Was Moses a Myth?
Offline Archeologists have gradually concluded that much of the early history of the Bible is purely mythical. The Patriarchs are mythical, the Exodus is mythical, and the Conquest is mythical. The main debate nowadays is over how historical the Biblical accounts of Kings David and Solomon are. But the debate over mythicism is not likely to proceed much past them, since the Dual Monarchy period is reasonably well-supported from outside sources, even though the Biblical account of that period is rather editorialized.
The Exodus and the Conquest not having happened as described in the Bible has a certain consequence that archeologists have not talked much about.
That Moses was largely or entirely mythical.
That is because much of his biography, if not most of it, is tied to events that never happened, meaning that a historical Moses could not have confronted the Pharaoh and led the Israelites to freedom. So if there was a historical Moses, was he some now-obscure local leader who got embellished by generations of mythmakers?
That would also explain why Moses's burial site has never been found; even Deuteronomy's writer(s) did not claim to know where it was ("He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is.", Deut. 34:6).
Those are all lies, man. And I will now prove it.
The dean of modern Archaeology, William F. Albright, who is considered to be the greatest archaologist of modern times, has this to say about the archaeology and historicity of the Bible:
"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition"(ARI, 176).
Even usually liberal sources are now admitting the overall historical reliability of the Old Testament. Excerpting from his book Is the Bible True? Jeffrey Sheler notes for U.S. News & World Report:
"In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old Testament -- corroberating key portions of Israel's patriarchs, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and the life and times of Jesus" (Oct. 25, 1999, 52).
Now I will address each of your claims:
You said "the patriarchs are mythical."
First, it is important for me to point out that you cited no evidence supporting your claims. Were the patriarchs mythical? Absolutely not!
1. William Fr. Albright, the worlds greatest Bible archceologist stated:
"Thanks to modern research we now recognize its [the Bible's] substantial historicity. The narratives of the PATRIARCHS, of Moses and the exodus, of the conquest of Caanon, of the judges, the monarchy, exile and restoration, have ALL been confirmed and illustrated to an extent that I should have thought impossible forty years ago" (CC, 1329).
2. Law codes have been found from the time of Abraham that show why the Patriarch would have been hesitant to throw Hagar out of his camp, for he was legally bound to support her. Only when a higher law came from God was Abraham willing to expel her.
3. The discovery of the MARI LETTERS (thousands of tablets discovered in Syria -- 1834 -- that depict life from about the time of the patriarchs in Genesis) reveals such names as ABAM-RAM (ABRAHAM), JACOB-EL, and Benjamites. Though these do not refer to the biblical people, they atleast show that the names were in use.
4. These records also support Gen.14, where five kings fought against four kings.
5. As to patriarchal history, Albright said:
"Aside from a few die-hards among older scholars, there is scarcely a single biblical historian who has not been impressed by the rapid accumulation of data supporting the substantial history of PATRIARCHAL tradition" (Albright, BP,1).
6. Scholar Walter Kaiser adds:
"The amount of epigraphic material for this period of history is staggering. Much of this material awaits further study and publication. Meanwhile, an increasing high degree of probability and corroberating evidence continues to mount up from the external evidence to such a point that the case for genuineness of the PATRIARCHAL stories is strong indeed" (OTDATR, 96).
You said: "The exodus is mythical."
Wrong again.
1. See the quotes I gave above.
2. There are archaeological findings supporting the exodus event. I can't get into this now. But I recommend you read "Archaeology and the Old Testament, by Anders. He deals specifically with the exodus data.
You said: "The conquest is mythical."
Wrong agan. Read Rocks, Relics, and Biblical Reliability, by Clifford; Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis, by Wiseman.
MOSES
You also argue that Moses was mythical.
1. Albright:
"The contents of our Pentateuch are, in general, very much older than the date at which they were finally edited; new discoveries continue to confirm the historical accuracy or the literary antiquity of detail after detail.......sheer hypercriticism to deny the substantially MOSAIC character of the Pentateuchal tradition" (AP, 225).
MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY
The late date many critics assign to Deuteronomy -- 7th century B.C. -- has been thoroghly discredited by the excellent scholarship of Meredith Kline in his landmark work on The Treaty of the Great King (see also Gleason Archer, SOTI, 253-62), in which he demonstrated that Deuteronomy follows the typical suzerainty treaty of the Hittities in the 2nd millenium century B.C. --the very time in which tradition informs us Moses wrote Deuteronomy.
SUMMARY ANC CONCLUSION
This was a very brief treatement/refutation on my part due to time constraints.
Most of the claims from the author of this thread are based on arguments from silence and ignorance.
Note, no evidence has ever been produced to disprove the accounts in the Old Testament.
William F. Albright started his lifes work as a skeptic. He actually set out to debunk the Bible. But after researching tremendous amounts of evidence in favor of the historicity of the Old Testament, he came to believe that the Old Testament is historically accurate.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
Ignore Apotheon's ramblings, please. Aside from the outdated scholarship he quote-mined from, modern scholarship is unanomous that the Old Testament is midrash. Concult the following sources which not only refute the old hounds like Albright (who has been dead for some decades now) and Noth, Alt and Wellhausen.
Thomas L. Thompson, The Messiah Myth ; The Early History of the Israelite People; The Mythic Past; The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives; Niels Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition; Miller-Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah; Phillip Davies, In Search of "Ancient Israel"; Matthews-Benjamin, Old Testament Paralles: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East; James Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement; Giovanni Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel; Myth and History in the Bible; John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History; Gosta Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine; Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (To name a few)
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
Rook, with all do respect, your bibliography is PRE-ARCHAEOLOGICAL. Meaning, your authors were not familiar with the modern discoveries of archaeology, and none of them can hold a candle to the scholarly erudition of William Fr. Albright. And your authors were liberals with an agenda and axe to grind in the first place.
MODERN ARCHAEOLOGY CONFIRMS THE HISTORICITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Archer, "Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties"
Livingston, "Redating the Exodus" in "Biblical Archaeological Review"
Blaiklock, "The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology"
Custance, "The Flood: Local or Global"
Gluek, "Rivers in the Desert"
Kaiser, "The Old Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?"
Kitchen, "Ancient Orient and the Old Testament"
Kline, "The Treaty of the Great King"
Lubenow, "Bones of Contention"
Pritchard, "Ancient Near East Texts"
Reinwinkle, "The Flood"
Sheler, "Is the Bible True?"
Whitcomb, "Darius the Mede"
Whitcomb, "The Genesis Flood"
Wilson, "Rocks, Relics, and Biblical Reliability"
Wiseman, "Ancient Records and the Structures of Genesis"
Yamauchi, "The Stones and the Scriptures"
Young, "The Biblical Flood"
Anders, "Old Testament Archaeology"
Anders, "New Testament Archaeology"
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
Wait a minute! After looking closer at your bibliography, I don't think those books are disputing Old Testament history. If you want to make an argument, make an argument. Just appealing to some obscure writers doesn;t prove anything. I made several arguments in my first post, and they remain unrefuted.
Telling people to just ignore me, is equal to telling them to keep their minds closed. Do you want people to think for themselves, or do you want to program them how to think?
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
Did you even read my Bibliography? (Obviously not, because you had to stop and correct yourself after your initial post - you've been caught in the act of ignoring posts! So you don't read, and pretend you do, and then lie about it!)
Every one of those authors published within the last ten years with the exception of Alhstrom. Davies, Thompson, Van Seeters et al are all not only scholars who have published collectively thousands of articles in recent journals, but all are familiar with archeaological finds. You have no concept or grasp of scholarship Apotheon, you simply go to peoples websites and copy-paste things into a text box and post. This is apparent in that you used two of my list (which you previously called 'pre-achaeology' - a term which does not exist..you just made it up) and put them in your list. Pritchard does not agree with you, by the way.
Finally, all of those books listed with the exception of one, is a monograph. In fact, two are texts books. All of those books refute the originality and historicity of the Old Testament, specificallt Thompson, Van Seters, Davies, Garbini, and Lemche. I am personal friends with some of the scholars. Get your facts straight you know-nothing, sorry excuse for a human being. Try reading a book for once.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
Damn, Rook beat me to it, but I'll post anyway.
First off, as to your claim that Rook's bibliography is "PRE-AECHAEOLOGICAL" and his authors were not familiar with the modern discoveries of archaeology, Mr. William F. Albright has been dead for over 36 years. On the other hand, Mr. Thompson is still kicking, and published his book "The Messiah Myth" in 2005. That doesn't lend much creedence to your argument that Mr. Thompson is unaware of modern archaeological discoveries. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah by J. Maxwell Miller and John Haralson Hayes was published in 1986. Not overly recent, but still about 15 years after Albright's death. In Search of "Ancient Israel" gives an original publication year of 1992, Old Testament Paralles: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East was published in 1991. I'm being lazy and not checking the other books Rook listed, but it's apparent that while there may have been archaeological discoveries since all of these books were published, they would be more 'modern' than the data and information available to Albright.
Now, to your claims. I'm nowhere near the logician Hamby is, nor am I a scientist like Deludedgod, nor am I the level of scholar Rook is. But frankly, I need the practice in debate. Hamby, or anyone really, please feel free to point out any fallicies I include or criticize/critique any of this. I can promise that I'll take no offense whatsoever.
"the patriarchs are mythical".
1. Looks like quote mining to me. I readily admit that I've never read anything written by Albright, and am unable to locate the source of the quote online, but given that Albright could only have written this before September 1971, there's a good chance that more detailed archaeology exists on the subject today, and an even better chance that such evidence is included in one or more of the books Rook mentioned (none of which I've read either so feel free to blast me on this one).
2. The discovery of law codes from the correct time period do not prove the existence of any of the Patriarchs, only that there were law codes.
3. The common usage of names similar to, or exactly like, the names of the Patriarchs do not prove that they, themselves, as represented in the Bible existed, only that those names were common at that time.
4. While the Mari Letters may (or may not, I'll need more research on this) contain evidence that five kings fought against four kings, this does not prove that Abram rescued Lot, only that there was a multi-kingdom conflict.
5. Confirming tradition does not confirm the existence of actual people, only the tradition.
6. Walter Kaiser is not only a scholar and PhD, but is "an influential evangelical Old Testament scholar". Quoting a non-biased source would be helpful.
"The exodus is mythical".
1. See above.
2. I am unable to locate a book called "Archaeology and the Old Testament" by anyone named Anders, but did manage to locate a few of that or similar title by James Pritchard, R. K. Harrison, Alfred Hoerth, and H. J. Dukinfield Astley. Can you clarify which one I should look up?
"The conquest is mythical".
I'm unfamiliar with both those titles, but will happily spend a day at the library perusing them.
"Moses was mythical".
The Treaty of the Great King was published in 1963, which makes me somewhat doubt that the content is aware of, or based on, modern archaeological discoveries. However, in good faith I'll add this to my list and see what it has to say.
Summary and Conclusion
There may be no evidence to disprove the Old Testament, but more importantly there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support it. The burden of proof is on you, my friend, claiming that something exists (or did exist, in this case), not lpetrich.
Albright was undoubtedly a prolific author, and did inspire a generation of archaeologists. However, I can find no credible source to state that he started life as a skeptic. In fact, most seem to agree that he started life as an evangelical Methodist and continued to be so throughout his life. There also seems to be a general consensus that Albright's central theses have been disproven and the field of "biblical archaeology" is generally discredited. If you can provide a reliable source to indicate that Albright was a skeptic, I'd be happy to have it. I'm also curious if you can provide sources claiming to prove the historicity of Moses, the Exodus, and the Patriarchs that are from a non-religious source. And by a non-religious source, I don't mean something published in a non-religious periodical or book by a religious person, I mean something published by a scholar or archaeologist that does not have "evangelical", ministry, or seminary school in their background.
The guy clearly just makes up whatever helps him sleep at night....I really think these sort of unrepentant, irresponsible liars just need to be banned from the site.... refuting blatant lies is a waste of our time.
Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates
: Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind, Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use La
Rook, if the term "pre-archaeology" doesn't exist, why did you just use it? The two or so individuals in your list that correponded to my list is because you just posted a bunch of books without even knowing the contents or authors. The way your list appears, proves you just copied and pasted it from some obscure (most likely atheist) website. Nothing in your selective list controverts any of the arguments in favor of biblical archaeology. Nothing in your list refutes all the biblical archaeology of modern times.
The term "pre-archaeology" refers to the time before the great archaeological studies. For example, before the disciveries at Qumron in 1947.
Most, if not all the arguments against biblical archaeology, come from people who have not studied the material after these finds. They are "pre-archaeological." and most, if not all, of those people are atheistic liberals with an axe to grind anyway. They are not objective, their methodology is governed by their bias and agenda to lie and deceive gullable and ignorant people.
William Albright was NOT a Christian when he set out to debunk the Bible. His parents were Methodists. But to assume he was a Methodist because daddy was a Mathodist, is to engage in the Post Hoc fallacy.
I will be happy to supply you with a non-religious archaeologist, if you in tern provide me with a non-atheist archaeologist.
If you are going to make the claim that my sources are invalid BECAUSE of scholars behind them, then logically yours are also invalid. My scholars Willam Albright, Sir William Ramsey, ect, actually set out to debunk the Bible.
What we see here, is no refutation of any of the arguments I gave. Instead, we see the typical atheistic red herring/smokescreen and adhominem.
Once a skeptic, himself, Dr. William F. Albright wrote: "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of numerous details." (W.F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible p. 127).
As an agnostic, Sir William Ramsay became an Archaeologist to discredit the New Testament. But in his extensive archaeological digs and research he found overwhelming evidence that compelled faith in the New Testament. He became its strongest defender. (Sir William Ramsay, Archaeologist and New Testament Scholar, p. 28.).
CONCLUSION
The rocks cry out in support of the historicity and authenticity of the Bible. No archaeological find has ever refuted a biblical claim, and thousands of finds have confirmed in general and in detail the biblical picture.
Noted Archaeologist Nelson Glueck noted:
"As a matter of fact... it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Sources of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible" (RD, 31).
For the Old Testament alone, archaeological confirmations have spanned the Creation record (Gen.1-2), in the Ebla Tablets, including Noah's flood, the Tower of Babel (Gen.110, patriarchael history (Gen.12-50), Sodom and Gommorah, the fall of Jericho (Josh 6), King David, and the Assyrian Captivity (Isa. 20).
In the New Testament book of Acts alone there are literally hundreds of archaeological confirmations of innumberable details of the narration.
Noted Roman historian A.N. Sherwin-White said of Luke's writings:
"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwelming... Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted" (RSRL, 189).
The testimony of science demonstrates biblical archaeology
of the schrolls that transmit it
the scribes who wrote it
the supernatural that confirms it
the structure that manifests it
the stones that support it
the Savior who verified it
the Spirit that witnesses to it
and the saved who have been transformed by it (the Bible).
These combined testimonies con-firm that the Bible is what it claims to be -- the divinely inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
"Let us let whoever has committed no sin throw the first stone."
Apotheon, William Albright is not a god; he isn't even close to one, and his successors have good reason to believe that his approach was fundamentally flawed. He tended to find some ruin and ask himself "Does that fit the Bible?" More recent archeologists have concerned themselves with trying to date garbage dumps and the like to find out when places were inhabited, and they find out that the Bible's early history does not fit.
Also, this claim that William Albright was once a skeptic who tried to disprove the Bible is a classic conversion brag, alongside "I was once an atheist; I hated God." Don't the fundies have any originality?
BIBLE ARCHAEOLOGY- Free, Joseph P., and Howard F. Vos. Archaeology and Bible History. Rev. and exp. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992.
- McRay, John. Archaeology & the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991.
- Thompson, J.A. The Bible and Archaeology. Rev. 3d ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987.
- Luke, the Historian. Melbourne: The Australian Institute of Archaeology, 1954.
- Wilson, Clifford A. Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977.
- Yamauchi, Edwin. The Stones and the Scriptures. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.
- Bruce, F.F. Jesus & Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974.
- Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.
- McDowell, Josh, and Bill Wilson. He Walked Among Us. San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, 1988.
- Archer, Gleason. Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Rev. ed. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1974.
- Barnett, Paul. Is the Testament Reliable? A Look at the Historical Evidence. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986.
- Blomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987.
- Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: are They Reliable?. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.
- Geisler, Norman, and William Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and exp. ed. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1986.
- Harrison, Roland Kenneth. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969.
- McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Arrowhead Springs, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972.
- Montgomery, John. History and Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1965.
- Where is History Going? Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, 1972.
- Sherwin-White, A.N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978.
THE HISTORICITY OF CHRIST:
THE HISTORICITY OF THE BIBLE
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
I have a few more points worthy of note:
1. Rook never once quoted from any of his sources anything that directly contradicts my own quotes.
2. Rook never quoted anything from any of his sources. His argument would have more merit of he actually quoted from one of his sources something that directly or indirectly goes against one of my several quotes in favor of biblical archeology.
3.. No archaeological discovery has ever disproved anything in the Bible. This is very imporant for the skeptics to know.
P.S. My last list of books is from apologeticsinfo.org. I forgot to mention this in that post.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
EVERY one of those books are written to refute your claim, and the claims of Albright 36 years ago. You keep dodging this point or ar just too stupid to get it.
Why waste my time, you don't read my posts anyway! And it would be pointless, as I'd have to quote whole chapters of books! Might as well just go to a library and read them! Again, this is evidence your intellectual laziness.
That's false. Again, read those books. Not only did ALBRIGHT doubt the historicity of the narratives in the Bible, but the only part he thought was historically accurate was the monarchy. This proves that YOU haven't even read Albright and are just quote mining from websites. You are such a liar, and it is starting to piss me off.
What about your other posts - I demand you start citing sources for every post you make or I will be forced to take some sort of action.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
Rook, I have to give you credit for having so much patience as a deconstructionist dealing with religious history.
It still doesnt amount to a hill of beans even if one could prove that a person or city existed when it comes to claims of magic.
Superman can not litterally fly in real life because we go to the movies and see him flying around the real city of New York.
Even if Rook would concede that every character in the bible was a real person, it still doesnt prove by any stretch that snakes or donkeys talk, or that the sun stopped dead in the sky, or that a disimbodied being with no reproductive organs got a 9 to 14 year old girl pregnant.
Rook is doing a fine job of schooling you. But even if you have it in your head that you are right about those events and people being real, you still have only one claim that ultimatly after all this convoluted attempt to justify beliving , all you have is "God did it".
I know what rigor mortis is and I know that dead bodies dont reconstitute themselves magicaly 3 days later. I know that it takes a sperm and and egg to make a human baby. You cant get around those facts, so insted of facing them you have deluded yourself into believing that because someone claimed the bible to be a history book, the magic must be real.
Now, insted of saying "I am right and god is real" to yourself. Take yourself outside your belief and look at what Rook is saying objectively. Look at it as an experiment. Pretend that you are an alien from another planet who has never heard of Christianity and that you have picked up the book for the first time.
It doesnt read like history. It reads like Marvel Comics. But you have fun trying to take on Rook.
Rook, keep up the great work.
It wasn't wishful thinking that that dragged humanity out of the caves, it was brave questioning and introspection.
That is demonstrably false. Check out the likes of The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. That book discusses the history -- and often the lack of history -- behind the Old Testament in VERY gory detail. Here is Wikipedia's summary of it.
So, Apotheon, I challenge you to read that book and tell us where Finkelstein and Silberman go wrong.
I wouldn't recommend Finkelstein, although they make some great points, I feel his book is still not as good as anything written by Lemche or Thompson. Thompson's book, "Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources" is destructive to everything he has to say. Thompson is the first person to truely write about and deconstruct the theories of Alt and Noth (two who influenced Albright) and further decontructs Albrights position on the monarchy, and the Jews as nomadic prior to the monarchy (what monarchy?). Thompson's experience in this field makes him among the top 10 experts today worldwide.
But it doesn't matter who you recommend, because Apotheon is too lazy to read the books himself, and he is too deceptive. So far he has not given us one original thought, or one honest answer. IT is dodge after dodge, and he just steals from websites and pastes info here when in fact he doesn't have the slightest clue what he is posting about. He probably didn't know Albright was dead until I brought it up. He certainly doesn't have a clue as to Albrights position was on the matter of historicity, nor does he have a clue that Albright had his doubts. He is just name dropping - something he got from somebody else who was just as clueless as he is.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
Something i think important, and certainly possible. The main mitigation against there having been an Exodus has always been the modern belief that "600.000 men besides women, children and animals" etc could have existed in the Sinai. We really are not certain how it was in those far off days, but we have a fair idea.
The point i wish to make is, that it was once pointed out to me, when I was in Israel, no less, that the word in the Torah "Eleph"(or elef) was exactly the same as the word 'Aleph"(or alef)
One meant "a thousand", and the other meant "a head" (of a family), therefore the "six-hundred-thousand" could easily have been "six-hundred- heads" of families.
in today's Hebrew the word "Aluf" denotes an Army General.
Of course it is.
Apotheon, no skeptic can take your comments seriously... modern scholarship is mainly Christian or at least from societies where Christianity is the dominant religion and yet they agree more with the skeptics than the fundies. The idea that archaeology hasn't disproved anything in the bible would have to mean that nothing in archaeology is at odds with the Genesis account , or Noah's flood!
Get real, your hyperbole is your undoing.
Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates
: Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind, Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use La
Rook, this is where I jump in and double team.
Lets just give the theist their character, even though we know they are wrong. But, lets just pretend that Moses existed.
What the myth lover doesn't seem to understand is that their "POOF" theory of a man magically waving his hand to part billions of gallons of water, is a steamy pile and a naked assertion, and all the theist has is "POOF" "God did it". They might as well believe that Harry Potter really can fly around on a broomstick.
Rook, I really do admire your patience with them. But in the end they still cant demonstrate HOW these things happen, all they have is a naked assertion of "who", which is no different than any other omni-max claim of any other deity.
My sky daddy preforms magic tricks. That is what they can't defend, even if we were to conceed that a person existed, it doesn't make hocus pocus real.
It wasn't wishful thinking that that dragged humanity out of the caves, it was brave questioning and introspection.
I prefer "lowperbole"
Just thought I'd add some levity to the thread.
It wasn't wishful thinking that that dragged humanity out of the caves, it was brave questioning and introspection.
"The main debate nowadays is over how historical the Biblical accounts of Kings David and Solomon are."
That's funny because I remember a time when King David was a myth all to himself.
archeology is not a strong attack on Christianity