Fitting the Old Testament into known ancient history
Offline The subject is the problem.
It you take the time to research the subject you will find dozens of people who have found anachronisms, contrary evidence, impossibilities, incongruities and other descriptions of problems with the OT narrative. Each of these people then proceed to "change" the narrative in light of the problem they have discovered.
What is wrong with that?
If one takes all the required changes together the OT does not fit at all. These "changes" to make things fit are mutually exclusive of each other.
Lets say there is a desire to reconcile Solomon with the constructions attributed to him. To do that he has to be moved forward a century in time. Taken by itself the believer sees no problem. In context it leaves a century long gap behind him and squeezes a century out of events after him. One cannot just "move" Solomon. One has to adjust the entire biblical timeline before and after Solomon.
The problem is the unfounded assumption that the OT does fit into real history.
The proper way to address the OT is to first establish the real history of region populated only by known peoples, nations, persons and events without the least consideration of anything which is found in the bible. After that one then asks if the OT can be fit into that knowledge without doing damage to that knowledge. The answer is a resounding no.
The problem with establishing a abiblical knowledge of the region is that there is no source which has not been contaminated by "bible knowledge" of the region. After reading your first dozen you will reasonably reject all of them because of the religious contamination. Should you find one or two you think are trustworthy you need only research their claims to be disappointed. Such research is not easy. Often it is as trivial as changing the sequence of events related in the OT but it takes such careful reading that the source may not realize what he has done.
So when referred to "scholarly" sources all one has to do is find one false assumption or false statement to reject the "scholar." It is guaranteed they all have something false in their recitation. How dare I reject them all because of such errors? Because taken in toto they all exclude each other because they make the mistake of assuming the OT does fit into ancient history. The only rational assumption is that it does not because we have so many hundreds of scholars all failing to make it fit with what is known without contradiction.
This is not limited to ancient history and archaeology. You may have heard it said that the OT is the most influential document in the Christian world. Christianity is based upon an emulation of the Roman empire and its pantheon in the form of saints rather than gods. It adopted many Greeks notions such as prohibitions against the mutilation of the body. Christianity comletely reimagined the Yahweh of the OT. The only reason the OT is remembered at all is that Christianity adopted it as inspired even though considered obsolete and completely superceded. The only reason Jews themselves are not rare and exotic visitors from the middle east is that Christianity did not outlaw the religion.
Manipulating underdog status did not begin with WWII. "You have always hated us" and "it is not our fault" have been refrains down through history. Nor is this manipulation unique to Jews. Try getting between Turks and Greeks on the subject of passed wrongs some day.
This manipulation extends beyond just social friction. "You are denying our history," is another claim even though they are the source of enough mutually exclusive rationalizations to lead to the negation of the entire OT. These are all forms of the juvenile "you owe me" assertion. (Adults learn to say US instead of ME.)
Be that as it may the OT is embedded in our culture. Totally ignoring it is extremely difficult. One thing is certain, reading anyone to learn how to "make sense" of the OT in terms of real history is a guaranteed waste of time as the more you read the sooner you will realize the scholar has his head up his arse. Lots of scholars, lots of heads, lots of arses, all different, all mutually exclusive.
I have posted some examples of these mutually exclusive attempts to fit the OT into real history. They have been received unevenly to say the least. I do not care really. Look into it yourself if you feel you have the time. I do warn you that finding one way to fit it in is only the beginning. If you are really interested you have to keep going.
There is a bottom line. Do not ever consider the OT as having anything whatsoever to do with real history because it cannot be reconciled with real history. Because of all the mutually exclusive reconciliations you will have to conclude real history is both arbitrary and capricious and not worth learning outside the bible. That is not rational. Of course believers cannot consider the world to be rational else they would not need belief to substitute for knowledge.
Being only 63 I freely admit I am a newbie at this. It took until some 7 years ago to begin to realize the OT had no connection at all to real history. The simplest explanation remains that it is a Book of Mormon or Dianetics or Koran creation out of vaguely understood information but most closely resembling a deliberate fabrication at one point in time just like the others. The Book of Mormon and Dianetics and the Koran are not identical so the OT need not be identical to any of them. Yet it is a fanciful creation just as they are. Fanciful as in both arbitrary and capricious with regard to real history.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
- Login to post comments
So are you asserting that there is no archeology that is not in some way tainted?
Sure, lots of it is and if you don't take that into account, then you can never know when a particular source has been tainted. Just for fun, try mentioning that jesus as myth idea around the “true believer” crowd. It will be a heartbeat before someone asserts that Josepheus was a real living eyewitness to god jr. Mind you that if you accept the “true believer” chronology even as a working hypothesis, Josepheus had not been born early enough for that to be true.
That being said, were not some parts of the ancient world engaged in decent record keeping? That and there will have been certain discoveries that at least suggest what might have been, such as the possibility of radioactive dating of some scrap of cloth or what not. Without that, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that there is an approximate century of variance between the building of the temple and the life of Solomon.
Just for grins, let me suggest that someone finds evidence of a largish campground in the general area of the OT. Sure, if that guy then proclaims that this is proof of the biblical exodus, we would be correct to scrutinize the claim.
On the other hand, if the same site were to yield some bits of leather that can be radioactively dated and also some spear points that correspond to those known to be used by Egyptians at a particular time that is not too far off from the radioactive dating, then we could reasonably start by thinking that an Egyptian army passed through the area at that time. Then we could check with known Egyptian sources to see what was going on back then and just why they might have moved troops through the area.
Sure, that would not get us any closer to substantiating any real biblical event. Even so, it helps to establishing an historical frame work of events. It would also help if whatever other civilization they were interacting with had records of similar events (but remember that whichever side won would probably tell a story that was satisfying to them as Rome did with Carthage).
=
Most of us agree with this, that the OT does not fit into real history. Establishing what really occurred has proved to be difficult if not impossible thanks in large part to believers. Is there anything in the OT that is reality based and what parts are is the question. Again, here I agree that little can be proved other than people existed, kings of some kind, interaction between other lands. As to when this misconception began and propagated many of us have disagreed with your assertions only because there is no way to establish a date. It seems impossible with the sketchy evidence to exactly do so which is what you have tried to unsuccessfully assert. Much more would need to be known to do that and it may never happen. Should everything be rejected is the question? You say yes, but there are parts that have interaction with other nations/cultures that substaniate small parts that kings and people existed in the land. This however does not establish that any of the OT misconceived history is in anyway part of the real world.
We in fact likely agree with much of the generalities you express but not your assertions that have no more validity or basis than the theists. In my case, I have suspended judgement on the OT and put it in a folder marked unproven assertions. Your views and assertions are filed in a similar folder.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
I have not come across a single bit of bibleland archaeology which is not tainted in some way. In real terms research grants are scarce. There are more arkies than there are grants. Believers put up money for digs in bibleland. I have even identified a permitted conceit in the opening of real papers on digs in bibleland which implies it really is a bible city even though it is followed by saying it is not where the bible says it was. What is not included is there is no city where the bible says it was. While there are conceits in other areas none is this bad. I have an article I mis-titled or something which discusses "official" empires which in fact did not exist but for tradition only are still talked about as though they did. I have been looking for it for those who just can't give up on biblical Israel and Judea and the rest.
These religion ones are so casually tainted I find myself falling into them. I have to keep reviewing the material to recover.
Effectively all of the ancient world kept good records and honest ones. As for dating buildings that is part of the art of archaeology. Dozens of methods like matching horizons by their contents; lots of detail over lots of digs over lots of years. When they were first found early last century they were heralded as Solomon's work. Evidence since then from bibleland and surrounding regions from Egypt to Turkey to Mesopotamia say otherwise. Either all the physical evidence is wrong or the bible is myth.
That is effectively what we have, a very solid understanding of the major players and events in the region. There is simply no way to squeeze the bible into it. Take Egypt. When written is found it fleshes out and makes sense of the physical record found. It is the same for other civilizations. When one civilization records that it conquered another we do not find contradictory inscriptions in the conquered city.
When it comes to the bible we have stories for which there is no physical evidence and no matter how the stories are manipulated no congruence with the physical evidence can be established.
Additionally the major construction which is found is in the style of cultures outside of bibleland. Its closest match in style is to other places. This indicates an outpost of other civilizations rather than anything intrinsic or local.
All the local architecture of interest is from identified local cultures such as the Phoenicians -- bibleland is described as bigger than modern Israel mainly including parts of Lebanon, Syria and the east bank of the Jordan river. This is not surprising in that Herodotus described the land as being inhabited by the Palestinians of Syria and Lebanon was invented by the French after WWI.
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
The proper assumption is that none of it has any basis in reality until it is established by uncontestable physical evidence. I mean we have references to kings of Egypt. We look in Egypt and we find physical evidence of kings. Pharhos are a bible invention sort of like saying the White House instead of the President. And once we learned that we find one more thing Exodus got wrong about Egypt -- in fact Exodus got nothing right that goes beyond coincidence.
The basis for rejection is that no rational person accepts anything without physical evidence. Because there is no physical evidence for anything in the OT there is nothing in the OT to accept. It is not a matter of my rejecting anything. I note there is no basis to accept anything. And therefore I do not understand what others think they are accepting. Give me a specific and the physical evidence for that specific. But there are no specifics to be accepted as there is no physical evidence upon which to base acceptance.
The OT is not a given to the rational person. It is a collection of books which appeared out of no where. The books have no provenance. In that Josephus wrote the Judeans had only 22 sacred books we know they were fewer in his day than they are today. And he did not name them so we have no idea if any of them were the same as in any collection today. But from his version of what we call Exodus we know that it was absolutely not the Exodus of today. Josephus was a priest. He did not have the same Exodus of today.
If you want to pretend to accept the OT you have to realize what we have is not what was nor do we have any idea what was.
My assertion is simply that no one accepts anything without physical evidence.
Why do you accept anything in the OT without physical evidence?
If you think you have physical evidence of something in the OT please tell me about it from your personal research not what you have read other people say about something.
But if you are relying upon what other people have said please have the courtesy to give the name of that person and that you believe in him not in what is in the OT. That is the only honest thing to say.
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
This is utter drivel. We have a set of traditions. There may be historical information contained in them but then again there may not. You start with the facts you know from outside the collection and see if any of it is recognizable in the collection. In testing this way you can see what can be supported, what can be discarded as contrary to what we know and other material we can't evaluate. That is a valid historical approach.
I've already indicated in earlier discussions for example that biblical materials around the times of the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions of Palestine do in fact reflect historical indications.
You always want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. As already stated there is historically validated material in the Hebrew bible. You just don't want to admit it. You want to pretend it doesn't exist by sticking your head deeply and firmly in the sand. -- Hidden agenda warning.
What was your first dozen?
Could you give a few examples regarding the siege of Jerusalem at the time of Sennacherib or at the time of the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar? We had the biblical record of these events well before we had access to Assyrian and Babylonian records. What are your problems with this historical information recorded in the bible?
This just seems to be one of your vacuous rants. Is there anything here other than loosely linked unsupported opinions?
We are now starting a bullshit conflation of two topics you tend to drone on and on and on about. Your lack of knowledge about the ancient past and your modern dislike for the Jews and Israel. I'll leave the rest for you to stew to yourself about.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
Responding to pauljohntheskeptic,
What do you think, that they were god-given or something? Where do you think they came from??
In fact there are 24 books today. The Hebrew bible has a different structure of books. For example all the twelve minor prophets are a single book, as was the case in antiquity (a scroll of the twelve was found at Murabba'at south of Qumran). Books that are divided in European bibles, such as Samuel and Kings are single works, including Ezra-Nehemiah, which has always been seen by the Jews as a single book (as can be seen in one edition of the LXX).
Josephus was epitomizing the biblical texts, so naturally his text is often different. Could you give a few specific examples?
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
This is one of several reasons I usually leave you to your assertions and expeditions into grey murky areas where no light shines. You take a general statement RE: OT does not generally fit into history and bring up uncalled for details that can be construed to be anything you'd like.
Perhaps English is not your first language as specifically I said, "little can be proved other than people existed, kings of some kind, interaction between other lands." How you get from this that I support Biblical events is beyond me. I ask should everything be rejected and took the position that small parts support interaction between people in other lands. You again take this to mean that I support Bible events but I did not say that. I did say that this does not lead to establishment pf the OT's misconceived history as part of the real world.
I also do not accept your claims that you have made on other threads and this one without physical evidence. You do supply plenty of assertion and conjecture. In both cases, your assertions and OT as history I remain a skeptic as to either being accurate. I said specifically that I suspend judgment on both. This means I don't accept there is enough evidence to conclude on the insufficient information available.
What else is there to say. I do not accept the OT as based completely in the real world. There are parts that relate with information but it is not possible to determine complete detail or relationships. I do not accept you have correctly explained origins in your assertions.
You assert far more than no one should accept anything without physical proof. You present models based on lack of evidence and assert they are true. You present extremely biased POVs and again conclude that this is a reasonable approach.
My acceptance of the OT is it came out of the mists of time and presents unsupported history that occasionally gives mention to other cultures. Other cultures discuss a relationship with the people in the land of Palestine in various ways. Assyria, Babylon, and Persia did invade, march through, or otherwise interact in the area as they all mention it. Where does this indicate acceptance of OT Biblical events?
Physical evidence from the OT that is reality based: A city called Jerusalem existed. A city called Jericho existed. Assyria invaded several times as in Shalmaneser III's expedition in 853 BCE see Ancient Iraq by Georges Roux p297 or see here.
In this particular invasion a combined force of different kings halted the Assyrian booty campaign. One of the kings is construed to be of the Omri dynasty from supposedly Israel. Since the OT lacks mention of this event completely as Ahab was the supposed king it only suggests his existence. This doesn't mean any of the bullshit written in the OT is anything more than bullshit inspired by real persons and distorted to use as propaganda. As to when the events of the OT were written there is no way to conclude though you make an assertion there is. There are other examples of interaction between Assyria, Babylon or Persia in the area. Does this establish that the OT's BS on gods has basis. NO!!!
____________________________________________________________
"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.
You make several mentions of congruences between what is mentioned in the OT and what is in real history. There are many more than that in Xena Warrior Princess. By the criteria you give how can you give more credibility to one than the other? The congruences in the OT are no more credible than those in Xena. Please tell me how you know the OT was not knowingly created as a fantasy just like Xena and the Book of Mormon and Dianetics and the Koran. Please explain what congruences matter when they fit no better than Xena.
This has nothing to do with the gods in Xena. It refers to Xena herself and all the characters and kingdoms and events in the OT from the perspective of the OT stories.
=====
The Chaldean dynasty was founded by the father of Nebuchanezzer. The story of Abraham from the city of Ur of the Chaldeans could only have been created AFTER people had forgotten who founded the Chaldean dynasty. Within reason that puts the creation of Genesis into the time of the Greek rule of bibleland. The "babylonian captivity" is also a myth. The foundation of the "judean people" was created in Greek times. Thus Moses and all the kings and kingdoms were created in Greek times. The OT does not "fit" before Greek times.
And Conan was an Akkadian.
One can force fit the OT, Xena and Conan into ancient times if one is not concerned with any of the known factual details of ancient times. One can say it is "close enough" to be true and concentrate on the gods rather than on all the rest. Believing in the OT without the gods is no different from believing in Xena without the gods.
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
Or to say it in short:
Fitting the Old Testament into known ancient history is like solving a jigsaw puzzle with a hammer.
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.
Only religionists and A_Nony_Mouse would think about fitting the Hebrew bible into known ancient history. This doesn't stop there being discrete historical indications within the collected traditions.
spin
Trust the evidence, Luke
Except all I have said is that there were people, places, yadda, yadda, yadda, . . . RE the OT and you are the one that says, he's claiming the Bibleland events are true. Which is not what was said.
If one can resolve how Xena and Gabby can be at the battle of Troy, aid Cleopatra, halt Julius Caesar in Britain while Herc does so in Ireland and then battle Goliath then hold off the hordes in China while Chin becomes powerful then eventually return to kill Caligula who has become a god using Aphrodite's power everything makes complete sense. The Greek gods are all killed after Zeus kills Hera and Hercules kills Zeus leaving Xena to kill all the rest except for Ares and Aphrodite. Ciarin our pagan theist should be aware many of the gods she accepts were eliminated by either Xena or Hercules or each other. Xena also was of course a Valkyrie who caused havoc amongst the Norse gods. We also learn that Xena's and Gabby's souls are intertwined so they are fated to reincarnate continually throughout time. It would seem the latest reincarnation has occurred as a Cylon named D'anna or maybe Xena was always a Cylon and that explains this all. We also learn that Hercules and Ares are still alive in the 20th century mid 1930s and Ares somehow escapes captivity to be found in the early 21st century with Hercules living in LA. Since too many people learn of this, Kevin Smith has to die in an accident in China and Kevin Sorbo has to become a space hero while Xena goes into hiding.
Was Xena just a fictional story or does Rob Tapert really have the Xena scrolls Gabby wrote?
Actually the story of Abraham could have been created any time from the point of the founding of Ur and Haran to early 1st Millennium BCE or the reported finding of the Book of the Law by Josiah (or the creation of such by Jeremiah possibly). Since camels are used for transportation this has to be sometime after 700-800 BCE. Your claim here requires you to prove it with direct evidence as you leave open no possibilities for alternatives. Please provide the exact document that leads you to this conclusion.
I 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.
And if it is a difficult fit, use a bigger hammer.
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
You have said there were people and places. You have said or strongly implied that among those people and places were the bible characters and places. In several episodes Xena and Hercules interacted. There is a Mycanean person suggested to have been the basis for the Hercules legend. What do Xena and Hercules have to do with that person? In the matter you raised there is no local person known who could possibly have been the basis for Omri. Where are you going with this?
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
First off you really make a mess of quoting. Spend a little effort to add start and stop quotes so people can actually tell who wrote what.
I never said there were Bible characters among the people but I did indicate some of the kings were historical.
Xena and Hercules appeared in 8 Hercules episodes and 2 Xena episodes together. This proves only that Raimi and Tapert were saving money on production costs. As Xena and Hercules were cast in the world of the History according to Xena any relationship to anything in the real world is purely coincidental. Then again, are you absolutely sure you're in the real world?
I don't think the writers of Xena and Hercules could care about the relationship suggested in the myths of Hercules and Herakles. In Hercules they have Jason marrying Herc's mom Alcmene who according to myth was the daughter of King Electryon of Mycenae.
In the reference to Shalmnaeser III my point was a king of the Omri line supposedly Ahab was part of the Damascus coalition from approx 853 BCE to it's disintegration in about or before 841 BCE. This does not mean he led the group as Shalmaneser indicates it was the King of Damascus.
See:
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_34.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karkar
Someone has no sense of humor and can't recognize satire when they read it. The history according to Xena is not possible in the time dimension where we find ourselves as shown by the 100s of years the characters traversed in their travels but present as concurrent to the time of Julius Caesar.
As I have no clue if Abraham was even a real person I certainly would never make a claim to him being born in any time period as you have so presumed. As to Daniel, much of his Sci-Fi is written in the time period to which you suggest being the 2nd century BCE around the time of the Maccabees.
Not sure why you want to compare a really fun TV show with a boring ass dry book of fables and distorted history with poorly done Sci-Fi. As far as my acceptance of the OT goes it certainly does not go to the extent you think. I only suggest some events were based off the real world little more. Unlike you, I'm unwilling to put a date on most of it because I don't agree that enough information is available to do so.
I see where you are going with this now. There are few if any writings from ancient times that are not filled with extra bullshit. The Egyptians added propaganda as did both the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Therefore all ancient writing must be a forgery considered in this light.
No work by anyone gets special treatment.
As no one has elected you to be the King of the atheists I'll feel free to consider your suggestions in the light of the atheistic support you have garnered.
Did the people in the ancient Middle East have library cards? Exactly how many people do you think even read in ancient times? You presume way too much which is why I challenge your dating. Abraham is more likely to not have ever existed than to have been born at your suggested guess.
I realize the word Chaldea is dated material, as is the use of camels, the names of cities, and the poorly done historical record. It is highly probable that much was redone by Ezra or someone like him as I don't know if he was a real person either. Today, English versions have been altered with words that have meaning to people of our age changing the writing to likely have meaning that does not at all resemble the original, whatever that may have been. I see your point, but that does not provide enough to say these books were written at any given date. In my opinion, little if anything existed prior to Josiah and Jeremiah's time based on archeology, the lack of documentation found in Palestine, and even the Bible's own admission regarding finding the book of the law. Can this be then date stamped in the 1st or 2nd century BCE based solely on the Greek text appearance as you do? I really don't see how at this point, much more work needs to be done to improve the accuracy.
I asked you to prove your conclusion, perhaps a document was the wrong choice. It is truly upon the believers to prove their holey book has any basis in the real world. It is upon you to prove your claim of dating such holey book when you make a statement such as you have. I know you date by the appearance of the Greek text and argue no Hebrew text ever existed and I do see the logic in that. Unfortunately these Greek texts from 100 to 200 BCE also don't exist either. We already discussed what was in the DSS and there were several languages. Where do you find physical proof to back this up if all of the early manuscripts have gone to dust and the only thing available is the DSS which has several languages?
What I don't see is your conclusion that Palestine was always dominated by others and not a precursor civilization of Jewish ancestors. I don't care if these ancestors all worshiped Ba'al and Asherah or not as well as a Yahweh that was a god of thunder or even another name for Ba'al. Somehow you don't get that in our discussions, perhaps its just as much my fault as yours in understanding. You jump to attack phase, generally unwarranted at just the mention of events. This does not mean we are defending a bibilical bullshit story, only that there were events. It's pretty hard to determine what dead soldiers in battlefields held as religious beliefs thousands of years after the battle. Even if kings of small cities from Palestine participated in such battles and their names coincided with a name in the holey bible that doesn't mean it gives basis to the religious tripe in the stories. Perhaps you miss this as you bring out your missiles to attack in a MAD defense just at the mention of certain ideas.
Perhaps he was just a mythical character which is far more likely.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
I swore off wiki. Too many people were citing my articles back to me. Not true of course but it does make you reconsider citing wikipedia. In your college freshman orientation course you should have been told NO encyclopedia was useful as a college level source. I presume this group functions at least at a post graduate level.
The obvious said, you overlook the obvious point that there is no more physical evidence for either Omri or Ahab than there is for any of the invented kings in Xena. That you heard of some king names in Xena does not mean they really existed. One does assume the kings named on the inscription existed but that gives them no connection to the Xena stories in the OT.
You do not recognize the satire of bible characters spanning centuries. Obviously it is fiction.
Abraham was not a real person nor were any of the other Xena characters in these tales. Any educated person of the time would know that simply by mention of where he was born. But if it were written when the average peon had forgotten when the Chaldean dynasty was founded then it was all written in the time of the Maccabes. You do not appear to notice a problem with the foundation myth of an entire cult having been written so recently. You can't have constant references to Abraham in other books until after the one mentioning Abraham exists.
It is clear by inspection they were all written in the time of the Maccabes. That is when the fake history of this region was created. Maccabes is the first books where the local politics reflects reality even though there is only one coin indicating the Judah Maccabe existed.
So with the creation date of this entire cult moved to a time after all of it characters existed, how does one differe this from historical fiction by the Maccabes or even later?
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
There were very few historical kings in Xena aside from the Emperors most were made up or mythical. The OT is mostly comprised of made up characters as well with some real persons. It's history is no better than Xena though they didn't have characters jumping back and forth over 600 year time frames. The OT has mythical stories throughout with real kings mentioned that were vassals of Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt. All of the narrative and shaman prophets interaction is pulled out of someone's ass.
Besides wiki I gave a university link as well. The wiki was a good short summary little more. One of our most fun theists cites wiki and a dictionary for nearly all of his posts as he goes in circles on his quest of confronting atheistic materialism which he rewords every so often to attack from a new angle.
I'm not sure much existed besides that which I have personally observed. You all could just be data being fed to my brain and I'm really just a chunk of silicon and so are you. Then again maybe not and there all things that have occurred external to me. Does that mean you guys aren't just all entertaining me as in "The Truman Show"?
Seriously, I know Assyrian kings made huge boasts on their steles as did all ancient rulers. Though there are also coins and seals from some of the supposed kings. Then again, I do have some Xena coins and real US postage stamps were issued with Xena and other TV characters, see creationent.com. However, I don't think there was mass marketing in place in ancient Palestine such that collector coins were in mass production to leave behind such artifacts.
Is that what it is, bad satire? I thought it was poorly done myths as told by bards.
Since we both agree Abe was a mythical character stop suggesting he was born.
You tell me if the OT was written after the average person had forgotten when the Chaldean's dynasty began then you assume a period hundreds of years later. Since writing was very restricted, this could have been right after the Persians deposed Nabondius and not 350 to 400 years later. But if you did consider this, it would weaken your claim that the Greek came first. Common people lacking writing may have been convinced of bards storytelling far earlier than you suggest.
As it appears Ezra and Nehemiah may have reconstructed bible books it may be that this reconstruction involved a whole lot of fiction writing as well. They were many years before the Maccabees.
In all fairness, the best one can conclude is the OT was written between 300-700 BCE though not in its entirety. Placing it all in the 2nd century BCE is not likely as Jews were being being along with their scrolls during their rebellion. The question is what type of scrolls. Supposedly their holey books.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.