom and a super king named Solomon.

As I covered Sheshik's focus on bragging and the war claims, I still see no reason to doubt these stories as historically accurate.  Solomon's temple details parallell so many others and even other details of Solomon's have come up in exevations like Solomon's stables (area 364 from the Megiddo excavation) as well as his gate systems. I'm finding out more as I do more homework on it.

You really need to research what Finkelstein has to say about Megiddo in either Bible Unearthed or his online articles. It is not from the 10th century BCE, but the 9th. He shows evidence it was of the Omrides, not a King Solomon ruling from the village of Jerusalem.

What you call Solomon's stables, he attributes to Samaria and the Omrides. See pp 180-186 in the above book, or his online discussions of His Excavations there since 1992. He's the one in charge of the Megiddo expeditions since 1994. Read what he says in regard to the previous claims that Megiddo had anything to do with Solomon.

See - http://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2005/westpfahl.pdf

- http://telaviv.academia.edu/IsraelFinkelstein/Papers/1122456/DESTRUCTIONS_MEGIDDO_AS_A_CASE_STUDY

- http://archaeologynewsreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/tel-megiddo.html

- https://sites.google.com/site/megiddoexpedition/

****************edit added**************

And if you really want to get into his research and artcles visit this link - http://telaviv.academia.edu/IsraelFinkelstein/Papers

Which has much of his work and articles on many areas.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2638
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:As

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As I said, the claim that what was written is the crux of the question. It is hearsay and impossible to verify. If one claims the god came to me in a dream and told me this or that there is no way to verify. Even if a prediction or prophecy were made back in ancient history it is impossible to validate as every word was written centuries later and/or edited.

In summary, the writers' claims are unproved hearsay that can never be verified. They contain extraordinary claims, supernatural events, stories that go against what can be supported today by both archeology and history from other cultures. This all together creates doubt that the stories have any possibility of occurring in the real world.

again, that's how all of history was written... typically a period of time after it happened... There is evidences generally speaking of prophesies coming true, therefore, if as you say it can never be verified, we can't take either side on these stories no matter how extraordinary they seem.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So, was it the "word of god" or like other cultures just storytales. In absence of validation or proof that a god transmitted data to the writer I hold it to be like any other ancient text dealing with god(s).

As far as any other ancient text, many of them may have been dealing with other gods. who's to say they weren't historically speaking?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It's not just the fluid borders of the countries in question, but history such as Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian that indicate otherwise to the claims. There is also archeology showing the cultures claimed for Judah/Jerusalem and Israel/Samaria were not as indicated.

I'm not sure you've shown me this evidence yet... not as indicated meaning what?  I only ask because assumptions have been made about how the cultures were not as the Bible describes be it that there were many other large followings, possibly larger followings than that of the God of the Bible.. which is exactly what the bible says.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

See our discussion on Jericho and Ai. There is also the hole in the story in regard to going around the Kingdom of Edom, which did not exist at the time of the Joshua/Moses supposed events. See Numbers 20:14-21. The kingdom of Edom was sparsely settled by pastoral nomads until the 7th century BCE. See also Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein p 68. See also the Battle of Kadesh (Qadesh), which occurs in circa 1274 BCE between Egypt and the Hittites. In Numbers 20:16, the Israelites are supposedly there. The area was disputed between Egypt and the Hittites for hundreds of years.

The kingdom of Edom if what you say is true is likely another situation where the writer wrote of a location that they were aware of in their current time and not necessarily what was there during the story's time.  We discussed this way back at the beginning.   Despite the reference to going to a king, the idea might have been that they still got permission as said, just not from the king of edom.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

China would clearly have noted the "long day" or the Assyrians/Babylonians who were Astronomers and had basic science.  I believe it happened in the year of the Emperor Yao.  Egypt I believe has some evidence of a longer day as well.  This link is a long one, but about half way down, after all the translational discussion is where there are recordings of a long day... or a long night depending on where in the world from other cultures.

http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/jld/index.html

China... or somewhere in the vacinity did record a long day... It's been a while.. I'll have to try and dig that up again.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Your link is very good, a 300 page plus book. In scanning it, it indicates multiple sources and editing over the years. Clearly a possibility. In such event, what may or may not have been in the original, is not easy to determine. Maybe by the time we get to Ezra and Nehemiah I will have read all of it.

you and I both my friend

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2638
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
 pauljohntheskeptic

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

And, there is nothing in it suggesting he sacked the village of Jerusalem or even knew it existed. He did leave a monument in Meggido showing he was there. The map, though influenced by Christians, shows he didn't bother much with the backwoods area later called Judah.

Did you read the links? Especially the one from Fantalkin and Finkelstein?

studying the links... nothing significant so far... the idea seems to be looking for an alternative rather than seeing what's there, but i'll keep looking into them before concluding.  

The reference I referred to supports the "influenced" map and shows he went all around the location in question, it is likely he partook in Solomon's kingdom as well.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The text says, "Do not go up to fight against your fellow Israelites. Go home, every one of you, for this is my doing.’” It is clear the god did not want warfare between the 2 kingdoms, as they were both of the god's chosen. The god does not define if he meant only the single event, or that they should never fight one another. It can be either way. You choose to see it as the single event, I on purpose took the other view.

no, God does not define if he meant one single event.. and likely he didnt' mean just one single event, but there's nothing in the scripture that would give indication that God's command was understood to be referencing to anything more regardless if he was or not.  That particular passage is talking about a specific event.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You really need to research what Finkelstein has to say about Megiddo in either Bible Unearthed or his online articles. It is not from the 10th century BCE, but the 9th. He shows evidence it was of the Omrides, not a King Solomon ruling from the village of Jerusalem.

What you call Solomon's stables, he attributes to Samaria and the Omrides. See pp 180-186 in the above book, or his online discussions of His Excavations there since 1992. He's the one in charge of the Megiddo expeditions since 1994. Read what he says in regard to the previous claims that Megiddo had anything to do with Solomon.

See - http://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2005/westpfahl.pdf

- http://telaviv.academia.edu/IsraelFinkelstein/Papers/1122456/DESTRUCTIONS_MEGIDDO_AS_A_CASE_STUDY

- http://archaeologynewsreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/tel-megiddo.html

- https://sites.google.com/site/megiddoexpedition/

****************edit added**************

And if you really want to get into his research and artcles visit this link - http://telaviv.academia.edu/IsraelFinkelstein/Papers

Which has much of his work and articles on many areas.

 

I'll keep studying them.


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

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As I said, the claim that what was written is the crux of the question. It is hearsay and impossible to verify. If one claims the god came to me in a dream and told me this or that there is no way to verify. Even if a prediction or prophecy were made back in ancient history it is impossible to validate as every word was written centuries later and/or edited.

In summary, the writers' claims are unproved hearsay that can never be verified. They contain extraordinary claims, supernatural events, stories that go against what can be supported today by both archeology and history from other cultures. This all together creates doubt that the stories have any possibility of occurring in the real world.

again, that's how all of history was written... typically a period of time after it happened... There is evidences generally speaking of prophesies coming true, therefore, if as you say it can never be verified, we can't take either side on these stories no matter how extraordinary they seem.

Ordinary history usually has no supernatural claims as do Bible stories, Sumerian stories and pretty much all of the ancient religious writing from everywhere.

Next, archeology indicates in respect to the area called Palestine that it was not as indicated by the Bible - See Finkelstein links and books. Also see Amy Dockser Marcus which I mentioned in respect to Ai and Jericho.

Egyptian, Assyrian, and Babylonian records do not seem to notice the supposed countries called Israel and Judah as described in the Bible either. City states are discussed but nothing as mentioned in the Bible, nor does archeology show the supposed advanced country claimed in the South called Judah until far later after Samaria has been decimated by Assyria. See some of Finkelstein's links for a good start.

We can get into a list of prophecies that supposedly came true in a few more books. Specifically Ezekiel and Isaiah if you want, or we can do a whole thread just on that if you'd like. Right now it's beyond what we are trying to do.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So, was it the "word of god" or like other cultures just storytales. In absence of validation or proof that a god transmitted data to the writer I hold it to be like any other ancient text dealing with god(s).

As far as any other ancient text, many of them may have been dealing with other gods. who's to say they weren't historically speaking?

If there were actual entities that are discussed as Sumerian gods for example, I rather doubt that that's what they were. Something else perhaps. Also beyond the goal of this thread.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It's not just the fluid borders of the countries in question, but history such as Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian that indicate otherwise to the claims. There is also archeology showing the cultures claimed for Judah/Jerusalem and Israel/Samaria were not as indicated.

I'm not sure you've shown me this evidence yet... not as indicated meaning what?  I only ask because assumptions have been made about how the cultures were not as the Bible describes be it that there were many other large followings, possibly larger followings than that of the God of the Bible.. which is exactly what the bible says.

Please take the time to read actual archaeologists such as Finkelstein, or at least read his book for a good start. See pp 149-195 or chapters 6 and 7 in Bible Unearthed for some basics. I have given you links to pretty much all of his work that is available online as well in the last few posts.

caposkia wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

See our discussion on Jericho and Ai. There is also the hole in the story in regard to going around the Kingdom of Edom, which did not exist at the time of the Joshua/Moses supposed events. See Numbers 20:14-21. The kingdom of Edom was sparsely settled by pastoral nomads until the 7th century BCE. See also Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein p 68. See also the Battle of Kadesh (Qadesh), which occurs in circa 1274 BCE between Egypt and the Hittites. In Numbers 20:16, the Israelites are supposedly there. The area was disputed between Egypt and the Hittites for hundreds of years.

The kingdom of Edom if what you say is true is likely another situation where the writer wrote of a location that they were aware of in their current time and not necessarily what was there during the story's time.  We discussed this way back at the beginning.   Despite the reference to going to a king, the idea might have been that they still got permission as said, just not from the king of Edom. 

In that story, that were refused by the supposed king of Edom. Since it did not exist, it is a best exaggeration or at worst fiction. Either way, it did not occur as printed in the Bible.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

China would clearly have noted the "long day" or the Assyrians/Babylonians who were Astronomers and had basic science.  I believe it happened in the year of the Emperor Yao.  Egypt I believe has some evidence of a longer day as well.  This link is a long one, but about half way down, after all the translational discussion is where there are recordings of a long day... or a long night depending on where in the world from other cultures.

http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/jld/index.html

China... or somewhere in the vacinity did record a long day... It's been a while.. I'll have to try and dig that up again.

China is 5 time zones away or the part that was likely populated in the 1400s-1200s BCE. This means the Sun over Gibeon at Noon would be an early morning sun on the East coast of China, and since we do not know the time of the year, it could even still have been dark out.

I just read through many pages of Classical astronomy in China by J Needham and found only they documented a super nova in the mid 1400s BCE, nothing about your claim. The link you gave in your response has no evidence to support it, though you seem to realize that by your comment as well.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2638
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Ordinary history usually has no supernatural claims as do Bible stories, Sumerian stories and pretty much all of the ancient religious writing from everywhere.

the supernatural claims angle is very subjective.  History usually has no supernatural claims except for those things that happen that people cant' quite explain at the time... then it is described as if it's supernatural regardless if it was or not.  That's more common than you seem to imply.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Next, archeology indicates in respect to the area called Palestine that it was not as indicated by the Bible - See Finkelstein links and books. Also see Amy Dockser Marcus which I mentioned in respect to Ai and Jericho.

is this by name again?  we've covered that.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Egyptian, Assyrian, and Babylonian records do not seem to notice the supposed countries called Israel and Judah as described in the Bible either. City states are discussed but nothing as mentioned in the Bible, nor does archeology show the supposed advanced country claimed in the South called Judah until far later after Samaria has been decimated by Assyria. See some of Finkelstein's links for a good start.

many countries didn't notice "in writing" other countries necessarily.  They were insignificant in comparison.  Why waste the time?  The Bible is from a particular culture.  No Egyptian record is going to be the same as mentioned by the Egyptians, recognized or not.  This in no way seems to lead to the conclusion you're trying to lead to.  

I have read some of his links in the past as well.  Seems to forget that the Bible writers were not historians.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

We can get into a list of prophecies that supposedly came true in a few more books. Specifically Ezekiel and Isaiah if you want, or we can do a whole thread just on that if you'd like. Right now it's beyond what we are trying to do.

eh.  whatever works.  I'd like to keep this progressing either way.  We could start new threads on many topics we get sidetracked on.  I'm game for any of them.  I've learned a lot through our conversations.  I like your approach.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If there were actual entities that are discussed as Sumerian gods for example, I rather doubt that that's what they were. Something else perhaps. Also beyond the goal of this thread.

it is.  Historically speaking, I don't understand how you'd find evidence of a god transmitting information to its followers... other than the writings of those who claim to have heard from said god.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Please take the time to read actual archaeologists such as Finkelstein, or at least read his book for a good start. See pp 149-195 or chapters 6 and 7 in Bible Unearthed for some basics. I have given you links to pretty much all of his work that is available online as well in the last few posts.

yes you have... don't wory, I'm doing my homework and looking into them.  Again, so far it seems he forgets that they're not historians... I'll continue reading through them.  I'll look into the book too.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

See our discussion on Jericho and Ai. There is also the hole in the story in regard to going around the Kingdom of Edom, which did not exist at the time of the Joshua/Moses supposed events. See Numbers 20:14-21. The kingdom of Edom was sparsely settled by pastoral nomads until the 7th century BCE. See also Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein p 68. See also the Battle of Kadesh (Qadesh), which occurs in circa 1274 BCE between Egypt and the Hittites. In Numbers 20:16, the Israelites are supposedly there. The area was disputed between Egypt and the Hittites for hundreds of years.

The kingdom of Edom if what you say is true is likely another situation where the writer wrote of a location that they were aware of in their current time and not necessarily what was there during the story's time.  We discussed this way back at the beginning.   Despite the reference to going to a king, the idea might have been that they still got permission as said, just not from the king of Edom. 

In that story, that were refused by the supposed king of Edom. Since it did not exist, it is a best exaggeration or at worst fiction. Either way, it did not occur as printed in the Bible.

You keep saying "as printed in the Bible"... I think the bigger question for all of it is... did it happen period?  If it did, then we need to analyze the specifics of the claim from the Bible that might not jive with the real history and see if that truly invalidates the book as truth or if it's just details that were misrepresented and ultimately don't change the outcome of the story.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

China is 5 time zones away or the part that was likely populated in the 1400s-1200s BCE. This means the Sun over Gibeon at Noon would be an early morning sun on the East coast of China, and since we do not know the time of the year, it could even still have been dark out.

I just read through many pages of Classical astronomy in China by J Needham and found only they documented a super nova in the mid 1400s BCE, nothing about your claim. The link you gave in your response has no evidence to support it, though you seem to realize that by your comment as well.

The super nova would coenside with the claim that the sun stayed up for and extra day.  depending on the magnitude and proximity, it can be bright enough to be mistaken as the sun by those who know nothing of astronomy.  They have been known to light up the Earth bright enough to be daylight.  

The evidence to support it is the claims from other cultures around the world.  Unless you're claiming no reference to those claims.  I've been away, haven't looked into that yet.  


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

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Ordinary history usually has no supernatural claims as do Bible stories, Sumerian stories and pretty much all of the ancient religious writing from everywhere.

the supernatural claims angle is very subjective.  History usually has no supernatural claims except for those things that happen that people cant' quite explain at the time... then it is described as if it's supernatural regardless if it was or not.  That's more common than you seem to imply.

Greek, Roman writers also had supernatural stories interjected into their history and as I mentioned so did the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians. So do we accept them as true stories as well? If not why not? Are we today to consider the supernatural events as real history? If so, we can have some really fun discussions on the Sumerian stories.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Egyptian, Assyrian, and Babylonian records do not seem to notice the supposed countries called Israel and Judah as described in the Bible either. City states are discussed but nothing as mentioned in the Bible, nor does archeology show the supposed advanced country claimed in the South called Judah until far later after Samaria has been decimated by Assyria. See some of Finkelstein's links for a good start.

many countries didn't notice "in writing" other countries necessarily.  They were insignificant in comparison.  Why waste the time?  The Bible is from a particular culture.  No Egyptian record is going to be the same as mentioned by the Egyptians, recognized or not.  This in no way seems to lead to the conclusion you're trying to lead to.  

I have read some of his links in the past as well.  Seems to forget that the Bible writers were not historians.

Finkelstein is addressing the point that the religions of today, including his, consider the Bible to be accurate history. He shows in detail why it is not so. Talk to those promoting that the Bible writers reflect actual history, not those of us that show they were not.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

We can get into a list of prophecies that supposedly came true in a few more books. Specifically Ezekiel and Isaiah if you want, or we can do a whole thread just on that if you'd like. Right now it's beyond what we are trying to do.

eh.  whatever works.  I'd like to keep this progressing either way.  We could start new threads on many topics we get sidetracked on.  I'm game for any of them.  I've learned a lot through our conversations.  I like your approach.

 

Fine, thanks, we'll stay with the method we have been using.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If there were actual entities that are discussed as Sumerian gods for example, I rather doubt that that's what they were. Something else perhaps. Also beyond the goal of this thread.

it is.  Historically speaking, I don't understand how you'd find evidence of a god transmitting information to its followers... other than the writings of those who claim to have heard from said god.

Were that the information actually accurate or at least consistent. We can continue to discuss them as we encounter them as we have been doing.

When we get to the failed prophet Ezekiel, we can discuss how said info is not accurate. And my favorite, Daniel, though I see that book as a later writing as my long discussion with Grandpa showed.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Please take the time to read actual archaeologists such as Finkelstein, or at least read his book for a good start. See pp 149-195 or chapters 6 and 7 in Bible Unearthed for some basics. I have given you links to pretty much all of his work that is available online as well in the last few posts.

yes you have... don't wory, I'm doing my homework and looking into them.  Again, so far it seems he forgets that they're not historians... I'll continue reading through them.  I'll look into the book too. 

Again, Finkelstein, a Jew understands quite well the supposed writers were not historians, he's clear that they should not be considered as accurate history at all. He's against those that use it as history, which are most religions and especially Christians and his own.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

See our discussion on Jericho and Ai. There is also the hole in the story in regard to going around the Kingdom of Edom, which did not exist at the time of the Joshua/Moses supposed events. See Numbers 20:14-21. The kingdom of Edom was sparsely settled by pastoral nomads until the 7th century BCE. See also Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein p 68. See also the Battle of Kadesh (Qadesh), which occurs in circa 1274 BCE between Egypt and the Hittites. In Numbers 20:16, the Israelites are supposedly there. The area was disputed between Egypt and the Hittites for hundreds of years.

The kingdom of Edom if what you say is true is likely another situation where the writer wrote of a location that they were aware of in their current time and not necessarily what was there during the story's time.  We discussed this way back at the beginning.   Despite the reference to going to a king, the idea might have been that they still got permission as said, just not from the king of Edom. 

In that story, that were refused by the supposed king of Edom. Since it did not exist, it is a best exaggeration or at worst fiction. Either way, it did not occur as printed in the Bible.

You keep saying "as printed in the Bible"... I think the bigger question for all of it is... did it happen period?  If it did, then we need to analyze the specifics of the claim from the Bible that might not jive with the real history and see if that truly invalidates the book as truth or if it's just details that were misrepresented and ultimately don't change the outcome of the story.

That story comes from the Exodus which is inaccurate at best and complete fiction at worst. You have agreed that there were not millions that left Egypt, but perhaps dozens to hundreds. The exaggerations alone discredit the story as told. That's what I have been telling you all along. Could 100 people go through what would become the Kingdom of Edom in 500 years. Yes. But it wasn't there when the 100 may have gone through, so what was the reason for that fiction? Storytale filler? Yes small groups could have come from Egypt to Palestine, but that's not what is in the storytale. Clearly small groups settled in Palestine, however they conquered no big cities, especially those that were already ruins. They blew down no walls, especially cities that had no walls. They had no battles between others that exceeded the population by 10 times.

Time to go forward, I realize what your position is and we do not agree. I see far more fiction and storytales than you do.

caposkia wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

China is 5 time zones away or the part that was likely populated in the 1400s-1200s BCE. This means the Sun over Gibeon at Noon would be an early morning sun on the East coast of China, and since we do not know the time of the year, it could even still have been dark out.

I just read through many pages of Classical astronomy in China by J Needham and found only they documented a super nova in the mid 1400s BCE, nothing about your claim. The link you gave in your response has no evidence to support it, though you seem to realize that by your comment as well.

The super nova would consider with the claim that the sun stayed up for and extra day.  depending on the magnitude and proximity, it can be bright enough to be mistaken as the sun by those who know nothing of astronomy.  They have been known to light up the Earth bright enough to be daylight.  

The evidence to support it is the claims from other cultures around the world.  Unless you're claiming no reference to those claims.  I've been away, haven't looked into that yet.  

As described the Chinese saw it as a new star, not the Sun.

And no I can't find historical evidence that supports this. I'm not accepting opinions by religious writers for this, only actual artifacts.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
1 Kings 15 & 2 Chronicles 13-16

1 kings 15:1-8
Begins with Abijam, called Abijah in Chronicles ruling in Judah after Rehoboam. He ruled for only 3 years. There is not much else said about him.


2 Chronicles 13
Indicates there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam where he put 400,000 men to do battle with Jeroboam’s 800,000 men. He gives a long speech to Jeroboam, supposedly yelling it out from Mount Zemaraim. This speech was a rehash of the story so far. As with others like this in the Bible probably a writer’s technique and unlikely.
Jeroboam OTOH did an ambush such that they were surrounded on 2 sides. And even though they were outnumbered and surrounded or flanked,  the god smote Jeroboam’s army causing them to flee. And Abijah slew 500,000 of Israel that day. He then pursued Jeroboam and took Bethel, Jeshanah, Ephrain and connected towns.
So, where’s the bodies? The arrowheads, the spear points?


Show me.


There were still not this many people in all of Palestine in the late 900s By the 8th century the population for both would be approximately 160,000 (p115 Finkelstein)
Chronicles continues by describing Abijah’s wives and family. He had 14 wives, 20 sons, and 16 daughters. Then he dies.


1 Kings 15:9-34
Asa became king after the death of Abijam/Abijah and ruled for 41 years. Surely there is something we can find about him.
See this on the great wall - http://img2.tapuz.co.il/forums/1_160065077.pdf


First, let’s look at this discrepancy in Kings and Chronicles:
According to v9, he began his reign in the 20th year of Jeroboam’s. Nadab of Israel began his reign in the 2nd year of Asa’s reign in v25 with a 2 year reign. Then Baasha reigned in Israel beginning in Asa’s 3rd year reigning 24 years in v32. Then in 1 Kings 16:8, Elah began his reign in the 26th year of Asa for 2 years. Elah is killed by Zimri and reigned 7 days in the 27th year of Asa. And Omri is made king in what should be Asa’s 28th year, though civil war delays it until Asa’s 31st year as in 1 Kings 16:32 but allowing for approximation, possible and he reigned 12 years. This likely includes the 3 year of civil war. Ahab becomes king in Asa’s 38th year and reigns 22 years.
But the math doesn’t work here and compared to Chronicles it’s different. Let’s just take Omri at Asa’s 31st year and add 12, or 28th year and add 12 and you get Ahab in either the 40th year of Asa or the 43rd. Yet Kings says it was the 38th year. Fuzzy math won’t even do this. Then it disagrees with Chronicles, not just itself.


Then, we have 2 Chronicles:
There is no start date for Asa in Chronicles exactly, though we know from 2 Chronicles 13:1, Abijah reigned for 3 years beginning in Jeroboam’s 18th year. That would mean Asa began in the 21st year of Jeroboam, close enough for the poor dates of the Bible to be year 20 as in 1 Kings. The next point we have to compare is the claim war began between Baasha and Asa in Asa’s 36th year of reign. But according to 1 Kings, the king should not be Baasha but should be Omri. So the 2 accounts have dating errors.

In searching for secular/archeology for Asa, I so far have come up empty. I'd settle for a quip from any other culture of the period that says in effect, " xxxx was sent as a liaison to the King of Judah Asa.." or something to that effect. So far, nada.
In 1 Kings 15:22, the claim is made Asa built up the city of Mizpah's fortifications, "..With them King Asa built up Geba in Benjamin, and also Mizpah.  Also so claimed in 2 Chronicles 16:6.
(NIV) Instead, these fortifications have been actually dated to 200 years later, p235 Bible Unearthed.

The people still retained the worship of the native gods of the land as in 2 Chron 15:8 which claims Asa "put away the abominable idols out of all the land of Judah..." However, archeology still shows this was very prevalent.

Asa supposedly made a pact or treaty with Ben-hadad of Damascus which is mentioned in 1 Kings 15:16-24 as well as in 2 Chron 15:1-5.  Asa bribes the Syrians with gold and silver from the house of the god as well as the king's treasures. One wonders where such treasures come from as the earlier accounts in regard to Shishak (Sheshonq I) indicate they were all taken then. Maybe the treasures were magic and just reappeared back in Jerusalem after they were stolen.

In 2 Chron 14:9-15 the war activities of Asa are mentioned against the Ethiopians. This invasion was of a 1000 1000 and 300 chariots. That would be 1 million men in all. Surely there will be body parts, spear points and arrowheads from this adventure that supposedly occurred in Mareshah? Not that anyone has yet found. And Ethiopians would have had to have gone through Egyptian dominant territory to get to Judah as well. You'd think a million man army might get attention from someone other than in this storytale. Not so. This story is so far fetched it is not in 1 Kings either. This supposed battle is NE of Lachish. Supposedly Lachish was fortified. So the million man army goes around it or something? The Egyptian Pharaoh at the time was Osorkon I who ruled from 924 to 889 BCE. Archeology shows fragments of this pharaoh at Byblos with Phoenician inscriptions. See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osorkon_I

Egyptologists indicate that this period was a peaceful period as well. Osorkon I was the son of Sheshonq I and was not an Ethiopian, but was of Libyan descent aka a Berber.

Asa then died in his 41st year of reign and was replaced by Jehoshaphat his son.

Meanwhile in the city state of Samaria Baasha at some point began to rule after murdering Nadab, in the 3rd year of Asa's reign. He supposedly executed all of the house of Jeroboam and then ruled 24 years. 1 Kings has the detail on him as 2 Chronicles only mentions him in passing in regard to the pact between Asa and Damascus. Baasha of course did EITSOTL (evil in the sight of the Lord) as all kings of the North did. A prophet comes to Baasha telling him the god would do to him as was done to Jeroboam, that is take away the kingdom from his descendants. He made it even more colorful (apparently such was the hate of the Judahite priest-scribes that wrote this storytale) that those of the house of Baasha that die in the city the dogs would eat while those that die in the fields the birds would. And pretty much that is all that is said of him. 24 years, a few paragraphs, no detail on the EITSOTL given.





 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2638
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Greek, Roman writers also had supernatural stories interjected into their history and as I mentioned so did the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians. So do we accept them as true stories as well? If not why not? Are we today to consider the supernatural events as real history? If so, we can have some really fun discussions on the Sumerian stories.

 

If they're claiming they're true, I have no reason until I investigate them further to doubt them as being true.  Whether supernatural or not is another story that also requires some investigating into possibilities.  The thing with history is, we weren't there, so we can make a list of possibilities, but when it comes down to it, could it still have been supernatural?

I'll have to read up on the Sumerian stories if we're going to have a discussion on that.  I'm a bit behind on the suggested reading thus far.  Working on a course at the moment.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Egyptian, Assyrian, and Babylonian records do not seem to notice the supposed countries called Israel and Judah as described in the Bible either. City states are discussed but nothing as mentioned in the Bible, nor does archeology show the supposed advanced country claimed in the South called Judah until far later after Samaria has been decimated by Assyria. See some of Finkelstein's links for a good start.

dont' recognize, or call them by name?  Do they recognize a people group that might have lived in the area at the time?  If not, does that mean no people group could have possible existed there at the time?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Finkelstein is addressing the point that the religions of today, including his, consider the Bible to be accurate history. He shows in detail why it is not so. Talk to those promoting that the Bible writers reflect actual history, not those of us that show they were not.

In the reading that I have done, and other examples, I have yet to see how it's not... only guesses and assumptions as to why it might not be.  Finkelstein seems no different so far.  Just as you claim Bible scholars are bias toward their research, he seems the same toward his.  

The problem is, if it were so blatently false and non-existent in history, then these stories would not have had the recognition they did within the people groups throughout history.  

We have discussed peoples and things that without arguement exist in history written in the Bible, yet those things that are less obvious, yet still paint a smooth timeline through the stories are assumed to not exist because... well... we don't have anything concrete, or there have been other opinions that oppose the idea that some evidences could point in the direction of reality.  

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Again, Finkelstein, a Jew understands quite well the supposed writers were not historians, he's clear that they should not be considered as accurate history at all. He's against those that use it as history, which are most religions and especially Christians and his own.

well again it is only one line of history amidst thousands or even millions.  To use it "as" history is a bit overstating it isn't it?  It's a part of history


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That story comes from the Exodus which is inaccurate at best and complete fiction at worst. You have agreed that there were not millions that left Egypt, but perhaps dozens to hundreds. The exaggerations alone discredit the story as told.

no, a number discrepancy does not discredit an occurrence.  There are many natural disasters and/or tramatic events that have cost many lives including the holllocaust and earthquakes where the number mentioned is general and is not known for sure.  Does this mean that those events never actually happened?  Of course not.  The story as told still happened whether it was 300, 3000, or 3,000,000.  In Exodus to be honest, who cares how many it was?  If it happened, it happened

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That's what I have been telling you all along. Could 100 people go through what would become the Kingdom of Edom in 500 years. Yes. But it wasn't there when the 100 may have gone through, so what was the reason for that fiction? Storytale filler? Yes small groups could have come from Egypt to Palestine, but that's not what is in the storytale. Clearly small groups settled in Palestine, however they conquered no big cities, especially those that were already ruins. They blew down no walls, especially cities that had no walls. They had no battles between others that exceeded the population by 10 times.

Time to go forward, I realize what your position is and we do not agree. I see far more fiction and storytales than you do.

Only because your conclusion is based more on assumption due to lack of tangible evidence in history rather than looking at how it is possible.  What you youreslf have presented is not convincing to say that these stories could not have happened.

What I've shown you is that it is possible.  The parts of the story that could not possibly be true in history in no way changes the outcome or the events of the story.  

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As described the Chinese saw it as a new star, not the Sun.

And no I can't find historical evidence that supports this. I'm not accepting opinions by religious writers for this, only actual artifacts.

The Chinese claim would make sense.  ...and how can you find an artifact for a supernova?  


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

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Greek, Roman writers also had supernatural stories interjected into their history and as I mentioned so did the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians. So do we accept them as true stories as well? If not why not? Are we today to consider the supernatural events as real history? If so, we can have some really fun discussions on the Sumerian stories.

 

If they're claiming they're true, I have no reason until I investigate them further to doubt them as being true.  Whether supernatural or not is another story that also requires some investigating into possibilities.  The thing with history is, we weren't there, so we can make a list of possibilities, but when it comes down to it, could it still have been supernatural?

I'll have to read up on the Sumerian stories if we're going to have a discussion on that.  I'm a bit behind on the suggested reading thus far.  Working on a course at the moment.

I go with the view if it goes against observable reality and is contrary to the laws of science it is probably unlikely to be true unless otherwise shown to have an explanation that can be demonstrated. I'd have to see it for myself and the detailed rationale. As we are only being general here, specifics would have to be examined. As with a lot of our side issues this will come another day.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Egyptian, Assyrian, and Babylonian records do not seem to notice the supposed countries called Israel and Judah as described in the Bible either. City states are discussed but nothing as mentioned in the Bible, nor does archeology show the supposed advanced country claimed in the South called Judah until far later after Samaria has been decimated by Assyria. See some of Finkelstein's links for a good start.

dont' recognize, or call them by name?  Do they recognize a people group that might have lived in the area at the time?  If not, does that mean no people group could have possible existed there at the time?

What I tried to indicate was the other countries I mentioned did not notice the supposed countries of Israel or Judah by any name as described in the Bible stories. The only mention of substance is of Ahab, which we will get to very soon in a few chapters.

I'm not saying there were no people there, I'm saying the countries are shown to be no where as advanced as claimed in the Bible stories. There is considerable proof that the advances came far after the supposed reigns of David and Solomon and first in only the city state of Samaria under the Omrides especially Ahab.  Those in the area that became Judah were tribal and small groups in villages and very small towns, not the picture the Bible stories indicate. That the greatness claimed comes from a writer far later and has no basis is what is shown from archeaology.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Finkelstein is addressing the point that the religions of today, including his, consider the Bible to be accurate history. He shows in detail why it is not so. Talk to those promoting that the Bible writers reflect actual history, not those of us that show they were not.

In the reading that I have done, and other examples, I have yet to see how it's not... only guesses and assumptions as to why it might not be.  Finkelstein seems no different so far.  Just as you claim Bible scholars are bias toward their research, he seems the same toward his.  

The problem is, if it were so blatently false and non-existent in history, then these stories would not have had the recognition they did within the people groups throughout history. 

What is different with Finkelstein is he is a trained specialist in archeaology and is actually the one in charge of and digging up the sites.

What people groups do you speak of that have had the knowledge of the area that give these stories recognition? Jews? Muslims? Christians? All draw on the same sources - the Bible.

caposkia wrote:

We have discussed peoples and things that without arguement exist in history written in the Bible, yet those things that are less obvious, yet still paint a smooth timeline through the stories are assumed to not exist because... well... we don't have anything concrete, or there have been other opinions that oppose the idea that some evidences could point in the direction of reality. 

As with many stories, including Harry Potter, England exists so does London and? People used names and places in their storytelling that are real. So?

I do not see your smooth timeline that you claim exists, which is one of many reasons we spend the time discussing the stories.

I see many issues you do not, that is why we discuss them. I'm OK with you and I not agreeing, that is the point of this in the first place.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Again, Finkelstein, a Jew understands quite well the supposed writers were not historians, he's clear that they should not be considered as accurate history at all. He's against those that use it as history, which are most religions and especially Christians and his own.

well again it is only one line of history amidst thousands or even millions.  To use it "as" history is a bit overstating it isn't it?  It's a part of history.

Not really, many believers claim that the Bible is the actual history as detailed along with all of the events from the zapping us out of the dust, to talking snakes, high rise towers that threatened the god somehow, world-wide flood, Jews as slaves, the Exodus in all of its detail, the invasion of Palestine and each and every tidbit and claim occured in the exact description, numbers and detail.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Bible is part of history? That it was written at some point? Yep. That the book has come down to us from the past. Yep. So have the Sumeran stories from Mesopotamia come to us. They also are history in that respect. Some of their stories are possible as real but told in a mythical way just as the Bible stories may have some reality but are told in a mythical way.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That story comes from the Exodus which is inaccurate at best and complete fiction at worst. You have agreed that there were not millions that left Egypt, but perhaps dozens to hundreds. The exaggerations alone discredit the story as told.

no, a number discrepancy does not discredit an occurrence.  There are many natural disasters and/or tramatic events that have cost many lives including the holllocaust and earthquakes where the number mentioned is general and is not known for sure.  Does this mean that those events never actually happened?  Of course not.  The story as told still happened whether it was 300, 3000, or 3,000,000.  In Exodus to be honest, who cares how many it was?  If it happened, it happened

We did not tear apart from all angles the issues with the captivity claim in Egypt nor the other possiblities that gave rise to the storytale, as for example the point that labor used to build the projects in Egypt were done willingly and have been shown as such. We did not discuss other than passing the Asiatics ejected from Egypt, the Hyskos may have been some of the ancestors of the later Judeans called the Jews.

300 or 3000 turned into 3 million in the storytale is false and fiction. The numbers did not happen as claimed. The claim is false. Archeaology shows settlement patterns that disagree with the Exodus claim and invasion by the horde called the Israelites.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That's what I have been telling you all along. Could 100 people go through what would become the Kingdom of Edom in 500 years. Yes. But it wasn't there when the 100 may have gone through, so what was the reason for that fiction? Storytale filler? Yes small groups could have come from Egypt to Palestine, but that's not what is in the storytale. Clearly small groups settled in Palestine, however they conquered no big cities, especially those that were already ruins. They blew down no walls, especially cities that had no walls. They had no battles between others that exceeded the population by 10 times.

Time to go forward, I realize what your position is and we do not agree. I see far more fiction and storytales than you do.

Only because your conclusion is based more on assumption due to lack of tangible evidence in history rather than looking at how it is possible.  What you youreslf have presented is not convincing to say that these stories could not have happened.

What I've shown you is that it is possible.  The parts of the story that could not possibly be true in history in no way changes the outcome or the events of the story. 

Here again we differ. The parts that are impossible in history completely eliminate the claimed outcome in the story.

What events do you feel are not affected by parts of the story being false?

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As described the Chinese saw it as a new star, not the Sun.

And no I can't find historical evidence that supports this. I'm not accepting opinions by religious writers for this, only actual artifacts.

The Chinese claim would make sense.  ...and how can you find an artifact for a supernova?  

In their writings and descriptions is how.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2638
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I go with the view if it goes against observable reality and is contrary to the laws of science it is probably unlikely to be true unless otherwise shown to have an explanation that can be demonstrated. I'd have to see it for myself and the detailed rationale. As we are only being general here, specifics would have to be examined. As with a lot of our side issues this will come another day.

That goes back to the possibility of God.  If God were real as described in scripture, it wouldn't be so far fetched to say that the Laws of science be bent a bit... then again in many cases, I can see the miracles of God working within the laws he put forth within nature.  They're still supernatural because of the timing and result

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What I tried to indicate was the other countries I mentioned did not notice the supposed countries of Israel or Judah by any name as described in the Bible stories. The only mention of substance is of Ahab, which we will get to very soon in a few chapters.

I've found in history that just because the natives call their location one name doesn't mean it is referred to necessarily by that name from other people groups... I'm sure you'd agree.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm not saying there were no people there, I'm saying the countries are shown to be no where as advanced as claimed in the Bible stories. There is considerable proof that the advances came far after the supposed reigns of David and Solomon and first in only the city state of Samaria under the Omrides especially Ahab.  Those in the area that became Judah were tribal and small groups in villages and very small towns, not the picture the Bible stories indicate. That the greatness claimed comes from a writer far later and has no basis is what is shown from archeaology.

...and that's just it.  It is written down by people who don't have a strong historical understanding like we do today.  It is nearly impossible to have the understanding we do today, therefore I would be shocked to see their history written with impecible accuracy.  With that said, size doesn't change the likelihood of the Bible stories actually happening on a smaller scale, we've discussed that with other stories.  The kingdoms didn't have to be recognized by many to have existed.  There were many kingdoms that have come and gone.  It'd be interesting to start at Nebuchanezzar and go backward to see where his kingdom progressed from according to history.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What is different with Finkelstein is he is a trained specialist in archeaology and is actually the one in charge of and digging up the sites.

What people groups do you speak of that have had the knowledge of the area that give these stories recognition? Jews? Muslims? Christians? All draw on the same sources - the Bible.

I mean in general.  If you look at the historical opposition of Bible stories and the claims of those who follow the teachings of those stories, you'll find the scrutiny is harsh and yet no one has been able to difinitively prove through all that scrutiny that the scripture does not support itself in reality.  If anything, you'll find a consistent pattern in history of people converting to the following due to their attempts at discrediting the scriptures.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As with many stories, including Harry Potter, England exists so does London and? People used names and places in their storytelling that are real. So?

I do not see your smooth timeline that you claim exists, which is one of many reasons we spend the time discussing the stories.

I see many issues you do not, that is why we discuss them. I'm OK with you and I not agreeing, that is the point of this in the first place.

I agree.  The issue with the Harry Potter example is the author first of all never claimed the stories to be true nor claimed to have witnessed them... also if you look into history, you can find where she got all her ideas for the story from.  Nothing from Harry Potter was new or different, only a compilation of mythical stories and creatures from the past.

If you don't see the "smooth timeline" you should look back through the books from Exodus through to now as a whole and see how it's painting the timeline... it's written in the words as a progression.  This person was born to this person and this person took over this kingdom etc.  If anything, that is made very clear in the writing right up front.

We both see issues with each others conclusions through the studies we've done.  This is how I've learned what I have.  I've never considered myself strong in history.  I feel our conversations have helped a lot.  I've had to do a lot of historical homework and talk to people about Bible history on topics I probably would have never thought of investigating.  I love this!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Not really, many believers claim that the Bible is the actual history as detailed along with all of the events from the zapping us out of the dust, to talking snakes, high rise towers that threatened the god somehow, world-wide flood, Jews as slaves, the Exodus in all of its detail, the invasion of Palestine and each and every tidbit and claim occured in the exact description, numbers and detail.

I take the point of view that the Bible is not written as a history book, therefore it should not be viewed as such.  It's also not a science text book and therefore should not be viewed as such either.  With that said, I still have no reason to doubt the claims written due to my current life experiences with God.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by the Bible is part of history? That it was written at some point? Yep. That the book has come down to us from the past. Yep. So have the Sumeran stories from Mesopotamia come to us. They also are history in that respect. Some of their stories are possible as real but told in a mythical way just as the Bible stories may have some reality but are told in a mythical way.

I mean it by some people take the Bible as the history of the world and that's a poor approach.  As I said, the bible is not a history book and therefore should not be viewed as such.  It is a compilation of hundreds of parchments and writings put together over many years in history to become what it is today.  The parts put into scripture were carefully chosen to be as true as possible without turning scripture into something it's not.  There were thousands of parchments and writings that could have been put in, but were not due to authenticity issues and incongruency with reality.  


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That story comes from the Exodus which is inaccurate at best and complete fiction at worst. You have agreed that there were not millions that left Egypt, but perhaps dozens to hundreds. The exaggerations alone discredit the story as told.

We did not tear apart from all angles the issues with the captivity claim in Egypt nor the other possiblities that gave rise to the storytale, as for example the point that labor used to build the projects in Egypt were done willingly and have been shown as such. We did not discuss other than passing the Asiatics ejected from Egypt, the Hyskos may have been some of the ancestors of the later Judeans called the Jews.

When you say willingly, do you mean any one of the slaves could have walked away at any moment without reprecussions?  Slavery was different then than it was in American history keep in mind.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

300 or 3000 turned into 3 million in the storytale is false and fiction. The numbers did not happen as claimed. The claim is false. Archeaology shows settlement patterns that disagree with the Exodus claim and invasion by the horde called the Israelites.

I haven't seen those settlement patterns that allegedly disagree wtih the Exodus claim

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Here again we differ. The parts that are impossible in history completely eliminate the claimed outcome in the story.

What events do you feel are not affected by parts of the story being false?

The result of the story as a whole.  E.g. if the pharoah in Exodus had only 10 slaves and they escaped in the same manner, the story still happened.  I'm sure it was more, but just an example.

For "the parts taht are impossible in history completely eliminate the claimed outcome..."... How?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In their writings and descriptions is how.

 

You previously mentioned you wouldn't take the word of religious writers and yet you'd take the word of chinese writers... most of whom were religious writers themselves... Chinese culture is more rich in religion and spirituality than most other cultures.  You just contradicted yourself.  (I don't mean that as an accusation, rather an observation)  explain further please


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Do you have comments on Post 790?

Cap,

I'm still waiting on your comments to 1 Kings 15 & 2 Chronicles 13-16

I'm working on the next chapters up to Ahab. Will post it soon  after your comments on post 790.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I go with the view if it goes against observable reality and is contrary to the laws of science it is probably unlikely to be true unless otherwise shown to have an explanation that can be demonstrated. I'd have to see it for myself and the detailed rationale. As we are only being general here, specifics would have to be examined. As with a lot of our side issues this will come another day.

That goes back to the possibility of God.  If God were real as described in scripture, it wouldn't be so far fetched to say that the Laws of science be bent a bit... then again in many cases, I can see the miracles of God working within the laws he put forth within nature.  They're still supernatural because of the timing and result

Or if Enki were real he could bend the rules.

Or a super advanced high tech civilazation from nearer the center of our galaxy with a history of a billion years  could have found ways by now to make what we think is magic be nothing more than technology.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What I tried to indicate was the other countries I mentioned did not notice the supposed countries of Israel or Judah by any name as described in the Bible stories. The only mention of substance is of Ahab, which we will get to very soon in a few chapters.

I've found in history that just because the natives call their location one name doesn't mean it is referred to necessarily by that name from other people groups... I'm sure you'd agree.

It's not the name, it's the supposed advanced civilzation claimed that has no basis. It wasn't there or noticed by others no matter what you call them.

Forget about the name of the area, they were not significant in the history of the Hitittes, the Egyptians, the Assyrians or anyone else in the period we are discussing.

Archeaology also shows this as well.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm not saying there were no people there, I'm saying the countries are shown to be no where as advanced as claimed in the Bible stories. There is considerable proof that the advances came far after the supposed reigns of David and Solomon and first in only the city state of Samaria under the Omrides especially Ahab.  Those in the area that became Judah were tribal and small groups in villages and very small towns, not the picture the Bible stories indicate. That the greatness claimed comes from a writer far later and has no basis is what is shown from archeaology.

...and that's just it.  It is written down by people who don't have a strong historical understanding like we do today.  It is nearly impossible to have the understanding we do today, therefore I would be shocked to see their history written with impecible accuracy.  With that said, size doesn't change the likelihood of the Bible stories actually happening on a smaller scale, we've discussed that with other stories.  The kingdoms didn't have to be recognized by many to have existed.  There were many kingdoms that have come and gone.  It'd be interesting to start at Nebuchanezzar and go backward to see where his kingdom progressed from according to history. 

I find it interesting you agree the history can be wrong but you still accept the story in the Bble as likely.

No need to start with Nebuchadrezzar and go backwards, you can start with Sumerian cities and go all the way to Nabonidus using clay tablets.

You need to read a few books on Ancient Iraq to address your quest for knowledge.

I'm impressed with your desire to learn.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What is different with Finkelstein is he is a trained specialist in archeaology and is actually the one in charge of and digging up the sites.

What people groups do you speak of that have had the knowledge of the area that give these stories recognition? Jews? Muslims? Christians? All draw on the same sources - the Bible.

I mean in general.  If you look at the historical opposition of Bible stories and the claims of those who follow the teachings of those stories, you'll find the scrutiny is harsh and yet no one has been able to difinitively prove through all that scrutiny that the scripture does not support itself in reality.  If anything, you'll find a consistent pattern in history of people converting to the following due to their attempts at discrediting the scriptures. 

I don't know the reasoning why people convert to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, or Scientology.

Maybe as follows:

Jew or Christian  to Muslim - less taxes

Christian to Mormon - more wives

Any believer to Muslim - more wives, paternalistic society, easier to understand theology

Any believer to Christian - pot luck suppers and you can join a Christian dating site

Any belief or not to Scientology - secret sex orgies

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As with many stories, including Harry Potter, England exists so does London and? People used names and places in their storytelling that are real. So?

I do not see your smooth timeline that you claim exists, which is one of many reasons we spend the time discussing the stories.

I see many issues you do not, that is why we discuss them. I'm OK with you and I not agreeing, that is the point of this in the first place.

I agree.  The issue with the Harry Potter example is the author first of all never claimed the stories to be true nor claimed to have witnessed them... also if you look into history, you can find where she got all her ideas for the story from.  Nothing from Harry Potter was new or different, only a compilation of mythical stories and creatures from the past.

If you don't see the "smooth timeline" you should look back through the books from Exodus through to now as a whole and see how it's painting the timeline... it's written in the words as a progression.  This person was born to this person and this person took over this kingdom etc.  If anything, that is made very clear in the writing right up front.

We both see issues with each others conclusions through the studies we've done.  This is how I've learned what I have.  I've never considered myself strong in history.  I feel our conversations have helped a lot.  I've had to do a lot of historical homework and talk to people about Bible history on topics I probably would have never thought of investigating.  I love this!

Maybe I should have said the Book of Mormon and the point would be more obvious.

The Book of Mormon is claimed to be true by the LDS. It uses places and names that exist as well as those that probably didn't.

My point was fiction and mythical tales can use the names of real people and places just like history may do.

I do see the timeline the Bible presents, I see it as incorrect. They do have an organized he begat him, begat him, story, filled with problems.

I'm glad you enjoy the discussion. I have always loved history. You never know where it may take you in the study of  ancient times.

Books on history are important to understanding. They do have short comings, but that is better than no understanding of it at all.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Not really, many believers claim that the Bible is the actual history as detailed along with all of the events from the zapping us out of the dust, to talking snakes, high rise towers that threatened the god somehow, world-wide flood, Jews as slaves, the Exodus in all of its detail, the invasion of Palestine and each and every tidbit and claim occured in the exact description, numbers and detail.

I take the point of view that the Bible is not written as a history book, therefore it should not be viewed as such.  It's also not a science text book and therefore should not be viewed as such either.  With that said, I still have no reason to doubt the claims written due to my current life experiences with God.

Not a accurate history book, definitely not a science text, clearly written by men and subject to inaccuracy. With that said, I have no reason to accept any of the claims in it. No life experiences that indicate any god is real or has been real or could be real.

Quite the opposite of you.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by the Bible is part of history? That it was written at some point? Yep. That the book has come down to us from the past. Yep. So have the Sumeran stories from Mesopotamia come to us. They also are history in that respect. Some of their stories are possible as real but told in a mythical way just as the Bible stories may have some reality but are told in a mythical way.

I mean it by some people take the Bible as the history of the world and that's a poor approach.  As I said, the bible is not a history book and therefore should not be viewed as such.  It is a compilation of hundreds of parchments and writings put together over many years in history to become what it is today.  The parts put into scripture were carefully chosen to be as true as possible without turning scripture into something it's not.  There were thousands of parchments and writings that could have been put in, but were not due to authenticity issues and incongruency with reality. 

I have no idea who put the Bible together or why they did so beyond the use as a propaganda tool. Anonymouse claims it was Made in Alexandria in the 2nd century BCE. You claim it was ancient,  put together from scraps of ancient text.

Were the Bible editors careful? Doesn't look that way to me from just the inconsistency in the creation chapters. Or the errors it makes just between the books of  Kings and Chronicles.

How do you know that there were hundreds or parchments that came together to make the story? Not the single effort claimed by Anonymouse?

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That story comes from the Exodus which is inaccurate at best and complete fiction at worst. You have agreed that there were not millions that left Egypt, but perhaps dozens to hundreds. The exaggerations alone discredit the story as told.

We did not tear apart from all angles the issues with the captivity claim in Egypt nor the other possiblities that gave rise to the storytale, as for example the point that labor used to build the projects in Egypt were done willingly and have been shown as such. We did not discuss other than passing the Asiatics ejected from Egypt, the Hyskos may have been some of the ancestors of the later Judeans called the Jews.

When you say willingly, do you mean any one of the slaves could have walked away at any moment without reprecussions?  Slavery was different then than it was in American history keep in mind.

You should research how the pyramids and ancient monuments were built in Egypt. Claiming it was slaves is not correct. Even history channel shows this. The construction was done by the people of Egypt willingly as jobs.

Building monuments was not a slave thing as the storytale from the Bible suggests.

Yes Egypt had slaves, so did the supposed Jews. You don't want to go into that. On purpose I refrained from discussing how the Bible advocated owning people was OK. If the Bible is the word of the god then it follows the god OKs owning people. Yes, I know people wrote the stories including how it was OK to sell your daughter. If a god was involved, he hopefully has met his end by now because that is simply disgusting. Owning other people is savage. That alone is enough to discredit the stories most likely, at least for me.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

300 or 3000 turned into 3 million in the storytale is false and fiction. The numbers did not happen as claimed. The claim is false. Archeaology shows settlement patterns that disagree with the Exodus claim and invasion by the horde called the Israelites.

I haven't seen those settlement patterns that allegedly disagree wtih the Exodus claim.

You haven't read through Finkelstein's books, web site, some of the other books I mentioned or the other links as of yet then.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Here again we differ. The parts that are impossible in history completely eliminate the claimed outcome in the story.

What events do you feel are not affected by parts of the story being false?

The result of the story as a whole.  E.g. if the pharoah in Exodus had only 10 slaves and they escaped in the same manner, the story still happened.  I'm sure it was more, but just an example.

For "the parts taht are impossible in history completely eliminate the claimed outcome..."... How?

1-The story claimed far more than just escape from Egypt. The details of the story have issues when the number of people are reduced to 10 or 300.

Examples but not totally inclusive:

The taking of massive amounts of treasures from Egypt on their departure is not mentioned in regard to the Hebrews (since Hebrews are not mentioned at all in Egypt), however this is claimed in regard to Sethnakht that he had stopped rebels who had stolen gold and silver circa 1184 BCE. So why not the Hebrews/

Destroying the army of Egypt in the Red Sea. You'd think this would have been mentioned somewhere.

Large group waits for Moses to come down from Mt Sinai - are 10 people a large group?

Many are swallowed up in the ground - so 5 get swallowed up in the ground and 5 live? How do 5 people make 12 tribes? Or was it 300 or 3000 and half drop into a crack in the ground? And the survivors are 12 tribes?

People are in 2 groups at several points those with Moses and those with Aaron. 5 + 5?

It would take many more than 10 people to carry the Ark, the tabernacle and the rest of the items mentioned in the stories.

2-The Superpowers of the time period controlled the area in question. Egypt, the Hittites, the Assyrians, and even the Arameans.

It is difficult to fit in the super kingdoms of Israel/Judah as claimed in the OT with the area either controlled or influenced by one or more of the superpowers.

3-Finally,10 people aren't 12 tribes, neither are 300.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As described the Chinese saw it as a new star, not the Sun.

And no I can't find historical evidence that supports this. I'm not accepting opinions by religious writers for this, only actual artifacts.

The Chinese claim would make sense.  ...and how can you find an artifact for a supernova?  

In their writings and descriptions is how. 

You previously mentioned you wouldn't take the word of religious writers and yet you'd take the word of chinese writers... most of whom were religious writers themselves... Chinese culture is more rich in religion and spirituality than most other cultures.  You just contradicted yourself.  (I don't mean that as an accusation, rather an observation)  explain further please

PS: I added back the parts of the post you deleted as it was difficult to see where this came from.

The only thing under discussion here was the point the Chinese noted a new star. That is all they noted. A star is not the  Sun. The Bible OTOH claims the Sun stood still. The Chinese account does not support the Bible in this, a star is not the same to them as the Sun.

I grant you that even Chinese writers may have religious beliefs, but simply noting a new star is not that.

Pretty much everyone who wrote in the ancient past was religious about some god or the other, so the statement I made was in regard to religious texts themselves, not all writing. The writing's purpose should be considered is really my point.

I think we have argued the Sun stood still enough. I can't see how that happens without the Earth's rotation stopping. That would be a scary thing and possibly the end of the Earth as well. The Earth rotates at about 1000 miles per hour. The described claim means the brakes were hit. I wonder what the G forces would be? That would likely destabilize the Earth and it would go flinging off either into the Sun or out of orbit. Just saying.

And a new star or a super nova is not enough for the story in the OT.

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I'm pretty sure those Bible books referenced were later titled and were not titled such by the author... They were also not written as if those people actually wrote it... with exception of Enoch...  likely written somewhere between 200 B.C. and 100 B.C.  obviously not written by Enoch.  Pretty sure all the works dated between those dates, i'll get to that in a second.  But that was a good reference.  It was common of writings of that time to take on the title of another name than the author.  Most though did not try to assume the named person wrote it, moreso that the name was who it was written for.

There was an entire popular genre  in "bible" stories that started in about the 1st c. BC and in fact continued through at least the 18th c. AD. www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/ has many references to the ones from ancient times. Modern ones can be found www.amazon.com/Folktales-Jews-Vol-Sephardic-Dispersion/dp/0827608292 for purchase and some place on the web but I lost the link.

What I have not been able to determine is how much and which stories were "sponsored" in their creation and how much is "fan fiction" from ancient times. Judeans, aka Jews, from that time had a huge obsession with convincing their Greek and Roman rulers that they were an "ancient" people rather than a recent upstart. Back then there was apparently something to be gained from that status. Josephus went so far as to say people refused to believe it (and other ridiculous claims) solely because they hated Judeans setting the tone for claims of "antisemitism" ever since.

Enoch is only one of many produced. They are generally indistinguishable from the approved story collections of Christians and Jews. By indistinguishable I mean if you ignore the embarassing parts and have facile explanations for other parts there is no difference.

 

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:
In the upcoming discussion on Nebuchadnezzar, is there going to be question of his existence as a real person as well?  I ask because I've been given light to an artifact that would support his existence through the name of one of his chief officers Nabu-sharrussu-ukin as mentioned in Jeremiah 39. 

The existence of Nebuchadnezzar can be and has been constructed from archaeology. So also was the entire history of ancient Egypt and of course found totally contradictory to the bible descriptions of it.

There has been so much digging in bibleland that percentagewise it is the most dug place in all the world. Digging by real and biblical archaeologists, looters, road builders, construction workers that there is no place left to dig where something "revolutionary" might be found.

That said there is no way to take that archaeology and do, as has been done for Egypt, reconstruct a history of the region which is closer than a light year to the bible stories. The archaeology does in fact show there was no literate culture there until after the arrival of the Greeks and then nearly a century after. There was no one who could have written and preserved the bible stories. There was no literate culture to have produced them until essentially the 2nd c. BC.

In the 2nd c. BC there is no reason to assume using an old name from Babylon in creating an entertaining story of historical fiction would not be used. It is interesting that you would choose that name as Daniel is one of the books than can be definitely dated to the mid 2nd c. BC as when it was created. Obviously that name was written into the fanciful tale of "captivity" in Babylon.

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:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The crux of the question is the assertion you make that the Bible was "written by men via the word of God". That is the whole problem here and the claim requires proof. Errors of substance do not help validate this assertion, rather they discredit it.

not at all.. unlike me telling you to write something down... e.g. "go to the store and buy eggs, milk and bread", you can come back and say, "I missed the last part, what was it again... whereas a conversation with God is a one time deal... in many cases, it was presented in a vision or dream, therefore, the writers were recollecting the vision they had from God or the words as they understood them.  Then after translations and scribes pass it through some things change a bit as well... some may have been for clarification purposes, some may have been misunderstood, but all were careful to keep the core details under scrutiny. 

Generally speaking, the Word of God was understood to be extremely important and therefore when recording what they were told, though details might be skewed, the basis of the information is still in tact.  E.g. they may have forgotten that God told them to have nice day, but they understood that God gave them a prophesy that told them of coming events that eventually took place.

Beleivers NEVER think things through because they are convinced they cannot be wrong.

Lets examine your facile excuse. You say errors are to be expected in the form of additions and omissions and mis-statements and "clarifications" by people who would have no idea what they were clarifying. YET you insist without substantiation that the "core details" were not additions or mis-statements and the really core statements were not omitted and their meanings did not change though clarification.

How did you test this hypothesis? Please provide the details of your testing methodology and the results. Cutting to the chase you have never tested what you said and there is no way to test what you said. So why did you bother saying it? Who told you this and why did you believe them? Why did you want to believe whoever told you this?

However you invoke the primitive superstition of gods communicating in dreams and visions. Why did you do that? Do you not have a modern education? Do you not know charlatans are always having dreams and visions? That ALL the ancient gods did the same? Again there is no way to test the rather insane claim that these dreams and visions were intrinsically different from other dreams and visions.

Again I ask why you invoke patent nonsense which you clearly have not thought through in a discussion where you puport to be participating in a rational discussion?

 

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:
How vast do you think Solomon's treasures were?  Remember he was a smaller kingdom, so his treasures in comparison to other larger kingdoms.  If anything, it seems Shishak bragged more about the places he concquered rather than what he took from them.  Detail from a relief in the Karnak Temple at Thebes details the raid into Palestine.  The artwork details Shishak holding a sword in one hand and in the other ropes, which are connected to 156 cartouches each containing the name of a place Shishak claims to have defeated.

One thinks Solomon and his treasures were as desccribed in the Bible as well as his ruling the land from the Nile to the Eurphrates which Shishak did not appear to notice. All those 156 conquests were taken from Solomon's kingdom as in fact was liberating Egypt from Solomon's rule. Which do you consider to be lying? The inscriptions from Thebes or the Bible? Only one can be true. Exaggerations are lies save when one is being polite.

 

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
Rule of thumb for armies and populations

The female half of the population is not qualified to fight when it is all a matter of fitness and physical endurance. Of the remaining half 1/3 are suitable for combat. Yes, younger men and even boys can be recruited to support the fighters but then there are always fighting age who are physically incapable of fighting so the 1/3 * 1/2 = 1/6 is good enough for a first order approximation.

So if there was an army of 400,000 then the population that fielded it was six times larger or 2.4 million.

From various sources the region of Palestine had a pre-industrial carrying capacity of about one million.

 

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