OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real

pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
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
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

caposkia wrote:
I know what I had said.  The thing is, as you said, we don't seem to have evidence for these stories.... as this thread is reveiling, neither do we for the rest of history.  The thing is, other than speculative rants, no one has shown logical reasoning that any one of the books couldn't have happened as described.  Lack of belief doesn't determine truth, neither does belief.  The problem with Truth is it cares less what we think of it, it will still be what it is anyway.

Speaking of logic and reason, NOTHING stands as true until shown false. All thihgs are false until shown true. That applies to everything else in history. As to could not have happened as described, there is no magic. Therefore any story mentioning a miracle could not have happened as described. Stories which contain magic are intended to be fiction.

Truth is an abstract noun. In this context there are only true stories. A story with miracles cannot be true. AND believers are not permitted to revise out, to remove the impossible parts just to salvage their beliefs. There are no special pleadings permitted just because it is a believer favorite. But if believers insist they are being reasonable then unbelievers have to be granted exactly the same permission. Revising biblical Israel out of existence is equally permitted. Changing things to destroy the story is equally permitted. Ad hoc revision has to go both ways.

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: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
...

As I indicated upon the opening of this discussion of Ahab, the writer of Kings was so biased he must have had a reason - girlfriend deserted for Ahab's court, relatives killed - who knows.

...

The guy who wrote this story did not read the other story and there was no one editing the works of the writers for consistency. That is a much simpler explanation. It is like bad SciFi TV where there is no significantly continuity. Think Star Trek Voyager where different technobabel was used to do the same thing in different eps.

As you say, they had the Federation in common not much else.

Let me repeat in the form of paraphrase what I said. THEY are fiction. Fictions do not have federations. In simpler form there is no physical evidence whatsoever of any factual content of interest in the Septuagint stories either in the Greek original or the Hebrew translation.

The original Sci-Fi Star Trek series had a Federation in it's fictional account and so did the later Sci-Fi Star Trek series Voyager, that is what was meant.

I don't see how I was misunderstood here. You mentioned Star Trek and I commented on Star Trek both of which are fictional.

I do understand quite well the Septuagint has no relationship to reality in the curent subject under discussion - it is not reality based. The point of this thread is to sift out fables, myths and storytelling from real history. Viewed either your way or mine, the Ahab rant in kings is not based in history and I consider it to be fictional.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
As to Ahab, the writer of Kings completely ignored the real Ahab so it suggests it is complete storytelling fiction to me at least.

There is no evidence of any real Ahab. He does not differ from Peter Pan.

I care less what the real name of any city king of Samaria name might be, they did have kings or leaders following Omnri. His real name could have been Xenaphone or Lord King of the Mountains. Ahab was used for the comparison. I realize you are touchy about name usage that can be misconstrued as validation of any of the story telling of the bible.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
There are many things that don't work for me in the Ahab rant in Kings.

If you want to have the least chance of finding any "meaning" in it whatsoever look to the political situation in the region in the 2nd c. BC when these stories were created.

I wasn't looking for real meaning only indicating why the story telling does not firt the world of the 9th century BCE. Again, IOW it is not history but storytelling and is not based in reality. That it has a likely fit to the 2nd century BCE as an original is not unlikely, just not the approach I was taking here.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
1- Nothing suggests Israel or more accurately the city state of Samaria was ever part of the storytelling legends of the Bible.

Of all the "israelite" cities mentioned in the Septuagint this is the only one that has a possibility of serving as the inspiration for the Septuagint story about it. And even then it mostly ignores Omri in place of tales about his fictional descendants.

We mostly agree here.

My point here was Samaria was not then a Morphed Yahweh believing area. They were not part of 10 tribes of the fictional story telling legend. The fictional israel of the Bible did not exist. Samaria did. They are not the same. The Morphed Yahweh stories in regard to Samaria are story telling and are not supported as reality. That is the point here. That (a) writer(s) created a world of never was in the Septuagint is what I have indicated throughout this thread.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
2- Nothing is shown that Ahab worshiped the yahweh, in fact he and his kingdom (city-state) are adequately shown to believe in the traditional Canaanite/Phoencian gods. There is much evidence of this.

Yahweh and Ashara are found in archaeology as a traditional pair of Phoenician gods. Canaanites are a Septuagint creation like Philistines and Munchkins.

I refer to The Yahweh here - the morphed god of the Judeans. There was a Yahweh and his consort Asherah called Astarte or one of other names in the area worshiped. Again I realize your touchiness in regard to names. Ugaritic and Phoenician artifacts show these were some of the gods. I know the word Canaanites is not a name that was ever used in the 9th century BCE and is of the Judean origin. Yahweh of artifacts is indicated as a son of El, the king of the gods in Ugaritic & Phoencian stories. Sometimes indicated as Ba'al. The morphed yahweh of the Judeans is not indicated to be in the 9th centiury BCE and appears in its morphed form after the Judeans conquer the area in the 2nd century BCE.

So, we agree once again it seems.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
There are no artifacts I know of that show the Yahweh god of the Jews was ever a god in the area of Samaria in the 9th century BCE (and I'm aware there were no Jews in the 9th century BCE - name made up far later from Yehud after the Persian period).

There were no Jews until there were Judeans. Jerusalem was the territory of the city-state of Jerusalem as Attica was the territory of Athens. Alexander did not conquer Judea yet he conquered everything therefore Judea did not exist in his time.

Samarians did not worship Yahweh until conquered by the Judeans and forced to convert in the 2nd c. BC. Yahweh worship as found in the Septuagint is an invented cult as opposed to a naturally occurring religion. The difference being the Maccabean cult priests make Stalin's Kommisars look like laize faire liberals. People do not invent religions like that. The are imposed.

I agree, the word Jews was developed far later and is not a word from the time period. I indicated that, as to the exact date this name was made up the 2nd century BCE is an appropriate time.

It would seem the religion of the morphed Yahweh was created for the purpose of unification by the Shaman priests and as with many other religions such as Christianity under Constantine. It made them different and as with all Shamans they had the power of the god so they had the power over the ignorant who were led to the purposes desired.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:
Leaving out the battle of Qarqar discredits Kings and indicates storytelling on the writers part, no excuse is justified for it being omitted. The fictional battles in Kings where so many of Damascus are killed by Ahab is unrealistic and impossible given what we know from the Assyrians and that Qarqar occurred shortly later.

There is more I have mentioned in previous posts, but comparing the Kings Ahab rant to what we know from elsewhere and archealogy suggests the rant in Kings is fiction to me anyway. I need no more.

The simplest explanation is that the name Omri was simply an old name adopted by the storytellers who wrote Kings in the 2nd c. BC. It is done by writers of historical fiction all the time. 

Yep. Pretty much what I said. We get there in different ways.

On that, I will continue down the thread to the next chapter.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

PaulJohntheSkeptic wrote:

Who can really say for sure what is true and what is exaggeration? Super feats require extraordinary evidence. We don't seem to have it for these stories. Just saying ...

Caposkia wrote:
The thing with the Bible compared to those other stories is each, (Enki brewing beer, Herakles performing feats claimed, Romulus and Remus founding Rome after being suckled by a she wolf, Robin Hood robbing rich and giving to the poor) would have to be true or none would have to be true.  The Bible is a compilation of many many stories.  Either all of them are true or none of them are despite bits and pieces of truth because as you said, the Bible is about God.  If God is real, the Bible is True, if not, then the Bible must be all false.

 

I know what I had said.  The thing is, as you said, we don't seem to have evidence for these stories.... as this thread is reveiling, neither do we for the rest of history.  The thing is, other than speculative rants, no one has shown logical reasoning that any one of the books couldn't have happened as described.  Lack of belief doesn't determine truth, neither does belief.  The problem with Truth is it cares less what we think of it, it will still be what it is anyway.  

I thought we had on several points agreed that the writers took excessive liberal takes on the stories through exaggerated numbers.

That would mean the stories did not happen as described. At least to me.

That I see it all as storytelling based in the dimension of never was (fictional) has been and still is my position. That names are used and places that do exist does not make it part of our reality.

Much history is filled with story telling and legends. Other means are many times needed to determine what occurred. Artifacts and archeology do help in substantiating possibilities.

I require evidence to substantiate what has happened. Sometimes there is none available. As always, if a story has fantastic events, flying carpets, fire and brimstone destroying a city, the dead being raised etc extraordinary evidence will need to be presented.

As we have gone down this road, more and more of the exaggerations have piled up on the scale heavily weighing it to one side. I see the distortions and "liberal" takes as additive in discrediting the whole. The more that is piled on, the less likely it is.

But that's me.

 The world of Star Wars may also exist out there in our galaxy or in another. Perhaps Lucas was a prophet of "the force".

I see no validation for a Star Wars Universe. I see nothing that is presented of substance that validates it for me.

So too is the OT stories.

They are claimed to have happened. Yet, no real evidence shows this. In fact, the opposite is indicated. The Exodus, the invasion could not be as described. 2 kingdoms in ancient Palestine established from 12 tribes. Doesn't seem that way from archeology. The stories have issues as I have shown from the flood story forward.

I understand your position. It's not my goal to change your view.

Moving forward to the next chapter.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
1 Kings 21 - Ahab continued

Ahab Part 5
1 Kings 21

This chapter is what Ahab is remembered for more than anything else. Not his military conquests, not his building activities. Nope! It’s the storytale of Naboth’s vineyard.

Naboth of Jezreel had a vineyard that was nearby the palace of King Ahab (his house) and Ahab allegedly wanted it. So according to the hearsay storytale he asked Naboth if he could have it. In trade Ahab would give him a far better vineyard or instead he’d pay him for it in gold. Naboth claimed the god had forbid him to give or sell that which he had inherited from his fathers. This of course did not suit Ahab well and he was very unhappy about it.

So Jezebel obviously not getting her due in attention as Ahab was pouting she decided to do something about this situation. So she wrote letters or orders to the nobles aka princes of his city in the name of Ahab. She told them to declare a fast. They were then to put Naboth on trial with 2 men of Be’lial before him bearing witness against him making the claim he had blasphemed the name of the god. They clearly found him guilty and summarily executed him by stoning. The princes informed Jezebel that Naboth had been killed. She told Ahab he could now take the vineyard.

There are many issues in this story tale, but first there is the response of the god to these actions. The god of course contacted Elijah to deliver his message to Ahab. Ahab goes to the vineyard and is met by the prophet of the god Elijah. The god had given his word to Elijah telepathic, spoken, text message, or smoke signals perhaps. The method is not mentioned of course. He told the prophet to tell Ahab have you killed Naboth and taken his vineyard? In the place where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth they will also lick your blood. So Ahab said to Elijah, so you have found me my enemy. No said Elijah I have found you because you have sold yourself to work evil in the sight of the lord EITSOTL. So, Elijah will bring evil upon him and all of his male descendants shall die. (It does not say the Lord will do this, these words are from Elijah.) Jezebel Elijah quotes the god as having said, “the dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.

Then we have narrative indicating there were no others that had given themselves to wickedness. That he had followed idols as did the Amorites. Since, Ahab was clearly of Samaria not of the fictitious Israel of the story, of course he followed idols. And his wife Jezebel as a Phoenician princess did as well as they were the gods of the land in this time period. This is well established by archeology.

One of the main problems with the curse of Elijah is Ahab is not the one who killed Naboth. Nor is he the one that ordered his murder according to this story tale in 1 Kings 21:7-14 it was Jezebel who ordered it not Ahab. So the wicked god of Israel showing his ignorance ordered the death of Ahab unjustly. This indicates the god was confused or not omnipotent or was just a fabrication promoted by the Shaman prophet Elijah. The writer was clear it was Jezebel who ordered the murder but Elijah perhaps had heard it was Ahab due to the forged letters and blamed Ahab. This indicates it was faked by the shaman Elijah meaning he made up the story that he got the word of god. No, he faked it as all shamans do. That’s how I see it. Though the intent is to blame Ahab, he’s innocent in this story tale. But after all, it is all a story tale and is not reality based given all that is wrong with the entire rant against Ahab. The writer lost credibility chapters earlier with his fictional battles between Ahab and Damascus. In addition, the fictional portrayal of a God Yahweh of the Hebrews (Judahites) in the area of Samaria has no basis in anything other than the story tales of the OT. Archeology shows quite a difference with the gods and ba’als of the land as the gods, not the morphed Yahweh of the far later Judeans.








 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:You

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You failed to state your implied conclusion which is, Therefore the Septuagint is real history. However your premise is false.

Archaeological evidence constitutes physical evidence. We do have archaeological evidence of the existence of ancient Egypt, Babylon, Alexander and so forth. There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of biblical Israel or Judah or any of its events or characters save for the occasional name such as Omri. When it comes to events in those real ancient kingdoms we find them carved into walls or written in clay by arkies within those kingdoms. The Septuagint stories, aka Old Testament, first applear in history in the late 2nd to mid 1st c. BC without provenance. That means no one knows where they came from or who wrote them or why. We do know they back up the tyranny of the Hasmodean priest-kings suggesting they were the creators of the stories.

 

You're very good with coming up with the "it didn't happen because there's no evidence" tactic, but we've established in this thread that this particular reasoning is not sufficient enough to deem something false.  Instead, if it didn't really happen, then what evidence do we have of a timeline in the place of this one?  Is there evidence of something else that took place in the location and during the timeline in question?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I thought we had on several points agreed that the writers took excessive liberal takes on the stories through exaggerated numbers.

we did, but we also agreed that liberal takes on numbers doesn't nullify the story's validity in history and is consistent with other documents that are considered valid history.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That would mean the stories did not happen as described. At least to me.

If a story claims that 100,000 invaded and really only 10,000 invaded and that would mean that the story did not happen as described I would agree... but the point of the story isn't the number, it's the invasion... both accounts consider that an invasion was possible or likely regardless of number. (random reference here, not referencing to anything specific other than the number issue)

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That I see it all as storytelling based in the dimension of never was (fictional) has been and still is my position. That names are used and places that do exist does not make it part of our reality.

It doesn't automatically make it a part of our reality, but likewise it doesn't negate it from our reality.  We've already established this as well.  This is from way back.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Much history is filled with story telling and legends. Other means are many times needed to determine what occurred. Artifacts and archeology do help in substantiating possibilities.

there is an archealogical study Bible and scholars throughout the centuries have not accepted the books that are in scripture because the stories gave them warm fuzzies.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I require evidence to substantiate what has happened. Sometimes there is none available. As always, if a story has fantastic events, flying carpets, fire and brimstone destroying a city, the dead being raised etc extraordinary evidence will need to be presented.

As I've asked with others who bring up the "magic" aspects... what evidence would we expect to find today for say... the dead being rasied?  I'm sure other writings is part of it...  I know other documents in history whether deemed false or not have claimed such extraordinary events.  Also, the Bible itself has Paul claiming the how Christianity has to be false if Jesus didn't raise from the dead... that's a daring claim for a book to make if it didn't happen...  We're not there yet though.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As we have gone down this road, more and more of the exaggerations have piled up on the scale heavily weighing it to one side. I see the distortions and "liberal" takes as additive in discrediting the whole. The more that is piled on, the less likely it is.

But that's me.

 The world of Star Wars may also exist out there in our galaxy or in another. Perhaps Lucas was a prophet of "the force".

I see no validation for a Star Wars Universe. I see nothing that is presented of substance that validates it for me.

So too is the OT stories.

you see exaggerations weighing heavily on one side... but if that's the case, then also historical possibility and accuracy must weigh on the other... The main point of the story would have to have more weight logically than a number that was exaggerated if it did happen.    If 100 people went to protest something and it was claimed that 1000 people went to protest, the point remains that there was still a protest.  That outweighs the false aspect of the story.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

They are claimed to have happened. Yet, no real evidence shows this. In fact, the opposite is indicated. The Exodus, the invasion could not be as described. 2 kingdoms in ancient Palestine established from 12 tribes. Doesn't seem that way from archeology. The stories have issues as I have shown from the flood story forward.

I understand your position. It's not my goal to change your view.

Moving forward to the next chapter.

 

I know your goal, same as mine.  We've agreed from the beginning that this thread is not going to change either mind, but will just be fun to explore.  Those invasions as we've talked about were possible considering kingdoms of the time and the scale as to which a named "kingdom' can be... which we found can be quite insignificant.   Up to this point, from what I can see, no evidence has been presented about any story we've covered that has sufficiently falsified any story... Names and numbers may have been different, but that is not uncommon in history and that's the only thing we've found that can even be considered not possible.  

For others on here, preconcieved notions of what is possible or not does not determine what is actually possible or not.  It is logical to say that if God is real, then miracles are possible.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Ahab Part 5
1 Kings 21

This chapter is what Ahab is remembered for more than anything else. Not his military conquests, not his building activities. Nope! It’s the storytale of Naboth’s vineyard.

Naboth of Jezreel had a vineyard that was nearby the palace of King Ahab (his house) and Ahab allegedly wanted it. So according to the hearsay storytale he asked Naboth if he could have it. In trade Ahab would give him a far better vineyard or instead he’d pay him for it in gold. Naboth claimed the god had forbid him to give or sell that which he had inherited from his fathers. This of course did not suit Ahab well and he was very unhappy about it.

So Jezebel obviously not getting her due in attention as Ahab was pouting she decided to do something about this situation. So she wrote letters or orders to the nobles aka princes of his city in the name of Ahab. She told them to declare a fast. They were then to put Naboth on trial with 2 men of Be’lial before him bearing witness against him making the claim he had blasphemed the name of the god. They clearly found him guilty and summarily executed him by stoning. The princes informed Jezebel that Naboth had been killed. She told Ahab he could now take the vineyard.

There are many issues in this story tale, but first there is the response of the god to these actions. The god of course contacted Elijah to deliver his message to Ahab. Ahab goes to the vineyard and is met by the prophet of the god Elijah. The god had given his word to Elijah telepathic, spoken, text message, or smoke signals perhaps. The method is not mentioned of course. He told the prophet to tell Ahab have you killed Naboth and taken his vineyard? In the place where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth they will also lick your blood. So Ahab said to Elijah, so you have found me my enemy. No said Elijah I have found you because you have sold yourself to work evil in the sight of the lord EITSOTL. So, Elijah will bring evil upon him and all of his male descendants shall die. (It does not say the Lord will do this, these words are from Elijah.) Jezebel Elijah quotes the god as having said, “the dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.

Then we have narrative indicating there were no others that had given themselves to wickedness. That he had followed idols as did the Amorites. Since, Ahab was clearly of Samaria not of the fictitious Israel of the story, of course he followed idols. And his wife Jezebel as a Phoenician princess did as well as they were the gods of the land in this time period. This is well established by archeology.

One of the main problems with the curse of Elijah is Ahab is not the one who killed Naboth. Nor is he the one that ordered his murder according to this story tale in 1 Kings 21:7-14 it was Jezebel who ordered it not Ahab. So the wicked god of Israel showing his ignorance ordered the death of Ahab unjustly. This indicates the god was confused or not omnipotent or was just a fabrication promoted by the Shaman prophet Elijah. The writer was clear it was Jezebel who ordered the murder but Elijah perhaps had heard it was Ahab due to the forged letters and blamed Ahab. This indicates it was faked by the shaman Elijah meaning he made up the story that he got the word of god. No, he faked it as all shamans do. That’s how I see it. Though the intent is to blame Ahab, he’s innocent in this story tale. But after all, it is all a story tale and is not reality based given all that is wrong with the entire rant against Ahab. The writer lost credibility chapters earlier with his fictional battles between Ahab and Damascus. In addition, the fictional portrayal of a God Yahweh of the Hebrews (Judahites) in the area of Samaria has no basis in anything other than the story tales of the OT. Archeology shows quite a difference with the gods and ba’als of the land as the gods, not the morphed Yahweh of the far later Judeans.

 

Nowhere in the chapter do I see anything claiming God commanded them to kill.  who ordered the death of Ahab was those PEOPLE who uphold the law.  As far as they were concerned, 2 people testified against him claiming he blasphemed God which in that time was punishable by stoning.  She manipulated the system and though set him up did not sentence him directly.    It's like the Salem Witch trials where anyone claiming anyone else was a witch automatically deemed them a witch.  

God never claimed to be confused about teh situation and even then after told of it as murder (NASB) 1Kings 21:19.    The curse of death was then transferred due to the dishonest act of getting the vineyard.  

This a story that other than any local documentation wouldn't have much in the way of artifacts or documentation.  Especially seeing as it was found out to be false and would come back to bite them if word got out.  


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I thought we had on several points agreed that the writers took excessive liberal takes on the stories through exaggerated numbers.

we did, but we also agreed that liberal takes on numbers doesn't nullify the story's validity in history and is consistent with other documents that are considered valid history.

It's the validity we have been questioning throughout this thread.  No point in rehashing this, we see this very different.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That would mean the stories did not happen as described. At least to me.

If a story claims that 100,000 invaded and really only 10,000 invaded and that would mean that the story did not happen as described I would agree... but the point of the story isn't the number, it's the invasion... both accounts consider that an invasion was possible or likely regardless of number. (random reference here, not referencing to anything specific other than the number issue)

The numbers are off a bit more than that, such as 600,000 men plus family (maybe 2 million) to a small number say 600. And the 600 are not a given, its a possibility that has no evidence. Just like it's possible that anti-gravity machines will be developed or it's possible that An and Ki were high tech aliens from another galaxy. None of which has evidence. But again, we see this in far different perspective.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That I see it all as storytelling based in the dimension of never was (fictional) has been and still is my position. That names are used and places that do exist does not make it part of our reality.

It doesn't automatically make it a part of our reality, but likewise it doesn't negate it from our reality.  We've already established this as well.  This is from way back. 

Yes, and possibilities are endless. -

The Matrix wrote:

Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize?

[Takes a bite of steak]

Cypher: Ignorance is bliss.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Much history is filled with story telling and legends. Other means are many times needed to determine what occurred. Artifacts and archeology do help in substantiating possibilities.

there is an archealogical study Bible and scholars throughout the centuries have not accepted the books that are in scripture because the stories gave them warm fuzzies.

No, they did so because they can't get over "There must be something more". If there isn't then they have lived a deception their entire life and that is hard for one to accept.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I require evidence to substantiate what has happened. Sometimes there is none available. As always, if a story has fantastic events, flying carpets, fire and brimstone destroying a city, the dead being raised etc extraordinary evidence will need to be presented.

As I've asked with others who bring up the "magic" aspects... what evidence would we expect to find today for say... the dead being rasied?  I'm sure other writings is part of it...  I know other documents in history whether deemed false or not have claimed such extraordinary events.  Also, the Bible itself has Paul claiming the how Christianity has to be false if Jesus didn't raise from the dead... that's a daring claim for a book to make if it didn't happen...  We're not there yet though.

If described events contain impossibilities then until they can be shown to be possible in some way they should be considered story telling. Once upon a time stories described men flying through the sky in machines, the Reg Veda for one, now we do that. I'm not saying a dead person can't be reanimated, I'm saying the technology isn't there. And since humans have RAM memory, unless a means to store the data in a backup occurs the raised dead human won't have any data. But you never know. Humans have vivid imagination, imagination sparks invention. Inventions bring the impossible to the world. No gods required.

We aren't discussing Paul and Christianity or The Jesus.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As we have gone down this road, more and more of the exaggerations have piled up on the scale heavily weighing it to one side. I see the distortions and "liberal" takes as additive in discrediting the whole. The more that is piled on, the less likely it is.

But that's me.

 The world of Star Wars may also exist out there in our galaxy or in another. Perhaps Lucas was a prophet of "the force".

I see no validation for a Star Wars Universe. I see nothing that is presented of substance that validates it for me.

So too is the OT stories.

you see exaggerations weighing heavily on one side... but if that's the case, then also historical possibility and accuracy must weigh on the other... The main point of the story would have to have more weight logically than a number that was exaggerated if it did happen.    If 100 people went to protest something and it was claimed that 1000 people went to protest, the point remains that there was still a protest.  That outweighs the false aspect of the story.

We aren't discussing a 10 to 1 difference in many of these stories. In Exodus it's a 2 million to 100 (if there were even that). Ai was ruins not there as the story claimed. the kingdom of Edom did not exist to go around. And how does one even approach some of the other stories? They are stories with nothing elsewhere to give them any basis.

So, it's not were there 100 or 1000 at a protest, it's the protest has nothing to show it ever happened!

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

They are claimed to have happened. Yet, no real evidence shows this. In fact, the opposite is indicated. The Exodus, the invasion could not be as described. 2 kingdoms in ancient Palestine established from 12 tribes. Doesn't seem that way from archeology. The stories have issues as I have shown from the flood story forward.

I understand your position. It's not my goal to change your view.

Moving forward to the next chapter.

 

I know your goal, same as mine.  We've agreed from the beginning that this thread is not going to change either mind, but will just be fun to explore.  Those invasions as we've talked about were possible considering kingdoms of the time and the scale as to which a named "kingdom' can be... which we found can be quite insignificant.   Up to this point, from what I can see, no evidence has been presented about any story we've covered that has sufficiently falsified any story... Names and numbers may have been different, but that is not uncommon in history and that's the only thing we've found that can even be considered not possible.  

For others on here, preconcieved notions of what is possible or not does not determine what is actually possible or not.  It is logical to say that if God is real, then miracles are possible.  

I understand your position, I was once like you.

How do you falsify a story tale? They can appear to be based in a real world place. Nothing can show they weren't there, yet nothing can show they were. It's where they have cracks the light shows in. That is what I have been showing. And there are lots of cracks.

I usually bring up the gods of Sumer (The Annuaki) as examples as there is plenty of material on them. The material is dated to the time of the beliefs and story tales. If for fun we go through those we'd see the same thing with them as with the stories of the OT. Can you prove they didn't happen? It's possible they did using your arguments. They have fantastic claims just like the OT. And they too lack evidence.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Ahab Part 5
1 Kings 21

This chapter is what Ahab is remembered for more than anything else. Not his military conquests, not his building activities. Nope! It’s the storytale of Naboth’s vineyard.

Naboth of Jezreel had a vineyard that was nearby the palace of King Ahab (his house) and Ahab allegedly wanted it. So according to the hearsay storytale he asked Naboth if he could have it. In trade Ahab would give him a far better vineyard or instead he’d pay him for it in gold. Naboth claimed the god had forbid him to give or sell that which he had inherited from his fathers. This of course did not suit Ahab well and he was very unhappy about it.

So Jezebel obviously not getting her due in attention as Ahab was pouting she decided to do something about this situation. So she wrote letters or orders to the nobles aka princes of his city in the name of Ahab. She told them to declare a fast. They were then to put Naboth on trial with 2 men of Be’lial before him bearing witness against him making the claim he had blasphemed the name of the god. They clearly found him guilty and summarily executed him by stoning. The princes informed Jezebel that Naboth had been killed. She told Ahab he could now take the vineyard.

There are many issues in this story tale, but first there is the response of the god to these actions. The god of course contacted Elijah to deliver his message to Ahab. Ahab goes to the vineyard and is met by the prophet of the god Elijah. The god had given his word to Elijah telepathic, spoken, text message, or smoke signals perhaps. The method is not mentioned of course. He told the prophet to tell Ahab have you killed Naboth and taken his vineyard? In the place where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth they will also lick your blood. So Ahab said to Elijah, so you have found me my enemy. No said Elijah I have found you because you have sold yourself to work evil in the sight of the lord EITSOTL. So, Elijah will bring evil upon him and all of his male descendants shall die. (It does not say the Lord will do this, these words are from Elijah.) Jezebel Elijah quotes the god as having said, “the dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.

Then we have narrative indicating there were no others that had given themselves to wickedness. That he had followed idols as did the Amorites. Since, Ahab was clearly of Samaria not of the fictitious Israel of the story, of course he followed idols. And his wife Jezebel as a Phoenician princess did as well as they were the gods of the land in this time period. This is well established by archeology.

One of the main problems with the curse of Elijah is Ahab is not the one who killed Naboth. Nor is he the one that ordered his murder according to this story tale in 1 Kings 21:7-14 it was Jezebel who ordered it not Ahab. So the wicked god of Israel showing his ignorance ordered the death of Ahab unjustly. This indicates the god was confused or not omnipotent or was just a fabrication promoted by the Shaman prophet Elijah. The writer was clear it was Jezebel who ordered the murder but Elijah perhaps had heard it was Ahab due to the forged letters and blamed Ahab. This indicates it was faked by the shaman Elijah meaning he made up the story that he got the word of god. No, he faked it as all shamans do. That’s how I see it. Though the intent is to blame Ahab, he’s innocent in this story tale. But after all, it is all a story tale and is not reality based given all that is wrong with the entire rant against Ahab. The writer lost credibility chapters earlier with his fictional battles between Ahab and Damascus. In addition, the fictional portrayal of a God Yahweh of the Hebrews (Judahites) in the area of Samaria has no basis in anything other than the story tales of the OT. Archeology shows quite a difference with the gods and ba’als of the land as the gods, not the morphed Yahweh of the far later Judeans.

 

Nowhere in the chapter do I see anything claiming God commanded them to kill.  who ordered the death of Ahab was those PEOPLE who uphold the law.  As far as they were concerned, 2 people testified against him claiming he blasphemed God which in that time was punishable by stoning.  She manipulated the system and though set him up did not sentence him directly.    It's like the Salem Witch trials where anyone claiming anyone else was a witch automatically deemed them a witch.  

God never claimed to be confused about teh situation and even then after told of it as murder (NASB) 1Kings 21:19.    The curse of death was then transferred due to the dishonest act of getting the vineyard.  

This a story that other than any local documentation wouldn't have much in the way of artifacts or documentation.  Especially seeing as it was found out to be false and would come back to bite them if word got out.  

Your response is very confusing.

Where you indicate Ahab do you mean Naboth?

 

In 1 Kings21:17-24 documents what Elijah supposedly told Ahab as given him by the god.

Yet, Ahab took no part in the murder of Naboth according to 1 Kings 21:7-16, it was Jezebel who had Naboth set up.

False testimony and a rigged trial were instigated by Jezebel not Ahab.

Though she forged his name according to the story.

Yet, Ahab takes the blame by the curse upon him from Elijah that is alleged to have been given to him by the god.

So, did Elijah make up the curse found here? That's what seems to be or the god was not all knowing or the god blamed Ahab for the action of his wife. None of these possibilities help show the god was what is claimed by the overall picture being built.

 

So, to answer the question Elijah asked in verse 19. No, Ahab did not kill Naboth.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I thought we had on several points agreed that the writers took excessive liberal takes on the stories through exaggerated numbers.

we did, but we also agreed that liberal takes on numbers doesn't nullify the story's validity in history and is consistent with other documents that are considered valid history.

It's the validity we have been questioning throughout this thread.  No point in rehashing this, we see this very different.

yes it is and I'm pretty sure we were in agreement that other accepted documents in history have the same issues therefore numbers themselves cannot invalidate them.  We don't need to go through this again, we can look back and reference if we have to

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The numbers are off a bit more than that, such as 600,000 men plus family (maybe 2 million) to a small number say 600. And the 600 are not a given, its a possibility that has no evidence. Just like it's possible that anti-gravity machines will be developed or it's possible that An and Ki were high tech aliens from another galaxy. None of which has evidence. But again, we see this in far different perspective.

I pulled out random numbers again, I could have added 100 extra zeros to the biggest number and the point still remains.  If the event happened it happened whether it was 2 people or a trillion.  Magnitude I know is in question as well, but considering the source of the writings, to those writers, the magnitude perspectively could have been larger than a worldview.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Yes, and possibilities are endless. -

until you can validate a reason why it's not possible like for example that alternative timeline I've been looking for in history.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Much history is filled with story telling and legends. Other means are many times needed to determine what occurred. Artifacts and archeology do help in substantiating possibilities.

there is an archealogical study Bible and scholars throughout the centuries have not accepted the books that are in scripture because the stories gave them warm fuzzies.

No, they did so because they can't get over "There must be something more". If there isn't then they have lived a deception their entire life and that is hard for one to accept.

the problem with that angle is that those who typically ignore the "there must be something more" perspective are not believers.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If described events contain impossibilities then until they can be shown to be possible in some way they should be considered story telling. Once upon a time stories described men flying through the sky in machines, the Reg Veda for one, now we do that. I'm not saying a dead person can't be reanimated, I'm saying the technology isn't there. And since humans have RAM memory, unless a means to store the data in a backup occurs the raised dead human won't have any data. But you never know. Humans have vivid imagination, imagination sparks invention. Inventions bring the impossible to the world. No gods required.

We aren't discussing Paul and Christianity or The Jesus.

right, but no one claimed technology in scripture.  Those events if they did happen would validate the existence of God due to those issues you brought up not being a problem.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

We aren't discussing a 10 to 1 difference in many of these stories. In Exodus it's a 2 million to 100 (if there were even that). Ai was ruins not there as the story claimed. the kingdom of Edom did not exist to go around. And how does one even approach some of the other stories? They are stories with nothing elsewhere to give them any basis.

So, it's not were there 100 or 1000 at a protest, it's the protest has nothing to show it ever happened!

We are currently in stories that don't have much to back them up, but if you remember some of the previous stories had a lot to back them up... at least to the point that the events likely happened in some magnitude in history.  The consistency of these stories with those seems to suggest a possibility.  due to the fact that those validated stories and these have the same issues among other validated stories, unless there's something new that invalidates them, just like you, I need more evidence to suggest something else happened.  

Simply though, if these stories didn't happen, I have to believe that something else did... until we can find that something else, it's hard for me to see how we can empirically invalidate these stories.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

How do you falsify a story tale? They can appear to be based in a real world place. Nothing can show they weren't there, yet nothing can show they were. It's where they have cracks the light shows in. That is what I have been showing. And there are lots of cracks.

The problem with those cracks is each time you bring one up, you're showing me the same cracks... you're saying they're adding up, but when you step back, they're the same 3 cracks that have always been there.  Names, numbers, dating accuracy.  

You falsify a story tale by showing what really happened... I haven't seen that yet.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I usually bring up the gods of Sumer (The Annuaki) as examples as there is plenty of material on them. The material is dated to the time of the beliefs and story tales. If for fun we go through those we'd see the same thing with them as with the stories of the OT. Can you prove they didn't happen? It's possible they did using your arguments. They have fantastic claims just like the OT. And they too lack evidence.

I would have to go through them to see.  I'm willing to bet I could find something that suggests an alternative happened if in fact they are false stories.  We believe however that other alleged 'gods' did perform miracles.  That is not denied in scripture.   

If these stories are parallels of scripture then they might just be another version of the same thing.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Your response is very confusing.

Where you indicate Ahab do you mean Naboth?

 

In 1 Kings21:17-24 documents what Elijah supposedly told Ahab as given him by the god.

Yet, Ahab took no part in the murder of Naboth according to 1 Kings 21:7-16, it was Jezebel who had Naboth set up.

False testimony and a rigged trial were instigated by Jezebel not Ahab.

Though she forged his name according to the story.

Yet, Ahab takes the blame by the curse upon him from Elijah that is alleged to have been given to him by the god.

So, did Elijah make up the curse found here? That's what seems to be or the god was not all knowing or the god blamed Ahab for the action of his wife. None of these possibilities help show the god was what is claimed by the overall picture being built.

 

So, to answer the question Elijah asked in verse 19. No, Ahab did not kill Naboth.

I believe I was rushing at that point, sorry, I did get the names backwards.  My point remains though that nowhere does it indicate that God gave the command.  Only people were manipulated and followed the Law as they understood it to be.  

God then sent a prophet to Ahab condemning the act of manipulation for possession of land.  


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The numbers are off a bit more than that, such as 600,000 men plus family (maybe 2 million) to a small number say 600. And the 600 are not a given, its a possibility that has no evidence. Just like it's possible that anti-gravity machines will be developed or it's possible that An and Ki were high tech aliens from another galaxy. None of which has evidence. But again, we see this in far different perspective.

I pulled out random numbers again, I could have added 100 extra zeros to the biggest number and the point still remains.  If the event happened it happened whether it was 2 people or a trillion.  Magnitude I know is in question as well, but considering the source of the writings, to those writers, the magnitude perspectively could have been larger than a worldview.

I understand your presentation, and again just because this story appears in ancient story tales does not make it something that actually happened. One needs to suspend acceptance where there is no other support and in contrast nothing has been found to give it support. We can discuss this endlessly and never reach agreement. Done with that for now.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Yes, and possibilities are endless. -

until you can validate a reason why it's not possible like for example that alternative timeline I've been looking for in history.

On the one hand you argue the bible is not a book of history on the other you seem to relie on it as one.

It is a book of story tales pieced together or created all at once (depending on one's view as to their origin (Anonymouse claims all were created at once in the 2nd century BCE for example)

The intent of the book was supposedly to give the Yahweh believers a means or example of how to live, according to the rabbis and scholars. Though since the writers are unknown and long gone one can never know the intent.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Much history is filled with story telling and legends. Other means are many times needed to determine what occurred. Artifacts and archeology do help in substantiating possibilities.

there is an archealogical study Bible and scholars throughout the centuries have not accepted the books that are in scripture because the stories gave them warm fuzzies.

No, they did so because they can't get over "There must be something more". If there isn't then they have lived a deception their entire life and that is hard for one to accept.

the problem with that angle is that those who typically ignore the "there must be something more" perspective are not believers.

I don't see that as a problem.

The brain is RAM. When the power goes out on RAM the data is destroyed. Unless one can show the data is transmitted or backed up somewhere else the data is gone. This is for another discussion as it will lead to much conjecture and claims.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If described events contain impossibilities then until they can be shown to be possible in some way they should be considered story telling. Once upon a time stories described men flying through the sky in machines, the Reg Veda for one, now we do that. I'm not saying a dead person can't be reanimated, I'm saying the technology isn't there. And since humans have RAM memory, unless a means to store the data in a backup occurs the raised dead human won't have any data. But you never know. Humans have vivid imagination, imagination sparks invention. Inventions bring the impossible to the world. No gods required.

We aren't discussing Paul and Christianity or The Jesus.

right, but no one claimed technology in scripture.  Those events if they did happen would validate the existence of God due to those issues you brought up not being a problem.

I don't see how that validates a god. Through knowledge all things are possible, maybe not in the way one originally envisions but understanding bring solutions and inventions. The Reg Veda account may perhaps reflect on technology that has been lost. Or something else entirely. Story tale? Or documentation of a prior developed technological civilization? Or alien technology? Does the Reg Veda story mean there were countless gods and they warred on the Earth? According to your methods in analyzing the OT, you can't falsfy it as a story tale simply because if has what appears to be impossible. Show a way to falsfy that story by showing what really happened.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

We aren't discussing a 10 to 1 difference in many of these stories. In Exodus it's a 2 million to 100 (if there were even that). Ai was ruins not there as the story claimed. the kingdom of Edom did not exist to go around. And how does one even approach some of the other stories? They are stories with nothing elsewhere to give them any basis.

So, it's not were there 100 or 1000 at a protest, it's the protest has nothing to show it ever happened!

We are currently in stories that don't have much to back them up, but if you remember some of the previous stories had a lot to back them up... at least to the point that the events likely happened in some magnitude in history.  The consistency of these stories with those seems to suggest a possibility.  due to the fact that those validated stories and these have the same issues among other validated stories, unless there's something new that invalidates them, just like you, I need more evidence to suggest something else happened.  

Simply though, if these stories didn't happen, I have to believe that something else did... until we can find that something else, it's hard for me to see how we can empirically invalidate these stories.

Maybe nothing at all happened and these are simply story tales, you can't rule that out.

The entire tale can be a fiction like Harry Potter or Star Wars.

And the purpose - to give the Judeans a basis and/or give the shaman priests a means to control people. Religions and beliefs give power to those that control and manipulate the beliefs. There are countless examples of this with every religious belief that has ever been.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

How do you falsify a story tale? They can appear to be based in a real world place. Nothing can show they weren't there, yet nothing can show they were. It's where they have cracks the light shows in. That is what I have been showing. And there are lots of cracks.

The problem with those cracks is each time you bring one up, you're showing me the same cracks... you're saying they're adding up, but when you step back, they're the same 3 cracks that have always been there.  Names, numbers, dating accuracy.  

You falsify a story tale by showing what really happened... I haven't seen that yet. 

Can you falsfy the Reg Veda account?

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I usually bring up the gods of Sumer (The Annuaki) as examples as there is plenty of material on them. The material is dated to the time of the beliefs and story tales. If for fun we go through those we'd see the same thing with them as with the stories of the OT. Can you prove they didn't happen? It's possible they did using your arguments. They have fantastic claims just like the OT. And they too lack evidence.

I would have to go through them to see.  I'm willing to bet I could find something that suggests an alternative happened if in fact they are false stories.  We believe however that other alleged 'gods' did perform miracles.  That is not denied in scripture.   

If these stories are parallels of scripture then they might just be another version of the same thing.  

I don't see a parallel in them to OT stories other than a few which may have been altered or used for inspiration to create some of scripture.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Your response is very confusing.

Where you indicate Ahab do you mean Naboth?

 

In 1 Kings21:17-24 documents what Elijah supposedly told Ahab as given him by the god.

Yet, Ahab took no part in the murder of Naboth according to 1 Kings 21:7-16, it was Jezebel who had Naboth set up.

False testimony and a rigged trial were instigated by Jezebel not Ahab.

Though she forged his name according to the story.

Yet, Ahab takes the blame by the curse upon him from Elijah that is alleged to have been given to him by the god.

So, did Elijah make up the curse found here? That's what seems to be or the god was not all knowing or the god blamed Ahab for the action of his wife. None of these possibilities help show the god was what is claimed by the overall picture being built.

 

So, to answer the question Elijah asked in verse 19. No, Ahab did not kill Naboth.

I believe I was rushing at that point, sorry, I did get the names backwards.  My point remains though that nowhere does it indicate that God gave the command.  Only people were manipulated and followed the Law as they understood it to be.  

God then sent a prophet to Ahab condemning the act of manipulation for possession of land.  

I agree, the 1 Kings account does not indicate the god gave the order that Ahab would die, it originates with Elijah. The story tale indicates the god came to Elijah. The text indicates, "and the word of the Lord came to Elijah... go down to meet Ahab...and thou shalt speak to him saying thus saith the Lord, hast thou killed and also taken possession? ....Thus saith the Lord, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood."

So the text claims Ahab killed Naboth and would die for it with words put in the mouth of the character Elijah. The character Elijah in the story seemed unaware that Ahab did not order the death and frame up of Naboth.

Ahab's version or rebuttal of the question asked is not included here. He is said to rent his clothes and humble himself. This brought mercy from the god according to 1 Kings 21:27-29. Though Ahab is not indicated as being told that.

But perhaps your version reads differently.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:On

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

On the one hand you argue the bible is not a book of history on the other you seem to relie on it as one.

I have claimed that The Bible is not a "history book".  In other words, we cannot use it as a guide to historical data and record keeping.  I do believe it is a book that is a part of history and describes events that occured in history.  The writers were not historians themselves and some of them even claimed to have scribes write for them.  Not all books in history that describe actual events are history books... most aren't.  That does not suggest that most are false by any means.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It is a book of story tales pieced together or created all at once (depending on one's view as to their origin (Anonymouse claims all were created at once in the 2nd century BCE for example)

The intent of the book was supposedly to give the Yahweh believers a means or example of how to live, according to the rabbis and scholars. Though since the writers are unknown and long gone one can never know the intent.

the intent seems quite clear and when you compare the suggestions for living and laws at the time, it was a very accurate, very appropriate guide to life for the times.   The YHWH aspects aside here of course.  I'm talking about the physical means as to how to live successfully e.g. when to plant and when to harvest, how to treat those around you.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

the problem with that angle is that those who typically ignore the "there must be something more" perspective are not believers.

I don't see that as a problem.

it goes against what you just claimed... that those who have accepted the books as true ignore that there must be something more.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The brain is RAM. When the power goes out on RAM the data is destroyed. Unless one can show the data is transmitted or backed up somewhere else the data is gone. This is for another discussion as it will lead to much conjecture and claims.

this would be a long discussion in itself.  I've gotten into it with others about how that is possibly true and that the brain is really a transmitter of information from the spirit... and that if that transmitter gets damaged (or the power goes out of the RAM) all that data that has been learned since phsyical life can be lost.  The question then comes up to how are you still you.  The Bible claims that God restores you in the resurrection and that you are kept in His memory... which means God would be that back up storage for those lost memories.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't see how that validates a god. Through knowledge all things are possible, maybe not in the way one originally envisions but understanding bring solutions and inventions. The Reg Veda account may perhaps reflect on technology that has been lost. Or something else entirely. Story tale? Or documentation of a prior developed technological civilization? Or alien technology? Does the Reg Veda story mean there were countless gods and they warred on the Earth? According to your methods in analyzing the OT, you can't falsfy it as a story tale simply because if has what appears to be impossible. Show a way to falsfy that story by showing what really happened.

It validates God because if it did actually happen, as you said, the technology wasn't there so what other explanation is there besides conspiracy theories?

The idea that 'gods' (per defined term) warred on Earth does not in any way go against scripture.  Why do you assume that story is automatically false?  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Maybe nothing at all happened and these are simply story tales, you can't rule that out.

The entire tale can be a fiction like Harry Potter or Star Wars.

And the purpose - to give the Judeans a basis and/or give the shaman priests a means to control people. Religions and beliefs give power to those that control and manipulate the beliefs. There are countless examples of this with every religious belief that has ever been.


To suggest that nothing else happened is to suggest that these lands in question were uninhabited.  That is not congruent with what we understand of the history of the times.  If there were inhabitants of the land and through all those years literally nothing happened, I find that very hard to believe.  How can nothing happen with these pareticular people groups when there really isn't such a lul in any history in any other part of the world in any time period that we know of?  I'd be more inclined to believe that stuff happened and just wasn't written down... but that leads us back to the original issue of finding an alternative timeline.  i can accept that we can assume there is one that was never recorded.  it's not enough to make me question scripture, but I can accept that perspective.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Can you falsfy the Reg Veda account?

I don't know that it's really false.  again why do you assume it's false?  I'll have to read it and cross reference it.  with other texts that claim to connect to it in some way. 

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia

Just got back from Vegas and will respond to these comments by Sunday.

Meanwhile - in regards to the Reg Veda: I'm not saying that it is false automatically, I'm not saying they were really gods, I'm not saying they weren't an advanced race that has since disappeared, I'm not saying they weren't an advanced alien society:

For whatever reason the Hindus preserved these tales just as the Judeans did.

They see everything different than Jews and Christians; you argue on both the Sumerians and the Hindus both could be true and still allow the Yahweh god to be.

My point is all of these are tales - none can be validated. So why assume any are true as written? When analyzed and compared they seem to rule each other out as to being gods. Other possibilities of course exist. None of which requires a god.

One man's technology is another's miracle or magic. I do not rule out technology in any of these stories, no god required only advanced knowledge and undestanding, which has been demonstrated to have been lost in the recorded history we have.

Batteries in Egypt, machines in Egypt, strange devices described in the Reg Veda et al

There may be true parts in every story. The problem is which parts.

More later, still recuperating.

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Just got back from Vegas and will respond to these comments by Sunday.

Meanwhile - in regards to the Reg Veda: I'm not saying that it is false automatically, I'm not saying they were really gods, I'm not saying they weren't an advanced race that has since disappeared, I'm not saying they weren't an advanced alien society:

For whatever reason the Hindus preserved these tales just as the Judeans did.

They see everything different than Jews and Christians; you argue on both the Sumerians and the Hindus both could be true and still allow the Yahweh god to be.

My point is all of these are tales - none can be validated. So why assume any are true as written? When analyzed and compared they seem to rule each other out as to being gods. Other possibilities of course exist. None of which requires a god.

One man's technology is another's miracle or magic. I do not rule out technology in any of these stories, no god required only advanced knowledge and undestanding, which has been demonstrated to have been lost in the recorded history we have.

Batteries in Egypt, machines in Egypt, strange devices described in the Reg Veda et al

There may be true parts in every story. The problem is which parts.

More later, still recuperating.

It's like comparing North Korea to South Korea, except that in this case one created the other and the other rebelled.  In the analogy here, both are valid, realistic nations, both exist independent and oppositional of each other, yet both are still there.  The Bible doesn't make a big deal about idolizing other gods just because they're a distraction, other metaphysical beings exist out there trying to rule over Gods people.  We believe these other alleged gods are the fallen angels whom fell with Satan when Satan was kicked out of heaven...  that has nothing to do with what we can prove or disprove in history, so a sidenote really, but point and case, opposing belief systems do not negate each others existence.

Take your time responding, I understand more than most i think that we all have lives outside this site.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
 hah, I realize I ignored

 hah, I realize I ignored your question... why do I assume they're real.  Sorry, not intentional.

I have seen evidences to suggest they're real in history, science and personal experience.  Considering that we're talking about history, we both agree that there is very little evidence on Biblical accounts that we have our hands on in history... however, I have yet to see any evidence to indicate an alternative.  Little evidence outweighs none.  The little evidence even from just what we've discussed is enough to suggest more likely the possibility vs. not.  


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

On the one hand you argue the bible is not a book of history on the other you seem to rely on it as one.

I have claimed that The Bible is not a "history book".  In other words, we cannot use it as a guide to historical data and record keeping.  I do believe it is a book that is a part of history and describes events that occurred in history.  The writers were not historians themselves and some of them even claimed to have scribes write for them.  Not all books in history that describe actual events are history books... most aren't.  That does not suggest that most are false by any means.

The problem of course is what part is history and what part is story telling. Many events we have discussed fall into story telling though you assume they could have happened such as the Exodus, the Canaan invasion, the supposed kings etc. Though in the case of the Exodus the Egyptians say nothing, the Hittites say nothing, the Assyrians say nothing and the Mitani say nothing. If as you suggest the story was exaggerated from a group of 100 to be 600,000 than it would be understandable the super powers of the time neglected the group. If it was true as written - 600,000 men plus family then it is very unlikely they would have been able to wander for 40 years without being either eliminated by the booty seeking Assyrians or pressed into an alliance with the Hittites. So, the exaggeration makes it story telling if it was 100 not 600,000 thus not exactly historical.

This is true for all of the exaggerated claims - if not true as written then the exaggerated tale is story telling thus not historical.

And this is true for many ancient tales - what part of the Herakles story (not Hercules) is fictional and what part is historical. Or the Odyssey, or the Sumerian stories, or Romulus and Remus, or the history of Rome itself. One needs additional info and correlation. This many times has been found for figures like Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar but not for Solomon, Moses, or Abraham and many others mentioned in writings from all lands and cultures. One should always be careful of outright acceptance of ancient tales.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It is a book of story tales pieced together or created all at once (depending on one's view as to their origin (Anonymouse claims all were created at once in the 2nd century BCE for example)

The intent of the book was supposedly to give the Yahweh believers a means or example of how to live, according to the rabbis and scholars. Though since the writers are unknown and long gone one can never know the intent.

the intent seems quite clear and when you compare the suggestions for living and laws at the time, it was a very accurate, very appropriate guide to life for the times.   The YHWH aspects aside here of course.  I'm talking about the physical means as to how to live successfully e.g. when to plant and when to harvest, how to treat those around you.

The intent of following a specific means to live is obvious;  the morphed Yahweh (pagan god made into Judean god) not so much. But then one can see similar methods in the last 200 years such as in the case of Mormons - a morphed belief system with claims made that go against reason. Sound familiar?

Too much drifting off the goal of working our way through the OT.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

the problem with that angle is that those who typically ignore the "there must be something more" perspective are not believers.

I don't see that as a problem.

it goes against what you just claimed... that those who have accepted the books as true ignore that there must be something more. 

We are misunderstanding here.

I don't see a problem with the idea that there may be nothing more.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The brain is RAM. When the power goes out on RAM the data is destroyed. Unless one can show the data is transmitted or backed up somewhere else the data is gone. This is for another discussion as it will lead to much conjecture and claims.

this would be a long discussion in itself.  I've gotten into it with others about how that is possibly true and that the brain is really a transmitter of information from the spirit... and that if that transmitter gets damaged (or the power goes out of the RAM) all that data that has been learned since phsyical life can be lost.  The question then comes up to how are you still you.  The Bible claims that God restores you in the resurrection and that you are kept in His memory... which means God would be that back up storage for those lost memories. 

I know the claim - since no one has come back after RAM failure or death, it is unproved and is a belief - not a known.

No need to go there in this thread.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't see how that validates a god. Through knowledge all things are possible, maybe not in the way one originally envisions but understanding bring solutions and inventions. The Reg Veda account may perhaps reflect on technology that has been lost. Or something else entirely. Story tale? Or documentation of a prior developed technological civilization? Or alien technology? Does the Reg Veda story mean there were countless gods and they warred on the Earth? According to your methods in analyzing the OT, you can't falsfy it as a story tale simply because if has what appears to be impossible. Show a way to falsfy that story by showing what really happened.

It validates God because if it did actually happen, as you said, the technology wasn't there so what other explanation is there besides conspiracy theories?

The idea that 'gods' (per defined term) warred on Earth does not in any way go against scripture.  Why do you assume that story is automatically false? 

I previously commented on this in another post.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Maybe nothing at all happened and these are simply story tales, you can't rule that out.

The entire tale can be a fiction like Harry Potter or Star Wars.

And the purpose - to give the Judeans a basis and/or give the shaman priests a means to control people. Religions and beliefs give power to those that control and manipulate the beliefs. There are countless examples of this with every religious belief that has ever been.


To suggest that nothing else happened is to suggest that these lands in question were uninhabited.  That is not congruent with what we understand of the history of the times.  If there were inhabitants of the land and through all those years literally nothing happened, I find that very hard to believe.  How can nothing happen with these pareticular people groups when there really isn't such a lul in any history in any other part of the world in any time period that we know of?  I'd be more inclined to believe that stuff happened and just wasn't written down... but that leads us back to the original issue of finding an alternative timeline.  i can accept that we can assume there is one that was never recorded.  it's not enough to make me question scripture, but I can accept that perspective. 

I'm not saying the land was uninhabited, I'm saying the tales in the OT have nothing at all to do with what actually occurred.

People lived there, there were towns, villages, and city states. many of these names have been used in the OT. Nothing shows that the city-state of Samaria (you call Israel) and the city state of Jerusalem (you call Judah) were ever one nation ever.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Can you falsity the Reg Veda account?

I don't know that it's really false.  again why do you assume it's false?  I'll have to read it and cross reference it.  with other texts that claim to connect to it in some way. 

 

 

See my other post on this.

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Just got back from Vegas and will respond to these comments by Sunday.

Meanwhile - in regards to the Reg Veda: I'm not saying that it is false automatically, I'm not saying they were really gods, I'm not saying they weren't an advanced race that has since disappeared, I'm not saying they weren't an advanced alien society:

For whatever reason the Hindus preserved these tales just as the Judeans did.

They see everything different than Jews and Christians; you argue on both the Sumerians and the Hindus both could be true and still allow the Yahweh god to be.

My point is all of these are tales - none can be validated. So why assume any are true as written? When analyzed and compared they seem to rule each other out as to being gods. Other possibilities of course exist. None of which requires a god.

One man's technology is another's miracle or magic. I do not rule out technology in any of these stories, no god required only advanced knowledge and undestanding, which has been demonstrated to have been lost in the recorded history we have.

Batteries in Egypt, machines in Egypt, strange devices described in the Reg Veda et al

There may be true parts in every story. The problem is which parts.

More later, still recuperating.

It's like comparing North Korea to South Korea, except that in this case one created the other and the other rebelled.  In the analogy here, both are valid, realistic nations, both exist independent and oppositional of each other, yet both are still there.

We can obviously see the 2 nations of Korea. However gods of any sort aren't appearing anywhere in our current time space dimension.

caposkia wrote:

The Bible doesn't make a big deal about idolizing other gods just because they're a distraction, other metaphysical beings exist out there trying to rule over Gods people.  We believe these other alleged gods are the fallen angels whom fell with Satan when Satan was kicked out of heaven...  that has nothing to do with what we can prove or disprove in history, so a sidenote really, but point and case, opposing belief systems do not negate each others existence.

There is no where in the OT or Hebrew Bible where Satan and his angel followers fell from Heaven or warred with the god Yahweh. The only mention of any angels going against the god is in the Book of Enoch which expands upon Genesis 6:1-4. The lead angel in the Enoch account is not Satan but is Semjaza (or Samlazaz), see Enoch 6:3. Satan is not mentioned in this story at all.

The New Testament has a supposed war with the fallen angels but it is either a future event or one not known to humans - occuring outside of our dimensional reality IOW. The often quoted fallen angels are claimed to have happened prior to the Garden of Eden incident with the serpent. Christians assume the serpent is the Satan yet Jews do not. Satan in Judaism is the prosecutor angel, a role demonstrated quite adequately in Job but also found in other stories, such as when David did a census.

I suggest you go back and search all of the OT to locate the incident of Satan and angels rebelling against the Yahweh. I have never found it except for the Genesis 6 story which is not considered to be angels at all by main stream Christians and is not the Satan. The Enoch story has origins far after the supposed time period of Enoch, but so do most of the books in the OT have origins 100s of years after the events they discuss. So if you accept the OT the Book of Enoch should also be just as legitimate. Several NT books use it or have inspiration from it, such as Revelation and if I remember right Jude.

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: hah, I

caposkia wrote:

 hah, I realize I ignored your question... why do I assume they're real.  Sorry, not intentional.

I have seen evidences to suggest they're real in history, science and personal experience.  Considering that we're talking about history, we both agree that there is very little evidence on Biblical accounts that we have our hands on in history... however, I have yet to see any evidence to indicate an alternative.  Little evidence outweighs none.  The little evidence even from just what we've discussed is enough to suggest more likely the possibility vs. not.  

Thanks for your answer.

Clearly men have believed in supernatural entities for thousands of years. They put these supposed entities in their stories, such as the OT, the Sumerian stories, the Vedas, Greek Myths, even Celtic tales. However, somehow these entities have disappeared with the advancement of knowledge and education. Various excuses are made why they aren't present any longer in our time space dimension.

Last week there was an accident in Missouri where a girl was trapped in a car and is saved by an angel priest who prayed with her and the rescuers - www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/07/angel-crash-missouri/2630227/

In the articles that quickly swept the web he is described as an angel priest that appeared from nowhere. They made claims he said "their tools would now work" - www.cnn.com/2013/08/13/us/missouri-mystery-priest though he has said since he never said that.

I first saw this on ABC Evening News. They made it as if a supernatural entity - an angel had intervened.

But no - it was a real human being that was in fact a catholic priest.

I have no personal experience that indicates entities of unseen source enter our dimensional reality. The case just mentioned with the priest shows how humans want to believe "there is something more" and spin stories to that effect with their fantasy centers.

Just saying.

As to alternatives to the stories of the OT - why would storytales need alternatives?

Depending on the actual date the OT was penned, it may have little to do with what really occured in the real world. If as Anonymouse indicates it was in the 2nd century BCE - then little or none of the stories are more than legends transcribed by priest shamans. As there is little to indicate earlier dates, I have been hard pressed to discredit Anonymouse's dating. And as our discussion continues we have the problem of no correlation with outside Judean culture for substantiation. The sketchy correlation we do have makes little mention of names of people or kings. That there were people there is shown by Assyria (up to this point) but religious beliefs and king names are seldom mentioned. Others such as Mesha and the Arameans also substantiate wars happen and such, but the other stories are not validated or correlated.

And actual written documents do not exist prior to the 2nd century BCE. Hard to prove an invisible god (one that lives outside our time space dimension)

In science I have never seen anything that is evidence of a god. As carl Sagan would say,  - Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy. [Carl Sagan]

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The problem of course is what part is history and what part is story telling. Many events we have discussed fall into story telling though you assume they could have happened such as the Exodus, the Canaan invasion, the supposed kings etc. Though in the case of the Exodus the Egyptians say nothing, the Hittites say nothing, the Assyrians say nothing and the Mitani say nothing. If as you suggest the story was exaggerated from a group of 100 to be 600,000 than it would be understandable the super powers of the time neglected the group. If it was true as written - 600,000 men plus family then it is very unlikely they would have been able to wander for 40 years without being either eliminated by the booty seeking Assyrians or pressed into an alliance with the Hittites. So, the exaggeration makes it story telling if it was 100 not 600,000 thus not exactly historical.

This is true for all of the exaggerated claims - if not true as written then the exaggerated tale is story telling thus not historical.

And this is true for many ancient tales - what part of the Herakles story (not Hercules) is fictional and what part is historical. Or the Odyssey, or the Sumerian stories, or Romulus and Remus, or the history of Rome itself. One needs additional info and correlation. This many times has been found for figures like Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar but not for Solomon, Moses, or Abraham and many others mentioned in writings from all lands and cultures. One should always be careful of outright acceptance of ancient tales.

What's funny about this is I completely understand your perspective and why you conclude the way you do.  I'm trying to figure out how to explain what I understand that convinces me that these particular stories are more than just story telling.  

For example, your case against the Exodus story claiming that the Egyptians say nothing is not unusual for a story that does not put the Egyptian pharoah's in a favorable light.  There have been many examples of doctored record keeping and omitted information to keep face of the leader.  An event as dramatic as this would not only make the pharoah look bad, but also the gods that the Egyptians were told to follow at the time... in most cases, the pharoah themselves was seen to be a god.  What would it do to the stature of a god when a higher god puts them to shame?  I'm not saying the omission proves scripture, but it doesn't support the storytelling theory either due to the history of Egyptian record keeping.  

Exaggerated claims is not unusual in any event written by anyone other than an official record keeper for the government.  The Bible was never written by any official record keepers as far as we are aware, therefore exaggerations are not only likely in documents like these, but they're expected.  We've gone through many times how many proven documents in history have exaggerations and misinformation... why should the Bible be viewed any differently until other evidence suggests it should?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The intent of following a specific means to live is obvious;  the morphed Yahweh (pagan god made into Judean god) not so much. But then one can see similar methods in the last 200 years such as in the case of Mormons - a morphed belief system with claims made that go against reason. Sound familiar?

Too much drifting off the goal of working our way through the OT.

it does, except they have nothing to go on.  The Bible is literally thousands of scripts from many many different sources put together in congruency to make a story.  There are many variances which actually further proves that it's not story telling, but rather people trying to reiterate events from their perspective.  Story telling would typically be a lot more uniform and specific because the "conspiracy" would be to make it sound as accurate as possible so that people would believe it.  This is see in most story telling of the time.  

The other thing I think we lose focus on is that the Bible and these stories individually are not one source, but many that were compiled into one writing.  The Egyptians may have nothing on the Exodus story, but they've also omitted many other things in their past...  These omissions have been found on inner walls that contradicted the story that was written for all to see.  (This is how we are sure this has happened) There was a special on this on I believe it was either the history channel or Nat. Geo.. don't remember the title.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

We are misunderstanding here.

I don't see a problem with the idea that there may be nothing more.

oh I see...  neither do I, but from the perspective that what the Bible says is it of course.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I know the claim - since no one has come back after RAM failure or death, it is unproved and is a belief - not a known.

No need to go there in this thread.

precisely.  For another time maybe

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I previously commented on this in another post.

you're right.  Sorry... point and case, gods warring doesn't go against scripture.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm not saying the land was uninhabited, I'm saying the tales in the OT have nothing at all to do with what actually occurred.

People lived there, there were towns, villages, and city states. many of these names have been used in the OT. Nothing shows that the city-state of Samaria (you call Israel) and the city state of Jerusalem (you call Judah) were ever one nation ever.

ok.  Like I said, I need to see that other timeline then.  The one that would allegedly take place of the Biblical timeline for that location and time.  If there is none, we can't discount the Biblical claim.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Can you falsity the Reg Veda account?

I don't know that it's really false.  again why do you assume it's false?  I'll have to read it and cross reference it.  with other texts that claim to connect to it in some way. 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

See my other post on this.

Right, about the assuming, but the thing is, how do you falsify something that might be true?  

Also, looking into it, isn't it really a book of hymns?  Hymns aren't exactly texts claiming anything other than promotion and worship of a particular god and how one feels/acts towards them.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Just got back from Vegas and will respond to these comments by Sunday.

Meanwhile - in regards to the Reg Veda: I'm not saying that it is false automatically, I'm not saying they were really gods, I'm not saying they weren't an advanced race that has since disappeared, I'm not saying they weren't an advanced alien society:

For whatever reason the Hindus preserved these tales just as the Judeans did.

They see everything different than Jews and Christians; you argue on both the Sumerians and the Hindus both could be true and still allow the Yahweh god to be.

My point is all of these are tales - none can be validated. So why assume any are true as written? When analyzed and compared they seem to rule each other out as to being gods. Other possibilities of course exist. None of which requires a god.

One man's technology is another's miracle or magic. I do not rule out technology in any of these stories, no god required only advanced knowledge and undestanding, which has been demonstrated to have been lost in the recorded history we have.

Batteries in Egypt, machines in Egypt, strange devices described in the Reg Veda et al

There may be true parts in every story. The problem is which parts.

More later, still recuperating.

It's like comparing North Korea to South Korea, except that in this case one created the other and the other rebelled.  In the analogy here, both are valid, realistic nations, both exist independent and oppositional of each other, yet both are still there.

We can obviously see the 2 nations of Korea. However gods of any sort aren't appearing anywhere in our current time space dimension.

caposkia wrote:

The Bible doesn't make a big deal about idolizing other gods just because they're a distraction, other metaphysical beings exist out there trying to rule over Gods people.  We believe these other alleged gods are the fallen angels whom fell with Satan when Satan was kicked out of heaven...  that has nothing to do with what we can prove or disprove in history, so a sidenote really, but point and case, opposing belief systems do not negate each others existence.

There is no where in the OT or Hebrew Bible where Satan and his angel followers fell from Heaven or warred with the god Yahweh. The only mention of any angels going against the god is in the Book of Enoch which expands upon Genesis 6:1-4. The lead angel in the Enoch account is not Satan but is Semjaza (or Samlazaz), see Enoch 6:3. Satan is not mentioned in this story at all.

The New Testament has a supposed war with the fallen angels but it is either a future event or one not known to humans - occuring outside of our dimensional reality IOW. The often quoted fallen angels are claimed to have happened prior to the Garden of Eden incident with the serpent. Christians assume the serpent is the Satan yet Jews do not. Satan in Judaism is the prosecutor angel, a role demonstrated quite adequately in Job but also found in other stories, such as when David did a census.

I suggest you go back and search all of the OT to locate the incident of Satan and angels rebelling against the Yahweh. I have never found it except for the Genesis 6 story which is not considered to be angels at all by main stream Christians and is not the Satan. The Enoch story has origins far after the supposed time period of Enoch, but so do most of the books in the OT have origins 100s of years after the events they discuss. So if you accept the OT the Book of Enoch should also be just as legitimate. Several NT books use it or have inspiration from it, such as Revelation and if I remember right Jude.

Isaiah 14:12: "How you are fallen from heaven O' Day star, Son of Dawn.  How you are cut down to the ground, you who lay the nations low."  

Satan in scripture in a few places has been referred to as a star.  Jesus refers to him as a star falling like lightning.  the NT details more about 1/3 falling with Him, but it says that 1/3 of an unnumbered amount of angels followed him.  It is generally understood that Satan was the angel of light, which would put perspective on the star reference.  

This passage is specifically referring to the kings of Babylon and Tyre, but it is also in reference to the spiritual power behind them.  This is made more clear in Ezekiel 28:12-18.  It is said to the king, but is clearly paralleling Satan unless we are to believe this king was in the garden of Eden.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 hah, I realize I ignored your question... why do I assume they're real.  Sorry, not intentional.

I have seen evidences to suggest they're real in history, science and personal experience.  Considering that we're talking about history, we both agree that there is very little evidence on Biblical accounts that we have our hands on in history... however, I have yet to see any evidence to indicate an alternative.  Little evidence outweighs none.  The little evidence even from just what we've discussed is enough to suggest more likely the possibility vs. not.  

Thanks for your answer.

Clearly men have believed in supernatural entities for thousands of years. They put these supposed entities in their stories, such as the OT, the Sumerian stories, the Vedas, Greek Myths, even Celtic tales. However, somehow these entities have disappeared with the advancement of knowledge and education. Various excuses are made why they aren't present any longer in our time space dimension.

Last week there was an accident in Missouri where a girl was trapped in a car and is saved by an angel priest who prayed with her and the rescuers - www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/07/angel-crash-missouri/2630227/

In the articles that quickly swept the web he is described as an angel priest that appeared from nowhere. They made claims he said "their tools would now work" - www.cnn.com/2013/08/13/us/missouri-mystery-priest though he has said since he never said that.

I first saw this on ABC Evening News. They made it as if a supernatural entity - an angel had intervened.

But no - it was a real human being that was in fact a catholic priest.

I have no personal experience that indicates entities of unseen source enter our dimensional reality. The case just mentioned with the priest shows how humans want to believe "there is something more" and spin stories to that effect with their fantasy centers.

Just saying.

As to alternatives to the stories of the OT - why would storytales need alternatives?

Depending on the actual date the OT was penned, it may have little to do with what really occured in the real world. If as Anonymouse indicates it was in the 2nd century BCE - then little or none of the stories are more than legends transcribed by priest shamans. As there is little to indicate earlier dates, I have been hard pressed to discredit Anonymouse's dating. And as our discussion continues we have the problem of no correlation with outside Judean culture for substantiation. The sketchy correlation we do have makes little mention of names of people or kings. That there were people there is shown by Assyria (up to this point) but religious beliefs and king names are seldom mentioned. Others such as Mesha and the Arameans also substantiate wars happen and such, but the other stories are not validated or correlated.

And actual written documents do not exist prior to the 2nd century BCE. Hard to prove an invisible god (one that lives outside our time space dimension)

In science I have never seen anything that is evidence of a god. As carl Sagan would say,  - Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy. [Carl Sagan]

 

 

Well, to keep it in perspective, our historical runthrough was never to focus on proving God, only to confirm whether these stories had a place in history or not.  From there we can discuss the possibility of the claimed God within the stories.  

Storytellers don't need alternatives, but with the evidences we have that confirm names, and specs of occurances that the Bible claims, yet nothing to suggest anything else took place, I need an alternative timeline to suggest that the Bible story couldn't have happened as suggested.  Again we have little evidence that these stories took place.. but No evidence that other events actually took place.  


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Been too busy to reply, will

Been too busy to reply, will get back to this later in the week and finish off 1 Kings as well.

 

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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Sorry for the delay. I have

Sorry for the delay. I have had no time for RRS lately. I don't like to make off the cuff answers. I'll see what I can answer before I go to work.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The problem of course is what part is history and what part is story telling. Many events we have discussed fall into story telling though you assume they could have happened such as the Exodus, the Canaan invasion, the supposed kings etc. Though in the case of the Exodus the Egyptians say nothing, the Hittites say nothing, the Assyrians say nothing and the Mitani say nothing. If as you suggest the story was exaggerated from a group of 100 to be 600,000 than it would be understandable the super powers of the time neglected the group. If it was true as written - 600,000 men plus family then it is very unlikely they would have been able to wander for 40 years without being either eliminated by the booty seeking Assyrians or pressed into an alliance with the Hittites. So, the exaggeration makes it story telling if it was 100 not 600,000 thus not exactly historical.

This is true for all of the exaggerated claims - if not true as written then the exaggerated tale is story telling thus not historical.

And this is true for many ancient tales - what part of the Herakles story (not Hercules) is fictional and what part is historical. Or the Odyssey, or the Sumerian stories, or Romulus and Remus, or the history of Rome itself. One needs additional info and correlation. This many times has been found for figures like Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar but not for Solomon, Moses, or Abraham and many others mentioned in writings from all lands and cultures. One should always be careful of outright acceptance of ancient tales.

What's funny about this is I completely understand your perspective and why you conclude the way you do.  I'm trying to figure out how to explain what I understand that convinces me that these particular stories are more than just story telling.  

For example, your case against the Exodus story claiming that the Egyptians say nothing is not unusual for a story that does not put the Egyptian pharoah's in a favorable light.  There have been many examples of doctored record keeping and omitted information to keep face of the leader.  An event as dramatic as this would not only make the pharoah look bad, but also the gods that the Egyptians were told to follow at the time... in most cases, the pharoah themselves was seen to be a god.  What would it do to the stature of a god when a higher god puts them to shame?  I'm not saying the omission proves scripture, but it doesn't support the storytelling theory either due to the history of Egyptian record keeping.  

Exaggerated claims is not unusual in any event written by anyone other than an official record keeper for the government.  The Bible was never written by any official record keepers as far as we are aware, therefore exaggerations are not only likely in documents like these, but they're expected.  We've gone through many times how many proven documents in history have exaggerations and misinformation... why should the Bible be viewed any differently until other evidence suggests it should?

There are many reasons why there was nothing written about this in Egypt.

For example:

1- It's not true but storytelling - my choice.

Why.

In addition to no mention of these events by Egyptians there is this compelling evidence,

There is no archealogical record in Sinai of 2 million escaped slaves wandering. Pastoral wanderings, yes; Egyptian forts yes. Hebrew Horde - no. There is no mention of them by any of the other super powers, Mitani, Hittites, Assyrians.

600,000 men plus women, plus children, plus livestock would leave traces. Dead bodies, consumed livestock.

Today it's difficult to get water for 2 million people there, plus of course several million sheep, camels, goats etc. Huge amount of water require not to mention feed for the livestock. Doesn't work for me.

Even if, they would all get scruvy - no fruits and vegies in the desert.

Palestine archealogy does not support the invasion of a Hebrew Horde.

2- It's not true as it's exaggerated - a few hundred captured asiatic savages from Palestine escaped. Not noteworthy. The OT story is a glorified myth tale of their adventure.

Possible - however nothing indicates the Egyptians used slaves to build temples and pyramids quite contrary it seems their people had jobs and housing for generations doing so.

3- If true there are dozens of magical events that have no validation. Hard to prove water came forth from a rock. A horde circled a city with no wall and blew it down. Same horde destroyed a city, Ai, that was ruins for a 1000 years. Too many issues here.

4 - Egypt still controlled Palestine for most of the time period when this supposedly happened. Hard to sneek in.

Many other reasons I have previously mentioned.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The intent of following a specific means to live is obvious;  the morphed Yahweh (pagan god made into Judean god) not so much. But then one can see similar methods in the last 200 years such as in the case of Mormons - a morphed belief system with claims made that go against reason. Sound familiar?

Too much drifting off the goal of working our way through the OT.

it does, except they have nothing to go on.  The Bible is literally thousands of scripts from many many different sources put together in congruency to make a story.  There are many variances which actually further proves that it's not story telling, but rather people trying to reiterate events from their perspective.  Story telling would typically be a lot more uniform and specific because the "conspiracy" would be to make it sound as accurate as possible so that people would believe it.  This is see in most story telling of the time.  

The other thing I think we lose focus on is that the Bible and these stories individually are not one source, but many that were compiled into one writing.  The Egyptians may have nothing on the Exodus story, but they've also omitted many other things in their past...  These omissions have been found on inner walls that contradicted the story that was written for all to see.  (This is how we are sure this has happened) There was a special on this on I believe it was either the history channel or Nat. Geo.. don't remember the title.

Storytelling does not need to remain consistent to be so. Robin Hood tales and Herakles also Hercules are examples.

Modern day we have versions of Spiderman and now Original Star Trek and JJ Abrams Alternate Universe Star Trek.

Multiple scripts combined into a story is piece mealing. One can make up all sorts of stories that way.

Check out my "choose your own passion adventure myth" post here for a very good example - www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29360

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm not saying the land was uninhabited, I'm saying the tales in the OT have nothing at all to do with what actually occurred.

People lived there, there were towns, villages, and city states. many of these names have been used in the OT. Nothing shows that the city-state of Samaria (you call Israel) and the city state of Jerusalem (you call Judah) were ever one nation ever.

ok.  Like I said, I need to see that other timeline then.  The one that would allegedly take place of the Biblical timeline for that location and time.  If there is none, we can't discount the Biblical claim. 

Read the records of the Mitani, the Hittites, the Assyrians, Egypt, the Ugaritic tablets for a good start.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Can you falsity the Reg Veda account?

I don't know that it's really false.  again why do you assume it's false?  I'll have to read it and cross reference it.  with other texts that claim to connect to it in some way. 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

See my other post on this.

Right, about the assuming, but the thing is, how do you falsify something that might be true?  

Also, looking into it, isn't it really a book of hymns?  Hymns aren't exactly texts claiming anything other than promotion and worship of a particular god and how one feels/acts towards them.  

The vedas are hymns, however so are several OT books such as Psalms, song of Solomon other are poetry.

Science attempts to validate or falsify each and every theory. The Bible makes claims that can in a similar way be tested as can the vedas. That's how.

If you can't prove a theory, Hindu vedas or OT god claims it remains a theory. Or as religious people say a belief.

A belief is a theory that has no validation.

Many Christians I meet have gone beyond belief and claim they know. They can't substantiate how they know other than a personal experience which they can't show others.

Or they just simply have excessively stimulated fantasy centers due to living under high voltage power transmission lines from EMI.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
caposkia wrote:

It's like comparing North Korea to South Korea, except that in this case one created the other and the other rebelled.  In the analogy here, both are valid, realistic nations, both exist independent and oppositional of each other, yet both are still there.

We can obviously see the 2 nations of Korea. However gods of any sort aren't appearing anywhere in our current time space dimension.

caposkia wrote:

The Bible doesn't make a big deal about idolizing other gods just because they're a distraction, other metaphysical beings exist out there trying to rule over Gods people.  We believe these other alleged gods are the fallen angels whom fell with Satan when Satan was kicked out of heaven...  that has nothing to do with what we can prove or disprove in history, so a sidenote really, but point and case, opposing belief systems do not negate each others existence.

There is no where in the OT or Hebrew Bible where Satan and his angel followers fell from Heaven or warred with the god Yahweh. The only mention of any angels going against the god is in the Book of Enoch which expands upon Genesis 6:1-4. The lead angel in the Enoch account is not Satan but is Semjaza (or Samlazaz), see Enoch 6:3. Satan is not mentioned in this story at all.

The New Testament has a supposed war with the fallen angels but it is either a future event or one not known to humans - occuring outside of our dimensional reality IOW. The often quoted fallen angels are claimed to have happened prior to the Garden of Eden incident with the serpent. Christians assume the serpent is the Satan yet Jews do not. Satan in Judaism is the prosecutor angel, a role demonstrated quite adequately in Job but also found in other stories, such as when David did a census.

I suggest you go back and search all of the OT to locate the incident of Satan and angels rebelling against the Yahweh. I have never found it except for the Genesis 6 story which is not considered to be angels at all by main stream Christians and is not the Satan. The Enoch story has origins far after the supposed time period of Enoch, but so do most of the books in the OT have origins 100s of years after the events they discuss. So if you accept the OT the Book of Enoch should also be just as legitimate. Several NT books use it or have inspiration from it, such as Revelation and if I remember right Jude.

caposkia wrote:

Isaiah 14:12: "How you are fallen from heaven O' Day star, Son of Dawn.  How you are cut down to the ground, you who lay the nations low."  

Satan in scripture in a few places has been referred to as a star.  Jesus refers to him as a star falling like lightning.  the NT details more about 1/3 falling with Him, but it says that 1/3 of an unnumbered amount of angels followed him.  It is generally understood that Satan was the angel of light, which would put perspective on the star reference.  

This passage is specifically referring to the kings of Babylon and Tyre, but it is also in reference to the spiritual power behind them.  This is made more clear in Ezekiel 28:12-18.  It is said to the king, but is clearly paralleling Satan unless we are to believe this king was in the garden of Eden.  

This doesn't show there was a war in heaven prior to Adam and Eve.

Again - Enoch and Gen 6 is the only place I know where it's mentioned and it's not Lucifer, Satan or the prosecutor angel.

NT references do not help. Only the OT can establish the basis for the war in heaven and fallen angels. Writing about either a future event as in predictions of such war as in Revelation is unfounded conjecture. If the Hebrew - Jews - Israelites made no mention of such a war or a falling then where is the basis?

Nice that the writer of Isaiah noticed the planet Venus, however it only shows they were similar to others thinking celestrial bodies and stars were angels and/or gods.

And their ignorance that Venus was a planet not a star does not help either. The writer prophet should have known that Venus was a planet not a fallen angel if he was inspired by the god. A falling star also is not indicative of much knowledge (a star falling is a meteor not a star - stars don't fall) so the Jesus doesn't show much knowledge of the Universe either.

We will get to Ezekiel soon. He had many issues such as - his predicted short term life expectancy for Egypt, see chap 29 and 30. He prophesied that King Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Egypt - didn't happen. He seemed to be on hallucinagens too - or was schizophrenic. He was not being taken seriously even then, see chap 33:30-33 where he says he would eventually be shown to be a prophet.  His visions to me suggest either halluncingenic trips or mentally unstable. I have personally met these type of people and they really see visions that they believe are real. Usually medications help out though Ezekial had no such access in his time period. More on this failed prophet when we get to his book.

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Sorry for the delay. I have had no time for RRS lately. I don't like to make off the cuff answers. I'll see what I can answer before I go to work.

hey don't worry.  We all have lives to live.  Due to the extent as to which we need to go to ultimately finish what we've started, I say we do it when we can.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

There are many reasons why there was nothing written about this in Egypt.

For example:

1- It's not true but storytelling - my choice.

Why.

In addition to no mention of these events by Egyptians there is this compelling evidence,

There is no archealogical record in Sinai of 2 million escaped slaves wandering. Pastoral wanderings, yes; Egyptian forts yes. Hebrew Horde - no. There is no mention of them by any of the other super powers, Mitani, Hittites, Assyrians.

600,000 men plus women, plus children, plus livestock would leave traces. Dead bodies, consumed livestock.

Today it's difficult to get water for 2 million people there, plus of course several million sheep, camels, goats etc. Huge amount of water require not to mention feed for the livestock. Doesn't work for me.

Even if, they would all get scruvy - no fruits and vegies in the desert.

Palestine archealogy does not support the invasion of a Hebrew Horde.

2- It's not true as it's exaggerated - a few hundred captured asiatic savages from Palestine escaped. Not noteworthy. The OT story is a glorified myth tale of their adventure.

Possible - however nothing indicates the Egyptians used slaves to build temples and pyramids quite contrary it seems their people had jobs and housing for generations doing so.

3- If true there are dozens of magical events that have no validation. Hard to prove water came forth from a rock. A horde circled a city with no wall and blew it down. Same horde destroyed a city, Ai, that was ruins for a 1000 years. Too many issues here.

4 - Egypt still controlled Palestine for most of the time period when this supposedly happened. Hard to sneek in.

Many other reasons I have previously mentioned.

I get all of that, it makes a lot of sense.  One issue is your #2 negates your #1 issue due to the exaggeration of numbers and that a smaller number could cut under a radar or record vs. millions... also harder to detect in Archaeology.  

Also, if you read the scriptures especially the rules about owning slaves, being a "slave" then is very different.. more like a job really, than being a slave in our more recent history.  They got wages and appropriate food and board.  They also were granted a choice to stay or leave.  As a slave the treatments weren't necessarily humane at all times, but there were still rules in place surrounding discipline.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Storytelling does not need to remain consistent to be so. Robin Hood tales and Herakles also Hercules are examples.

Modern day we have versions of Spiderman and now Original Star Trek and JJ Abrams Alternate Universe Star Trek.

Multiple scripts combined into a story is piece mealing. One can make up all sorts of stories that way.

Check out my "choose your own passion adventure myth" post here for a very good example - www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29360

this is true as well, so we cannot base our conclusions on parallels to storytelling really.   I have proven that it can be paralleled to historical documents known to be true and you have proven it can be paralleled to myths.  It's a stalemate.   We need another approach I think.  More historical fact basis.  Unfortunately, we're at a very dark section of scripture... by that I mean there isn't much to go on for these particular stories in history and/or archaeology from what I'm aware.  

We can't forget what we have seen to parallel truth and myth in all the stories up until now.  All of that plays a role in the ultimate conclusion.  So far there is a compilation of historical fact that can be paralleled to scripture in general, and only parallels to literary styles and approaches to myth writing to compare on the other side.  Granted the miracles of God cannot be proven which could elude to lean more on the myth side, but then again if God is real, there's no reason to doubt its claims based on what we know either.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

Read the records of the Mitani, the Hittites, the Assyrians, Egypt, the Ugaritic tablets for a good start.

I haven't yet, but do they contradict scripture and paint an alternate timeline?  Are they all congruent or do they contradict each other?

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Can you falsity the Reg Veda account?

I don't know that it's really false.  again why do you assume it's false?  I'll have to read it and cross reference it.  with other texts that claim to connect to it in some way. 

I'll admit to being busy as well and have yet to look into that.  Honestly slipped my mind. I apologize.  i will make note to do this soon.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The vedas are hymns, however so are several OT books such as Psalms, song of Solomon other are poetry.

Science attempts to validate or falsify each and every theory. The Bible makes claims that can in a similar way be tested as can the vedas. That's how.

If you can't prove a theory, Hindu vedas or OT god claims it remains a theory. Or as religious people say a belief.

A belief is a theory that has no validation.

Many Christians I meet have gone beyond belief and claim they know. They can't substantiate how they know other than a personal experience which they can't show others.

Or they just simply have excessively stimulated fantasy centers due to living under high voltage power transmission lines from EMI.

Many Christians claim to know God like one would know their own parents (assuming they were raised by them).  If God is a real being then this idea is not so far fetched.  Of course I can relate to that claim, but I never use it as a defense as to why I believe.  I know that means nothing to a non-believer first hand.  

A lot of scripture is based on theory, a lot is also based on fact as we have covered.  Much of the theory is based on a compilation of fact that would elude to the idea that if X and Y are true then questionable Z has a logical probability.   Theory in the scientific and amateur world hold a lot of weight.  People just as Christians do about God, believe in Theories as if they're fact and truth regardless of how flawed, why?  Because it's science.  Theories only become theories with a logical probability, otherwise they are only assumptions.  

Sounds to me that the comparison you made makes a lot of sense.  I will see what i can find when I get the chance.

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This doesn't show there was a war in heaven prior to Adam and Eve.

Again - Enoch and Gen 6 is the only place I know where it's mentioned and it's not Lucifer, Satan or the prosecutor angel.

NT references do not help. Only the OT can establish the basis for the war in heaven and fallen angels. Writing about either a future event as in predictions of such war as in Revelation is unfounded conjecture. If the Hebrew - Jews - Israelites made no mention of such a war or a falling then where is the basis?

Nice that the writer of Isaiah noticed the planet Venus, however it only shows they were similar to others thinking celestrial bodies and stars were angels and/or gods.

And their ignorance that Venus was a planet not a star does not help either. The writer prophet should have known that Venus was a planet not a fallen angel if he was inspired by the god. A falling star also is not indicative of much knowledge (a star falling is a meteor not a star - stars don't fall) so the Jesus doesn't show much knowledge of the Universe either.

We will get to Ezekiel soon. He had many issues such as - his predicted short term life expectancy for Egypt, see chap 29 and 30. He prophesied that King Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Egypt - didn't happen. He seemed to be on hallucinagens too - or was schizophrenic. He was not being taken seriously even then, see chap 33:30-33 where he says he would eventually be shown to be a prophet.  His visions to me suggest either halluncingenic trips or mentally unstable. I have personally met these type of people and they really see visions that they believe are real. Usually medications help out though Ezekial had no such access in his time period. More on this failed prophet when we get to his book.

It shows that the idea that angels were kicked out of heaven fairly common knowledge.  In poetic licence as used in the scriptures referenced from the OT, they use terminology that suggests an understanding of angels falling out of heaven.  Why else would they write it in the way they did?

I get your reference to Venus, but then that would mean that the writer witnessed Satan rising back up... which is not congruent with what is written.  The meteor idea fits, but why say that Satan was one of those stars?  Why not just say that it's angels coming down to Earth to check up on us or to do missions for God?  That would make more sense if they were coming up with their own ideas.  

Ezekiel might be an interesting topic, we'll see where that takes us.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

There are many reasons why there was nothing written about this in Egypt.

For example:

1- It's not true but storytelling - my choice.

Why.

In addition to no mention of these events by Egyptians there is this compelling evidence,

There is no archaeological record in Sinai of 2 million escaped slaves wandering. Pastoral wanderings, yes; Egyptian forts yes. Hebrew Horde - no. There is no mention of them by any of the other super powers, Mitani, Hittites, Assyrians.

600,000 men plus women, plus children, plus livestock would leave traces. Dead bodies, consumed livestock.

Today it's difficult to get water for 2 million people there, plus of course several million sheep, camels, goats etc. Huge amount of water require not to mention feed for the livestock. Doesn't work for me.

Even if, they would all get scurvy - no fruits and vegies in the desert.

Palestine archeology does not support the invasion of a Hebrew Horde.

2- It's not true as it's exaggerated - a few hundred captured Asiatic savages from Palestine escaped. Not noteworthy. The OT story is a glorified myth tale of their adventure.

Possible - however nothing indicates the Egyptians used slaves to build temples and pyramids quite contrary it seems their people had jobs and housing for generations doing so.

3- If true there are dozens of magical events that have no validation. Hard to prove water came forth from a rock. A horde circled a city with no wall and blew it down. Same horde destroyed a city, Ai, that was ruins for a 1000 years. Too many issues here.

4 - Egypt still controlled Palestine for most of the time period when this supposedly happened. Hard to sneak in.

Many other reasons I have previously mentioned.

I get all of that, it makes a lot of sense.  One issue is your #2 negates your #1 issue due to the exaggeration of numbers and that a smaller number could cut under a radar or record vs. millions... also harder to detect in Archeology.  

Also, if you read the scriptures especially the rules about owning slaves, being a "slave" then is very different.. more like a job really, than being a slave in our more recent history.  They got wages and appropriate food and board.  They also were granted a choice to stay or leave.  As a slave the treatments weren't necessarily humane at all times, but there were still rules in place surrounding discipline.

#2 is a possibility, it doesn't negate #1 which is also a possibility. Either could be correct. However neither of them would substantiate the Exodus/Moses story that has been propagated. #1 means it is complete fiction and #2 means it is part true and part fiction. The problem is what is true and what is fiction. Exaggerations do not make the story true as passed on, it makes it creative storytelling no different than Robin Hood. Legends in other words, part true part not.

The slave description you describe is culture specific. In the Hebrew/Judah/Jew culture it is described in a fashion somewhat like you suggest.

In ancient Egypt depending on the reason the person was a slave their treatment might vary: Reasons for slavery - Debt, war, voluntary, punishment, birth, capture ( aka booty)

Those captured in war were the most likely to be sent to the copper and gold mines in Sinai and Nubia where their life expectancy would be not long.

Egypt unlike Rome and the Greek world did not have extensive slave trade markets.

See here for a short discussion - www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/slavery.htm

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Storytelling does not need to remain consistent to be so. Robin Hood tales and Herakles also Hercules are examples.

Modern day we have versions of Spiderman and now Original Star Trek and JJ Abrams Alternate Universe Star Trek.

Multiple scripts combined into a story is piece mealing. One can make up all sorts of stories that way.

Check out my "choose your own passion adventure myth" post here for a very good example - www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29360

this is true as well, so we cannot base our conclusions on parallels to storytelling really.   I have proven that it can be paralleled to historical documents known to be true and you have proven it can be paralleled to myths.  It's a stalemate.   We need another approach I think.  More historical fact basis.  Unfortunately, we're at a very dark section of scripture... by that I mean there isn't much to go on for these particular stories in history and/or archeology from what I'm aware.  

We can't forget what we have seen to parallel truth and myth in all the stories up until now.  All of that plays a role in the ultimate conclusion.  So far there is a compilation of historical fact that can be paralleled to scripture in general, and only parallels to literary styles and approaches to myth writing to compare on the other side.  Granted the miracles of God cannot be proven which could elude to lean more on the myth side, but then again if God is real, there's no reason to doubt its claims based on what we know either. 

What is truth is the question and what is not?

Storytelling may or may not be myth. Misunderstanding or propaganda are both shown throughout the OT.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

Read the records of the Mitani, the Hittites, the Assyrians, Egypt, the Ugaritic tablets for a good start.

I haven't yet, but do they contradict scripture and paint an alternate timeline?  Are they all congruent or do they contradict each other?

Each culture has it's own stories to tell that influence one's perception of the Mid-East and Syria-Palestine. They are an alternate to your timeline as each sees the world and one another in a different way.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The vedas are hymns, however so are several OT books such as Psalms, song of Solomon other are poetry.

Science attempts to validate or falsify each and every theory. The Bible makes claims that can in a similar way be tested as can the vedas. That's how.

If you can't prove a theory, Hindu vedas or OT god claims it remains a theory. Or as religious people say a belief.

A belief is a theory that has no validation.

Many Christians I meet have gone beyond belief and claim they know. They can't substantiate how they know other than a personal experience which they can't show others.

Or they just simply have excessively stimulated fantasy centers due to living under high voltage power transmission lines from EMI.

Many Christians claim to know God like one would know their own parents (assuming they were raised by them).  If God is a real being then this idea is not so far fetched.  Of course I can relate to that claim, but I never use it as a defense as to why I believe.  I know that means nothing to a non-believer first hand.  

A lot of scripture is based on theory, a lot is also based on fact as we have covered.  Much of the theory is based on a compilation of fact that would elude to the idea that if X and Y are true then questionable Z has a logical probability.   Theory in the scientific and amateur world hold a lot of weight.  People just as Christians do about God, believe in Theories as if they're fact and truth regardless of how flawed, why?  Because it's science.  Theories only become theories with a logical probability, otherwise they are only assumptions.  

Sounds to me that the comparison you made makes a lot of sense.  I will see what i can find when I get the chance. 

One should recall I was once like you. I had my miracles that I considered were the God intervening. Further contemplation and thought showed otherwise. Was it God or me that steered away from the head-on collision? Was it God or me that didn't shoot the person who carelessly shot me while hunting? I remember thinking I should shoot back then thought, how will I get to the hospital. So I agree that these things are in no way a defense to the existence or not of God or Enki. It always could be Enki not the Yahweh god of course. Or just an archaic superstition that won't die off.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This doesn't show there was a war in heaven prior to Adam and Eve.

Again - Enoch and Gen 6 is the only place I know where it's mentioned and it's not Lucifer, Satan or the prosecutor angel.

NT references do not help. Only the OT can establish the basis for the war in heaven and fallen angels. Writing about either a future event as in predictions of such war as in Revelation is unfounded conjecture. If the Hebrew - Jews - Israelites made no mention of such a war or a falling then where is the basis?

Nice that the writer of Isaiah noticed the planet Venus, however it only shows they were similar to others thinking celestrial bodies and stars were angels and/or gods.

And their ignorance that Venus was a planet not a star does not help either. The writer prophet should have known that Venus was a planet not a fallen angel if he was inspired by the god. A falling star also is not indicative of much knowledge (a star falling is a meteor not a star - stars don't fall) so the Jesus doesn't show much knowledge of the Universe either.

We will get to Ezekiel soon. He had many issues such as - his predicted short term life expectancy for Egypt, see chap 29 and 30. He prophesied that King Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Egypt - didn't happen. He seemed to be on hallucinagens too - or was schizophrenic. He was not being taken seriously even then, see chap 33:30-33 where he says he would eventually be shown to be a prophet.  His visions to me suggest either halluncingenic trips or mentally unstable. I have personally met these type of people and they really see visions that they believe are real. Usually medications help out though Ezekial had no such access in his time period. More on this failed prophet when we get to his book.

It shows that the idea that angels were kicked out of heaven fairly common knowledge.  In poetic licence as used in the scriptures referenced from the OT, they use terminology that suggests an understanding of angels falling out of heaven.  Why else would they write it in the way they did?

I get your reference to Venus, but then that would mean that the writer witnessed Satan rising back up... which is not congruent with what is written.  The meteor idea fits, but why say that Satan was one of those stars?  Why not just say that it's angels coming down to Earth to check up on us or to do missions for God?  That would make more sense if they were coming up with their own ideas.  

Ezekiel might be an interesting topic, we'll see where that takes us.

There is no universal interpretation of Isaiah 14:3-23 by theologians. Taking Isaiah 14:12 out of context leads one to consider only Satan/Lucifer, however in context it is a rant against Babylon. The writer is discussing the king of Babylon from verse 3 and continues throughout chap 14. Verse 14 is a comparison of the king to the god(s) (depending on which one considers to be the "most high&quotEye-wink. Verse 16 is specifically calling him a man "Is this the man that made the earth to tremble that did shake kingdoms?" In no way is this rant about Satan/Lucifer as there is no tradition where that character was ever a man 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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Ahab part 6 - 1 Kings 22 & 2 Chronicles 18

Ahab part 6 1 Kings 22 & 2 Chronicles 18
It begins claiming 3 years passed with no war between Syria (Damascus) and Ahab (Samaria). That is likely as they were allied together as the 12 kings who stood against Shalmanser III of Assyria. According to the Black Obelisk several times Shalmanser III went on booty trips to Syria-Palestine aka Hatti.


(54-62) In the sixth year of my reign, I drew near to the cities on the banks of the Balih. They slew Giammu, governor of their cities. I entered Til-Mâr-ahi. The Euphrates I crossed at it flood. I received gifts from all the kings of Hatti. At that time Hadad-ezer of Aram, Irhuleni the Hamathite, together with the kings of Hatti and the seacoast, relied on each other's strength and came out against me to make battle and war. At the command of Assur, the great lor, my lord, I fought with them, I accomplished their defeat. I took from them their chariots, their cavalry, and their weapons of war. I slew 20,500 of their warriors with the sword.


And then:
(87-89) In the eleventh year of my reign, I crossed the euphrates for the ninth time. I captured countless cities. I descended upon cities of the land of Hamath. I captured 89 cities. Hadad-ezer of Aram and twelve kings of the land of Hatti stood by each other. I was successful in overthrowing them.


These allied adventures and defense against documented invasions by Assyrian King Shalmanser III are not mentioned at all in Kings or Chronicles. So with this in mind let's look at this chapter's story.


Supposedly the king of Jerusalem  aka the city state of Judah went to Ahab the king of the city state of Samaria around the time of Shalmanser's invasions. Ahab was claiming Ramoth belonged to Samaria but was taken by Aram Damascus aka Hadadezer. So the king of Samaria gathered together 400 prophets to decide if they should go against Ramoth in battle. After king Jehoshaphat is there a prophet we missed. Yes Ahab said there is. He's Micaiah son of Imlah he wasn't invited as all he does is prophesy evil concerning me.


So Ahab had Micaiah summoned. So they sat on their thrones by a gate to Samaria with all the prophets awaiting him. One called Zedekiah made horns of iron claiming with these you will push the Syrians out until you have destroyed them. All of the con-men shamans I mean prophets agreed. Micaiah shows up and true to Ahab's claim made a scathing less than kind prophecy in his regard.
He indicates that yes they will prosper against Syria. However, he sees the people of Samaria leaderless after. He says that he saw the god on his throne and was asked, who will go to Ahab to persuade him to go against Ramoth so he will die there? Micaiah volunteers. How? I will go in regard to the adventure he proposes. The god indicates he will make all of the prophets lie to Ahab in regard to his success. Ahab's man Zedekiah orders Micaiah to be taken to prison and fed bread & water until after the battle.


Why this is not true is Assyria was invading at the time, the battle of Qarqar dates to 853 BCE when this is supposedly going on between Damascus and Samaria. They were allies at the time against Assyria, mentioned by Shalmanser III as such.


King Ahab and King Jehoshaphat took their forces to Ramoth and Ahab supposedly disguised himself but told the King of Judah/Jerusalem to wear his kingly robes. The Syrian king told his captains to only fight against the king of Samaria. When they saw Jehoshaphat they mistook him for Ahab but then realized it wasn’t him.


Meanwhile, “ a certain man drew a bow and smote the king of Israel (Samaria) between the joints of the harness..” He told the driver of his chariot to take him from the battle as he was wounded. As the day progressed the king stayed in his chariot but died before evening as he bled out in the chariot. As the Sun went down a call went out for all to return to their cities.  Ahab was buried in Samaria. The chariot was washed and the blood was licked by dogs.


Jehosaphat began his reign during Ahab’s 4th year, he followed in the ways of Asa his father and followed that which was right in the eyes of the god. However, the people still worshiped in the high places as before. He ordered 10 ships built to go to Ophir for gold. However, they didn’t get there as the ships were destroyed or damaged at Eziongeber. King Ahaziah Ahab’s son wished to participate in the mentioned voyage but was not allowed.


Ahaziah being Ahab’s son of course did EITSOL and worshiped Ba’al provoking the god to anger.


2 Chronicles does not have dogs licking Ahab’s blood when the chariot is washed nor some of the other narrative. As to the narrative of the battle, in the 1 Kings account requires the Syrian captains to have communicated what happened in the battle to the writer of 1 Kings – very unlikely. The 2 Chronicle account indicates “the Lord helped him; and God moved them to depart”. That way, no post battle interview required by the scribe writing 2 Chronicles unlike 1 Kings.

Since Assyria was continung it's tribute ventures thoughout Shalmanser's reign the whole storytale is unlikely as described in both OT books. Eventually in a later reign the king of Samaria gives tribute to Shalmanser as documented on the Oblelisk (not Ahab). As to the story, clearly the writer of kings had issues with Ahab or heard stories from someone that did. Assyria shows otherwise in the power Ahab presented in battle. Archeaology does as well according to Finkelstein. Finkelstein claims the great palaces and stables in Megiddo are Ahab's not a mythical Solomon.

As to what is really the truth, no one can know.

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:#2

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

#2 is a possibility, it doesn't negate #1 which is also a possibility. Either could be correct. However neither of them would substantiate the Exodus/Moses story that has been propagated. #1 means it is complete fiction and #2 means it is part true and part fiction. The problem is what is true and what is fiction. Exaggerations do not make the story true as passed on, it makes it creative storytelling no different than Robin Hood. Legends in other words, part true part not.

The slave description you describe is culture specific. In the Hebrew/Judah/Jew culture it is described in a fashion somewhat like you suggest.

In ancient Egypt depending on the reason the person was a slave their treatment might vary: Reasons for slavery - Debt, war, voluntary, punishment, birth, capture ( aka booty)

Those captured in war were the most likely to be sent to the copper and gold mines in Sinai and Nubia where their life expectancy would be not long.

Egypt unlike Rome and the Greek world did not have extensive slave trade markets.

See here for a short discussion - www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/slavery.htm

We've discussed how exaggerations also do not make the story false or comparable to tales like Robin Hood.  Check way back to the first few pages of this thread.

The Bible supports all that you've said about slavery.  The Moses story shows slavery as it was in Egypt.  Deuteronomy talks about the other slavery and the slavery from war. 

I still say your #1 and #2 are not compatible. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What is truth is the question and what is not?

Storytelling may or may not be myth. Misunderstanding or propaganda are both shown throughout the OT.

Well, that is the question of the ages.  To me, Truth is that which is whether we accept it or not.   The whole NT is about how humans misunderstand things and have misunderstood their own scripture.  Propaganda is necessary for any point to be accepted by the masses.  I'm not seeing how that is a negative thing.  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Each culture has it's own stories to tell that influence one's perception of the Mid-East and Syria-Palestine. They are an alternate to your timeline as each sees the world and one another in a different way.

That's the first time someone has actually found an alternative timeline.  I"ll have to check those out when I get the chance... been strait out lately.  I found the time to study the Rig-Veda accounts we talked about a bit back.  I'll comment on them after.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

One should recall I was once like you. I had my miracles that I considered were the God intervening. Further contemplation and thought showed otherwise. Was it God or me that steered away from the head-on collision? Was it God or me that didn't shoot the person who carelessly shot me while hunting? I remember thinking I should shoot back then thought, how will I get to the hospital. So I agree that these things are in no way a defense to the existence or not of God or Enki. It always could be Enki not the Yahweh god of course. Or just an archaic superstition that won't die off.

...well first, God offers you an option.  It's always you that makes the choice. 

After looking into the Rig-Veda accounts.  you had asked me to disprove them? 

I don't see much to disprove really.  They are written accounts of a particular cultures belief system.  The style is written in ways that was designed for easy memory from verbal repetition.  Psalms included.  I found no where any claim of divine inspiration.  Rather I see more of notations of a belief system from a very humanistic mindset and thought process.

Let's take book 10 for example.  Their account of creation.  First I notice it is almost an exact parallel of the Genesis account.  Leads me to believe the person or people who wrote it wrote it from their perspective of the Genesis account. 

Instead of saying "this is what happened" like the Bible, it asks a lot of questions e.g. "1. Then was non-existent:  there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.  What covered in, and where?  What gave shelter?  Was water there?  unfathomed depth of water?"

Sounds again to me like someone hearing the story, rewriting it from their own mind with the questions that are left from hearing it. 

Further this story confirms no claim of divine inspiration by stating in vs. 6; "...the Gods are later than the this worlds production"  possibly indicating that gods are not responsible for creation but rather that they themselves were created. 

it ends with a reference to one... being of some sort that was there... they indicate that they're not sure if this being was there or not at the beginning; "He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows, or perhaps he knows not."  Sounds to me like a reference to the one God of scripture by someone who is not familiar with this God. 

I can further confirm this is a personal account of hearing the creation story of the Bible by looking up the dating of the first texts written in a few hundred years A.D... I don't remember the exact date.  

all in all, this particular account parallels scripture despite the references to other gods in other parts of the scripts.  Granted I didn't read every part of it, but I see nothing here to disprove or prove.  Only an external account based off a personal belief system and retelling of stories heard with their own perspective questions included. 

If anything, it further confirms scripture to me.  Or at least that other cultures have heard the stories and have accepted them as truth.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This doesn't show there was a war in heaven prior to Adam and Eve.

Again - Enoch and Gen 6 is the only place I know where it's mentioned and it's not Lucifer, Satan or the prosecutor angel.

NT references do not help. Only the OT can establish the basis for the war in heaven and fallen angels. Writing about either a future event as in predictions of such war as in Revelation is unfounded conjecture. If the Hebrew - Jews - Israelites made no mention of such a war or a falling then where is the basis?

Nice that the writer of Isaiah noticed the planet Venus, however it only shows they were similar to others thinking celestrial bodies and stars were angels and/or gods.

And their ignorance that Venus was a planet not a star does not help either. The writer prophet should have known that Venus was a planet not a fallen angel if he was inspired by the god. A falling star also is not indicative of much knowledge (a star falling is a meteor not a star - stars don't fall) so the Jesus doesn't show much knowledge of the Universe either.

We will get to Ezekiel soon. He had many issues such as - his predicted short term life expectancy for Egypt, see chap 29 and 30. He prophesied that King Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Egypt - didn't happen. He seemed to be on hallucinagens too - or was schizophrenic. He was not being taken seriously even then, see chap 33:30-33 where he says he would eventually be shown to be a prophet.  His visions to me suggest either halluncingenic trips or mentally unstable. I have personally met these type of people and they really see visions that they believe are real. Usually medications help out though Ezekial had no such access in his time period. More on this failed prophet when we get to his book.

It shows that the idea that angels were kicked out of heaven fairly common knowledge.  In poetic licence as used in the scriptures referenced from the OT, they use terminology that suggests an understanding of angels falling out of heaven.  Why else would they write it in the way they did?

I get your reference to Venus, but then that would mean that the writer witnessed Satan rising back up... which is not congruent with what is written.  The meteor idea fits, but why say that Satan was one of those stars?  Why not just say that it's angels coming down to Earth to check up on us or to do missions for God?  That would make more sense if they were coming up with their own ideas.  

Ezekiel might be an interesting topic, we'll see where that takes us.

There is no universal interpretation of Isaiah 14:3-23 by theologians. Taking Isaiah 14:12 out of context leads one to consider only Satan/Lucifer, however in context it is a rant against Babylon. The writer is discussing the king of Babylon from verse 3 and continues throughout chap 14. Verse 14 is a comparison of the king to the god(s) (depending on which one considers to be the "most high&quotEye-wink. Verse 16 is specifically calling him a man "Is this the man that made the earth to tremble that did shake kingdoms?" In no way is this rant about Satan/Lucifer as there is no tradition where that character was ever a man in the OT.

 

 

the thing with interpreting scripture is the basis of comparison came from something.  They didn't just pull that description out of the blue. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Ahab part 6 1 Kings 22 & 2 Chronicles 18
It begins claiming 3 years passed with no war between Syria (Damascus) and Ahab (Samaria). That is likely as they were allied together as the 12 kings who stood against Shalmanser III of Assyria. According to the Black Obelisk several times Shalmanser III went on booty trips to Syria-Palestine aka Hatti.


(54-62) In the sixth year of my reign, I drew near to the cities on the banks of the Balih. They slew Giammu, governor of their cities. I entered Til-Mâr-ahi. The Euphrates I crossed at it flood. I received gifts from all the kings of Hatti. At that time Hadad-ezer of Aram, Irhuleni the Hamathite, together with the kings of Hatti and the seacoast, relied on each other's strength and came out against me to make battle and war. At the command of Assur, the great lor, my lord, I fought with them, I accomplished their defeat. I took from them their chariots, their cavalry, and their weapons of war. I slew 20,500 of their warriors with the sword.


And then:
(87-89) In the eleventh year of my reign, I crossed the euphrates for the ninth time. I captured countless cities. I descended upon cities of the land of Hamath. I captured 89 cities. Hadad-ezer of Aram and twelve kings of the land of Hatti stood by each other. I was successful in overthrowing them.


These allied adventures and defense against documented invasions by Assyrian King Shalmanser III are not mentioned at all in Kings or Chronicles. So with this in mind let's look at this chapter's story.


Supposedly the king of Jerusalem  aka the city state of Judah went to Ahab the king of the city state of Samaria around the time of Shalmanser's invasions. Ahab was claiming Ramoth belonged to Samaria but was taken by Aram Damascus aka Hadadezer. So the king of Samaria gathered together 400 prophets to decide if they should go against Ramoth in battle. After king Jehoshaphat is there a prophet we missed. Yes Ahab said there is. He's Micaiah son of Imlah he wasn't invited as all he does is prophesy evil concerning me.


So Ahab had Micaiah summoned. So they sat on their thrones by a gate to Samaria with all the prophets awaiting him. One called Zedekiah made horns of iron claiming with these you will push the Syrians out until you have destroyed them. All of the con-men shamans I mean prophets agreed. Micaiah shows up and true to Ahab's claim made a scathing less than kind prophecy in his regard.
He indicates that yes they will prosper against Syria. However, he sees the people of Samaria leaderless after. He says that he saw the god on his throne and was asked, who will go to Ahab to persuade him to go against Ramoth so he will die there? Micaiah volunteers. How? I will go in regard to the adventure he proposes. The god indicates he will make all of the prophets lie to Ahab in regard to his success. Ahab's man Zedekiah orders Micaiah to be taken to prison and fed bread & water until after the battle.


Why this is not true is Assyria was invading at the time, the battle of Qarqar dates to 853 BCE when this is supposedly going on between Damascus and Samaria. They were allies at the time against Assyria, mentioned by Shalmanser III as such.


King Ahab and King Jehoshaphat took their forces to Ramoth and Ahab supposedly disguised himself but told the King of Judah/Jerusalem to wear his kingly robes. The Syrian king told his captains to only fight against the king of Samaria. When they saw Jehoshaphat they mistook him for Ahab but then realized it wasn’t him.


Meanwhile, “ a certain man drew a bow and smote the king of Israel (Samaria) between the joints of the harness..” He told the driver of his chariot to take him from the battle as he was wounded. As the day progressed the king stayed in his chariot but died before evening as he bled out in the chariot. As the Sun went down a call went out for all to return to their cities.  Ahab was buried in Samaria. The chariot was washed and the blood was licked by dogs.


Jehosaphat began his reign during Ahab’s 4th year, he followed in the ways of Asa his father and followed that which was right in the eyes of the god. However, the people still worshiped in the high places as before. He ordered 10 ships built to go to Ophir for gold. However, they didn’t get there as the ships were destroyed or damaged at Eziongeber. King Ahaziah Ahab’s son wished to participate in the mentioned voyage but was not allowed.


Ahaziah being Ahab’s son of course did EITSOL and worshiped Ba’al provoking the god to anger.


2 Chronicles does not have dogs licking Ahab’s blood when the chariot is washed nor some of the other narrative. As to the narrative of the battle, in the 1 Kings account requires the Syrian captains to have communicated what happened in the battle to the writer of 1 Kings – very unlikely. The 2 Chronicle account indicates “the Lord helped him; and God moved them to depart”. That way, no post battle interview required by the scribe writing 2 Chronicles unlike 1 Kings.

Since Assyria was continung it's tribute ventures thoughout Shalmanser's reign the whole storytale is unlikely as described in both OT books. Eventually in a later reign the king of Samaria gives tribute to Shalmanser as documented on the Oblelisk (not Ahab). As to the story, clearly the writer of kings had issues with Ahab or heard stories from someone that did. Assyria shows otherwise in the power Ahab presented in battle. Archeaology does as well according to Finkelstein. Finkelstein claims the great palaces and stables in Megiddo are Ahab's not a mythical Solomon.

As to what is really the truth, no one can know.

it's hard to tell at this point just from reading these stories.  Again, here we need to connect it to what we already know about scripture and the actual connections to history.  The confirmed timeline from earlier only continues.  if we consider this part of it to be false, then we need to figure out where the timeline ceased to be truth and became the false timeline.  From there, it would only flow further and further from the real timeline.... unless we suggest that it just jumps off the True timeline from time to time... that's harder to defend though.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This doesn't show there was a war in heaven prior to Adam and Eve.

Again - Enoch and Gen 6 is the only place I know where it's mentioned and it's not Lucifer, Satan or the prosecutor angel.

NT references do not help. Only the OT can establish the basis for the war in heaven and fallen angels. Writing about either a future event as in predictions of such war as in Revelation is unfounded conjecture. If the Hebrew - Jews - Israelites made no mention of such a war or a falling then where is the basis?

Nice that the writer of Isaiah noticed the planet Venus, however it only shows they were similar to others thinking celestrial bodies and stars were angels and/or gods.

And their ignorance that Venus was a planet not a star does not help either. The writer prophet should have known that Venus was a planet not a fallen angel if he was inspired by the god. A falling star also is not indicative of much knowledge (a star falling is a meteor not a star - stars don't fall) so the Jesus doesn't show much knowledge of the Universe either.

We will get to Ezekiel soon. He had many issues such as - his predicted short term life expectancy for Egypt, see chap 29 and 30. He prophesied that King Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Egypt - didn't happen. He seemed to be on hallucinagens too - or was schizophrenic. He was not being taken seriously even then, see chap 33:30-33 where he says he would eventually be shown to be a prophet.  His visions to me suggest either halluncingenic trips or mentally unstable. I have personally met these type of people and they really see visions that they believe are real. Usually medications help out though Ezekial had no such access in his time period. More on this failed prophet when we get to his book.

It shows that the idea that angels were kicked out of heaven fairly common knowledge.  In poetic licence as used in the scriptures referenced from the OT, they use terminology that suggests an understanding of angels falling out of heaven.  Why else would they write it in the way they did?

I get your reference to Venus, but then that would mean that the writer witnessed Satan rising back up... which is not congruent with what is written.  The meteor idea fits, but why say that Satan was one of those stars?  Why not just say that it's angels coming down to Earth to check up on us or to do missions for God?  That would make more sense if they were coming up with their own ideas.  

Ezekiel might be an interesting topic, we'll see where that takes us.

There is no universal interpretation of Isaiah 14:3-23 by theologians. Taking Isaiah 14:12 out of context leads one to consider only Satan/Lucifer, however in context it is a rant against Babylon. The writer is discussing the king of Babylon from verse 3 and continues throughout chap 14. Verse 14 is a comparison of the king to the god(s) (depending on which one considers to be the "most high&quotEye-wink. Verse 16 is specifically calling him a man "Is this the man that made the earth to tremble that did shake kingdoms?" In no way is this rant about Satan/Lucifer as there is no tradition where that character was ever a man in the OT.

 

 

the thing with interpreting scripture is the basis of comparison came from something.  They didn't just pull that description out of the blue. 

So where did the basis of comparison come from? I don't see Satan in these verses, why do you and what is the basis?

Many things are pulled out of the blue, why not this?

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Ahab part 6 1 Kings 22 & 2 Chronicles 18
It begins claiming 3 years passed with no war between Syria (Damascus) and Ahab (Samaria). That is likely as they were allied together as the 12 kings who stood against Shalmanser III of Assyria. According to the Black Obelisk several times Shalmanser III went on booty trips to Syria-Palestine aka Hatti.


(54-62) In the sixth year of my reign, I drew near to the cities on the banks of the Balih. They slew Giammu, governor of their cities. I entered Til-Mâr-ahi. The Euphrates I crossed at it flood. I received gifts from all the kings of Hatti. At that time Hadad-ezer of Aram, Irhuleni the Hamathite, together with the kings of Hatti and the seacoast, relied on each other's strength and came out against me to make battle and war. At the command of Assur, the great lor, my lord, I fought with them, I accomplished their defeat. I took from them their chariots, their cavalry, and their weapons of war. I slew 20,500 of their warriors with the sword.


And then:
(87-89) In the eleventh year of my reign, I crossed the euphrates for the ninth time. I captured countless cities. I descended upon cities of the land of Hamath. I captured 89 cities. Hadad-ezer of Aram and twelve kings of the land of Hatti stood by each other. I was successful in overthrowing them.


These allied adventures and defense against documented invasions by Assyrian King Shalmanser III are not mentioned at all in Kings or Chronicles. So with this in mind let's look at this chapter's story.


Supposedly the king of Jerusalem  aka the city state of Judah went to Ahab the king of the city state of Samaria around the time of Shalmanser's invasions. Ahab was claiming Ramoth belonged to Samaria but was taken by Aram Damascus aka Hadadezer. So the king of Samaria gathered together 400 prophets to decide if they should go against Ramoth in battle. After king Jehoshaphat is there a prophet we missed. Yes Ahab said there is. He's Micaiah son of Imlah he wasn't invited as all he does is prophesy evil concerning me.


So Ahab had Micaiah summoned. So they sat on their thrones by a gate to Samaria with all the prophets awaiting him. One called Zedekiah made horns of iron claiming with these you will push the Syrians out until you have destroyed them. All of the con-men shamans I mean prophets agreed. Micaiah shows up and true to Ahab's claim made a scathing less than kind prophecy in his regard.
He indicates that yes they will prosper against Syria. However, he sees the people of Samaria leaderless after. He says that he saw the god on his throne and was asked, who will go to Ahab to persuade him to go against Ramoth so he will die there? Micaiah volunteers. How? I will go in regard to the adventure he proposes. The god indicates he will make all of the prophets lie to Ahab in regard to his success. Ahab's man Zedekiah orders Micaiah to be taken to prison and fed bread & water until after the battle.


Why this is not true is Assyria was invading at the time, the battle of Qarqar dates to 853 BCE when this is supposedly going on between Damascus and Samaria. They were allies at the time against Assyria, mentioned by Shalmanser III as such.


King Ahab and King Jehoshaphat took their forces to Ramoth and Ahab supposedly disguised himself but told the King of Judah/Jerusalem to wear his kingly robes. The Syrian king told his captains to only fight against the king of Samaria. When they saw Jehoshaphat they mistook him for Ahab but then realized it wasn’t him.


Meanwhile, “ a certain man drew a bow and smote the king of Israel (Samaria) between the joints of the harness..” He told the driver of his chariot to take him from the battle as he was wounded. As the day progressed the king stayed in his chariot but died before evening as he bled out in the chariot. As the Sun went down a call went out for all to return to their cities.  Ahab was buried in Samaria. The chariot was washed and the blood was licked by dogs.


Jehosaphat began his reign during Ahab’s 4th year, he followed in the ways of Asa his father and followed that which was right in the eyes of the god. However, the people still worshiped in the high places as before. He ordered 10 ships built to go to Ophir for gold. However, they didn’t get there as the ships were destroyed or damaged at Eziongeber. King Ahaziah Ahab’s son wished to participate in the mentioned voyage but was not allowed.


Ahaziah being Ahab’s son of course did EITSOL and worshiped Ba’al provoking the god to anger.


2 Chronicles does not have dogs licking Ahab’s blood when the chariot is washed nor some of the other narrative. As to the narrative of the battle, in the 1 Kings account requires the Syrian captains to have communicated what happened in the battle to the writer of 1 Kings – very unlikely. The 2 Chronicle account indicates “the Lord helped him; and God moved them to depart”. That way, no post battle interview required by the scribe writing 2 Chronicles unlike 1 Kings.

Since Assyria was continuing it's tribute ventures throughout Shalmanser's reign the whole storytale is unlikely as described in both OT books. Eventually in a later reign the king of Samaria gives tribute to Shalmanser as documented on the Obelisk (not Ahab). As to the story, clearly the writer of kings had issues with Ahab or heard stories from someone that did. Assyria shows otherwise in the power Ahab presented in battle. Archeology does as well according to Finkelstein. Finkelstein claims the great palaces and stables in Megiddo are Ahab's not a mythical Solomon.

As to what is really the truth, no one can know.

it's hard to tell at this point just from reading these stories.  Again, here we need to connect it to what we already know about scripture and the actual connections to history. 

Note - these stories in regard to Ahab and Samaria do not connect to history, they are in opposition. Ahab was an ally of Damascus against Shalmanser III at the point where the OT claims he was at war with Damascus.

caposkia wrote:

The confirmed timeline from earlier only continues.

What you claim to be confirmed is not so, only a possibility. There are too many issues to do that. Issues with who controlled Palestine-Syria, Egypt issues, Exodus issues, places that were not as claimed in Palestine, Edom, Jericho, Ai and more.

caposkia wrote:

if we consider this part of it to be false, then we need to figure out where the timeline ceased to be truth and became the false timeline.  From there, it would only flow further and further from the real timeline....

You claim it's based in reality, though nothing supports it other than the storytale. Issues remain on the whole. If a storytale was created then the departure from the timeline would be far enough in the past that no one in the period where it was created would much question it. If created sometime in the 500 to 600 BCE timeframe none of the timeline would likely be accurate. See Finkelstein and Docker for their reasoning on this. Also our fellow poster Anonymouse's website where he suggests it was done in the 2nd century BCE.

caposkia wrote:

unless we suggest that it just jumps off the True timeline from time to time... that's harder to defend though.

If a storytale created hundreds of years from the date of the story, it would not need to stay on a timeline at all. Its not like there were university professors specializes in ancient history were analyzing them until far later. People were conned by many false manuscripts, read some of the books by Bart Ehrman for examples. There were books circulating such as the Books of Adam and Eve and even Enoch which were not written by the characters, though many considered them to be,

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:So

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So where did the basis of comparison come from? I don't see Satan in these verses, why do you and what is the basis?

Many things are pulled out of the blue, why not this?

IN context with the rest of scripture.  The author intentionally used exact discriptions from other writings used to describe Satan.  IT was a parallel that the author knew the readers would pick up on. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Note - these stories in regard to Ahab and Samaria do not connect to history, they are in opposition. Ahab was an ally of Damascus against Shalmanser III at the point where the OT claims he was at war with Damascus.

Were they ever in opposition?  Are we taking into consideration author descriptions of what was current rather than what had been during the occurance of the story?  In a quick search it seems that they originally were allies, but then fought over land East of the Jordan where Ahab died.   Again, we need to take into consideration everything the author knows and where their knowledge is limited... here likely is exact dating and location names.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

The confirmed timeline from earlier only continues.

What you claim to be confirmed is not so, only a possibility. There are too many issues to do that. Issues with who controlled Palestine-Syria, Egypt issues, Exodus issues, places that were not as claimed in Palestine, Edom, Jericho, Ai and more.

I thought we had clarified those issues with discrpencies to when the story was written and not so much exactly when it happened?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You claim it's based in reality, though nothing supports it other than the storytale. Issues remain on the whole. If a storytale was created then the departure from the timeline would be far enough in the past that no one in the period where it was created would much question it. If created sometime in the 500 to 600 BCE timeframe none of the timeline would likely be accurate. See Finkelstein and Docker for their reasoning on this. Also our fellow poster Anonymouse's website where he suggests it was done in the 2nd century BCE.

That's basically it... it was written usually hundreds of years later... for them, it woudl have been far enough in teh past to not have questioned it.  Granted today we need ti to be pretty much thousands of years in the past to not fully question it, but we have all kinds of resources to help us come to that conclusion.  Back then more than half the population in any given community likely couldn't even read.  There's really no reason why even few would have questioned it.  The NT is all about this. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If a storytale created hundreds of years from the date of the story, it would not need to stay on a timeline at all. Its not like there were university professors specializes in ancient history were analyzing them until far later. People were conned by many false manuscripts, read some of the books by Bart Ehrman for examples. There were books circulating such as the Books of Adam and Eve and even Enoch which were not written by the characters, though many considered them to be,

 

They were conned many times... however, the Bible gave a history of a very specific and elite King level bloodline.  It's not like it was some random family that no one knew.  Most people knew of at least someone from that blood line.  Considering the value people put in that time on their family history, don't you think someone woudl have spoken up if it were not true?


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So where did the basis of comparison come from? I don't see Satan in these verses, why do you and what is the basis?

Many things are pulled out of the blue, why not this?

IN context with the rest of scripture.  The author intentionally used exact discriptions from other writings used to describe Satan.  IT was a parallel that the author knew the readers would pick up on. 

Which scriptures do you mean. Please indicate which book, chapter and verse please.

 

Sorry for the long delay in responding. 1st was holiday family stuff. Then I had the flu for about 10 days, worst I've had in 20 years.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So where did the basis of comparison come from? I don't see Satan in these verses, why do you and what is the basis?

Many things are pulled out of the blue, why not this?

IN context with the rest of scripture.  The author intentionally used exact discriptions from other writings used to describe Satan.  IT was a parallel that the author knew the readers would pick up on. 

Which scriptures do you mean. Please indicate which book, chapter and verse please.

 

Sorry for the long delay in responding. 1st was holiday family stuff. Then I had the flu for about 10 days, worst I've had in 20 years.

 

Wow.  i hope you're feeling better now.  don't worry about the delay, I've been quite busy as well.  I know your intentions are good and never worry about getting a response from you.  10 day flu!!  Yikes.  I'm sorry to hear that.

Anyway, after checking cross references within that Isaiah 14, it seems the 2 main books that a lot of random texts were coming from Ezekiel and Daniel.  Not referencing specific passages because they were taking bits and pieces from all over each book.  Consider too though the book of Job for their understanding of Satan be it that Job is considered to be the oldest "story" in the Bible and the writers would have known of that story.  The Satan references were not from the 2 books mentioned above.   Though i haven't found them, I think there are indirect references to Job.  Consider the metaphor of 11:17 where the statement is not a complement considering the context.   There's a lot of NT referencing which leads me to believe I was confusing NT referencing to OT referencing considering direct quotes about Satan... however, the point that they're using references from what they know still stands using the references mentioned here, just no direct quotes. 

also to add further the point of them referencing to what they know and not pulling things out of the air, the Babylonian religion was an astral religion closely related to Canaanite practices.  The Babylonians worshiped gods based on the celestial bodies.  Isaiah 14 discussed the morning star (Venus) and dawn suggesting a specific God they follow and how that god will fail.  Looking to the NT for a second, Lucifer literally means bringer of light and Satan is said to be one who disguises himself as an angel of light. 2 Cor. 11:14.  Kind of like the Babylonian god.   This is why I would see Satan here.   Does that help?  There are a lot more cross references that could be discussed and I could write all the references in Daniel and Ezekiel, but it'd likely be easier just to read the books, for Ezekiel chapters 9-15 be it that it is a longer book.  There are references beyond that as well. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So where did the basis of comparison come from? I don't see Satan in these verses, why do you and what is the basis?

Many things are pulled out of the blue, why not this?

IN context with the rest of scripture.  The author intentionally used exact discriptions from other writings used to describe Satan.  IT was a parallel that the author knew the readers would pick up on. 

Which scriptures do you mean. Please indicate which book, chapter and verse please.

 

Sorry for the long delay in responding. 1st was holiday family stuff. Then I had the flu for about 10 days, worst I've had in 20 years.

 

Wow.  i hope you're feeling better now.  don't worry about the delay, I've been quite busy as well.  I know your intentions are good and never worry about getting a response from you.  10 day flu!!  Yikes.  I'm sorry to hear that.

Anyway, after checking cross references within that Isaiah 14, it seems the 2 main books that a lot of random texts were coming from Ezekiel and Daniel.  Not referencing specific passages because they were taking bits and pieces from all over each book.  Consider too though the book of Job for their understanding of Satan be it that Job is considered to be the oldest "story" in the Bible and the writers would have known of that story.  The Satan references were not from the 2 books mentioned above.   Though i haven't found them, I think there are indirect references to Job.  Consider the metaphor of 11:17 where the statement is not a complement considering the context.   There's a lot of NT referencing which leads me to believe I was confusing NT referencing to OT referencing considering direct quotes about Satan... however, the point that they're using references from what they know still stands using the references mentioned here, just no direct quotes. 

also to add further the point of them referencing to what they know and not pulling things out of the air, the Babylonian religion was an astral religion closely related to Canaanite practices.  The Babylonians worshiped gods based on the celestial bodies.  Isaiah 14 discussed the morning star (Venus) and dawn suggesting a specific God they follow and how that god will fail.  Looking to the NT for a second, Lucifer literally means bringer of light and Satan is said to be one who disguises himself as an angel of light. 2 Cor. 11:14.  Kind of like the Babylonian god.   This is why I would see Satan here.   Does that help?  There are a lot more cross references that could be discussed and I could write all the references in Daniel and Ezekiel, but it'd likely be easier just to read the books, for Ezekiel chapters 9-15 be it that it is a longer book.  There are references beyond that as well. 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Sorry for the long interuption

 I've been busier than ever for the last few months. I do taxes for one of the major franchises and this year I'm the office manager.

I have "rookies" working for me and have had too many hours of work. I will get back to this thread after April 15th. Thanks for your patience.

 

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.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 I've been busier than ever for the last few months. I do taxes for one of the major franchises and this year I'm the office manager.

I have "rookies" working for me and have had too many hours of work. I will get back to this thread after April 15th. Thanks for your patience.

 

PJTS

No problem PJTS... I've been unable to log onto the threads for the past 6 weeks anyway.  I've also a new member to my family and so have been quite busy as well.  Life comes first.  We'll always have time to pop on and discuss our continued historical walkthrough.  


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Sorry for the long interuption

 So, I posted this before the server went down.

I am the office manager at one of the big tax preparer companies this year and have had no time to post. Sorry about that, will get my life back on April 16th.

 

Thanks for your patience,

 

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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 I've been busier than ever for the last few months. I do taxes for one of the major franchises and this year I'm the office manager.

I have "rookies" working for me and have had too many hours of work. I will get back to this thread after April 15th. Thanks for your patience.

 

PJTS

No problem PJTS... I've been unable to log onto the threads for the past 6 weeks anyway.  I've also a new member to my family and so have been quite busy as well.  Life comes first.  We'll always have time to pop on and discuss our continued historical walkthrough.  

Congrats on your new member!! Almost recovered from the stress of tax season. Hard to get back into many things I put off for last 6 months. Will get started very soon. Also I will start hanging around RRS more and commenting.

Y'all take care.

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.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Congrats on your new member!! Almost recovered from the stress of tax season. Hard to get back into many things I put off for last 6 months. Will get started very soon. Also I will start hanging around RRS more and commenting.

Y'all take care.

PJTS

 

thanks.  It is tough getting back into things... definitely take your time.   We'll get back to it when you're ready


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Congrats on your new member!! Almost recovered from the stress of tax season. Hard to get back into many things I put off for last 6 months. Will get started very soon. Also I will start hanging around RRS more and commenting.

Y'all take care.

PJTS

 

thanks.  It is tough getting back into things... definitely take your time.   We'll get back to it when you're ready

The forum is mostly quiet this time of year it seems. Nothing extraordiary going on. Working on the next post for this will get it up shortly.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 724
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
 COME ON you guys! Any

 COME ON you guys! Any dummy knows the OT and NT are total crap! Whether you call it allegorical fiction or mythology it's all NONSENSE!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
JesusNEVERexisted

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

 COME ON you guys! Any dummy knows the OT and NT are total crap! Whether you call it allegorical fiction or mythology it's all NONSENSE!

well now that doesn't show a whole lotta research... neither does your name for that matter be it that historians agree that Jesus Christ was an actual person in history.

Beyond that, This particular thread we are trying to keep on a consistent flow with a historical walkthrough.  We both agreed that we're not trying to change each others minds here and are literally trying to look at all the historocity that revolves around the OT and NT.  We've had many disagreements along the way, but are sticking to the progression of the thread.  If you have some constructive and well researched input regarding the place we left of a few posts back, I welcome it.  Thank you for checking it out.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Actually a good number of

Actually a good number of historians do not agree there was ever a jesus, and that number increases every year as it becomes more socially acceptable to say so. There is absolutely no contemporary evidence for jesus. He is the single most mythological figure of today that is accepted as being a real person, but there's no proof he existed at all. The earliest writings mentioning him were written decades after he died. In time, the trend will become the opposite of what it is now, and the majority of historians will doubt he existed.

Beyond that, I don't recommend attempting to debate him. All his posts over the years suggest to me that he's a gnostic atheist. A discussion between the two of you would be roughly equivalent to two walls talking to each other. Might be amusing to watch for a little while, but it would quickly degenerate and became quite boring.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.