You're a Brother in Christ. So if you have a style that's great. What matters is that the Word is out there. Even if the method is wrong, at least the word is out, and God can take care of the rest. Though I"m not saying my method is wrong.

I'm not trying to bring anybody to Christ on here since thiis is impossible. The HOly Sprit only does this. What i'm doiing is trying to have them be consistent as atheists. Via reductio ad absurdum. Even the evil atheists like Brian for example, with the sad fact of his parents death, even though he may be an enemy of the Faith, the gospel can still INFLUENCE him. In how he walks down the street. Dan Barker, the FFRF was affected and is affected by Christianity in his atheism. This too is my goal.

But yeah, we can tag team if you want. Killem with kindness is okay. But to be honest there are many methods. I've always had a problem with tact. I'm horrible at it. I've tried and have failed always. But these athiests need a little kick in the nuts. If your son was burning in the fire, you would killem them with kindness teh fireman that you're son is dying, or would you go hard like me?

When my step sister's baby died, i was soft. I was compassionate. She asked me if her son's in heaven with tears. I told her the Biblical answer, not the common one. Then her mom took the dead baby Her baby, to a wacko cult church, and tried to have it resuurected. I counslesd her through that grief of a cult and via the asstance of God's Spirit she left.

I'm not always this hard. I am on here. That's because these guys need it hard. They're so many weak Christains out there, there needs to be a consistent hard bold confident Christian that is 100% consistent. I am the same when I began as I am now. and will be when i die.

But this is actually encouraging me. Anytime I can help. it would be an honor.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Yeah, we are all gifted in different ways. God gifted me to stick my foot up the atheists *&^*6^ lol. But you're right. And yes, they do have a choice, but they're choice will always be NO!!! unless the Holy Spirit gives them the gift of faith. It's impossible to say yes unless God gives you the ability to say yes.

I am concerned about something you said:

I too do this if i have been shown i'm wrong about something in God's Word. Faith in the Bible is the same as knowing or logic. So my faith allows me to reason. And Jesus Christ is the very reason logic of God (John 1:1).

So just checking. An atheist doesn't have the capability to do any of this.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I've only exchanged comments 1 time with Jean a while back. I have read Jean's posts and never on purpose responded to them as I'm really not interested in his style of inflammatory hostility. He reminds me of Ambrose and Augustine in some ways, though not in a good way or some of the less than reputable inquisitors in the middle ages. Since he came to this thread I responded, perhaps less than warmly as I posted while on vacation.

As you know, I don't consider magic or miracles to be possible. When a story contains these aspects I consider it to be based on ignorance of the possible or in the land of never was (Fantasy). Man has come a long way by using his ability to pass on information that was previously discovered. Since every generation does not have to start from scratch in learning about fire, flight and physics they can build on the knowledge of the past and add more to it.

I'm not one that dismisses possibilities, things that are not understood today may be understood tomorrow, or in a thousand years or so. If not by us, by future generations here or elsewhere.

Or change is a constant. This Universe may not have always existed but may be a recycling of a previous one, or as in M theory there are multiple Universes and the collision between them was the supposed "big bang". All this is beyond the scope of our current discussion.

In other words, what one generation considered not possible, knowledge and engineering brought it to reality. Such as now we can talk to one another anywhere on the planet instantly without waiting for the carrier pigeons.

Not really. If people were raised from the dead actually, that does not in itself mean that the Bible is right about everything including a soul. It could mean that memories are stored as a backup in cells, such as in the movie "5th Element". Or something else not yet understood. As this has yet to be demonstrated I can wait to see what develops in the future.

I don't think you do understand what I mean about "truths," None of the story needs to be true at all for it to contain truths. A story about relationships could be set on a fictitious planet with non-existent people of another civilization. It could be used to show the need for cooperation between individuals to accomplish a joint goal. Or as in the movie Avatar, it shows how humans attempt to take advantage of what is thought to be less civilzed civilizations, somewhat an analogy on what the white man did to the Indians in the US. The same can be said for any story in the OT, though you might call some of them parables.

As to these stories so far, nothing so far indicates they actually did occur based on any other source besides the one providing the story. None can on this information be said to be based on true events from what we have for evidence. As I don't agree that there is a likely true baseline as I have seen no support for any from anything other than the stories themselves I  consider them as not true so far.

I did request that he keep it civil if he were to have his input here.  I get his approach (in many ways similar to many atheists on my other thread) but not always beneficial like in this particular forum.  He does seem to have a bit of background though. HOpefully that will come through.

General understanding is that they're copies and that the originals are either gone or yet to be discovered.  Again too, it's possible that this story is another one handed down by word of mouth (as most stories true or false were during that time).  Thus the timeline of the writing holds no grounds to its validity.

yea, I have to do a little bit of homework on the tribes

OK.

I can go with this more or less but slightly from the other perspective. Knowledge generates understanding. Understanding increases knowledge since we can record it for further research by others. The intent of research and understanding is to gain more knowledge. Whether ot not this supports or negates a previous position or not is less important than making progress towards understanding the unknown. As the god claims are in effect theories, they are in effect not proved, there is nothing to negate at all. My POV is I don't know if the god theory(ies) are true. I only know they have never been proved. Well at least not to the point to sway my position. As the metaphysical or in my terms, outside the reality we know and experience has yet to be demonstrated there are several layers of theory that have not been proved. My position is to consider these claims as not true until more knowledge is available. Knowledge is very important. Read more! Kill less!

An optimist you are.

And the 1st mistake a believer makes is attributing something as not understood to be a miracle in the 1st place.

I don't know yet what is beyond human capability, if I knew I'd sell something short. What will be possible in 100 years by man? In 1000 years? In 10,000 years?

I don't need an alternate yet as the dead have not been shown to rise again after 3 days, at least not documented in a manner that can be shown.

See above, I don't know the limits of human capabilities. Do you?

My take is the stories are not true as written. What's true? Not these stories as written. Are they false? Some of the stories with the exaggerated parts surely are as we have discussed. The Ai and Jericho accounts for example are not true and false based on the archeology which indicates that Ai was ruins for perhaps a 1000 years when Joshua supposedly came by and Jericho was a hick town without walls for example. Nothing shows 600,000 men escaped Egypt along with women, children and livestock. There are no artifacts that support this high number of escapees. Did 100 escape and the story was blown up to make the Judahites look important? Since archeology indicates both the people of Israel and Judah were basically no different than anyone else and they like all of the Canaanites moved from the highlands into Palestine this would seem to indicate the Exodus adventure is not true. Is it completely false or is a  few hundred in the Exodus enough to make it true? I don't think so, I think that story is basically not true and false. Are the David and Solomon stories true? That's what we are looking at right now. So far the stories contain exaggerations that are not true based on the archeology and known histories of others. More to come as we work into Kings and Chronicles.

 A hardcore position would be, if any part of these stories are false then the whole storyline must be false. I've never indicated that position. Stories exist for many reasons, why these do is yet to be learned. Stories, myths and legends generally have some basis in reality, what that might be can not always be learned thousands of years later. That's the point of bringing up the stories of Sumer and Akkad. These stories are on clay tablets from the period when they were told. Yet,  I've yet to meet Enki or any of his fellow gods. Did he and his supposed fellow gods actually exist or were they are made up? Can't tell from the stories, there may be other explanations for them. What about the Reg Veda and it's stories with super weapons and flying machines? Is there something in them based in the real world or are they just made up? That's why I view Sumerian, Hindu and Hebrew stories in the same way, as stories that are not true as written or perhaps as understood by us or even as understood by the original writers but with possibilities of some truth. What is true in any of these stories may never be understood, but one should not just reject the whole, perhaps Enki really was a beer drinking lush who fornicated with any female he encountered. Perhaps david really was a man that would shorten your life span if you encountered him.

So, JC, how do you determine how to determine Truth before you have found how to properly determine the Truth?

IOW, how do you determine what is the ultimate reference point before you have a proper reference point to use as a reference to determine what is true?

I can agree with this perspective.  I'm curious... what sort of "demonstration" would you need to see for proof?  

yup... another thread another time.  We'll get on that one... say... 2016??? ish....

this in reference to what demonstration needed....

That is reasonable.  I can see that.  In fact there are may reoccuring interactions thorughout the world and through history.  The only problem I can see with the "repeatable by anyone with the proper tech..."  would be that the only interactions that I'm aware of are specifically spiritual interactions, which means the interaction and the results that follow are at the discression and choice of the spiritual being that is being interacted with.  In other words, the interaction likely wouldn't be repeatable by anyone at any given time deeming the proper technology or process.  Not that it could never be repeated, but that it would be contingent upon the spirit.  e.g. Someone wants to test whether you'll order a coffee at Dunks every day for the next year.  Odds are you're going to make a choice not to buy the coffee at some point within the next year.  it would be then irrational to conclude that you never get coffee at Dunks because you chose not to on a specific day that one decided to check.  

The question I then would need to ask as far as what you'd need for a demonstration is, what would the constant be be it that the spiritual discresion can't be the constant.  The only way a test is repeatable is if there's a constant for a base.  

do you see where I'm coming from though, about how regardless of what technology might be possible, it's dependent on what is possible in that moment in time?

ok, sorry for misunderstanding.  Would you say then that the geneological story up to this point is true, or more likely true than not? 

exactly, and I agree.  Which is why no one could take the Bible based on history alone to say whether it was a valid part of history or not.  This applies to all of the historical stories.  

Jean, your contribution here would only apply if you were writing to someone who didn't believe in absolute truth - Christians like yourself.

I don't understand why you wrote this unless you're aiming this at caposkia (a Christian brother).

You're not going to answer the presuppositional problem with your starting point are you? You're going to ignore and hope it goes away. Typical hypocritical atheist.

To say that the Sumerian Text is older and thus more reliable or true is the logical fallcy of Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition. If this is true, then Weak Atheism isn't true since strong atheism came first and weak atheism came in the 70's via George Smith. Thus, since the documents for Weak Atheism were first, mainly via O'Hair in this century, then weak atheism is weak and not true. Thus it is not a lack of believe but a denial of God in proposition.

Also, if you insist on using the appeal to antiquity fallacy, then once again, the JP is NOT the one to use. You would want to use the Westcott and Hort text. There philosophy was also via the logical fallacy of appeal to antiquity. Jerome didn't even write in Green. lol. So why would you use Jeromes Lating over the Greek. Obviously you are going to find error. Dummy. lol.

and finally, since you are not answering the very core presuppositions that justify your reasoning of critque, then your critique is logically invalid. And in logic, you are don't have to answer an invalid argument.

I assume if  you're claiming to be a textual critic like Cloud then you would mean a Higher Textual Critic. These arguments were all done in the 19th century and refuted long ago.

So grow some balls and answer the question. You have fallen and  you can't get up. I don't mind playing your game but just realize, as you start, you're starting as a confused hypocrite.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

WOW. Evidently you are not fit for logical discussion. Now i see why you do not converse with me, you are intimidated since you cannot converse logically, but merely plagerize old arguments from over a 100 years ago that have been refuted.

Your presuppositions frame the way you go about your analysis which you wish not to talk about, You wish Chrisitans to just ignore all these important starting points, don't define your terms, and to be sloppy.

There's only two types of textual critics, higher or lower. Since you're an atheist you can only be higher since you claim to be a textual critic. If you were a lower textualy Critic you wouldn't be an atheist by definition. wow.

Before you start a project like this, I really advice you to define your terms, your presuppositions and your means of acceptance towards evidence within the framework of your epistemology. You've done none of this.

You're like the grandma giving a quarter to the young man who helps you with your groceries. Only there is no dime, no young man, and no groceries. Only the Grandma with old useless ideas.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 Ok, so it seems at the beginning Jean was questioning your reasoning to only using the JPS and not other versions which tend to be considered better.  I would agree that the NASB is one of the best due to the consistency of being literal vs. trying to make it readable in English.  It would not hurt to consider using multiple versions.  i prefer the NASB, but will cross reference through different versions when there's a question of validity and accuracy.  

Jean then made some good references to other sources that could help in the historical walkthrough.  

Just to remind everyone, we were working through the latter parts of Samuel and progressing from there... now that the question of each methodology is out of the way, let's progress.  

Jean any additional input on historical support for the books of Samuel.  Both JPTS and I agree that there really isn't much historically.  My take is that it's supported by the progression of the timeline that has been flowing through the books of the OT up to this point.  Other OT stories we've already covered seem to have a bit more support in history than these particular ones.  

The soap opera continues - 2 Sam 13-18

2 Samuel 13

One of David's sons Absalom had a hottie for a sister named Tamar. One of the other sons of David, a half brother called Amnon had the hots for her. She was a virgin and he wanted her. He with the help of a friend schemes a plan where he can be along with her so he can do her. He pretends to be sick and wanted Tamar to come to him. She does. He does her against her will. She is sent out as Amnon now despised her. She put ashes on her head and rent her clothes. Absalom learns from Tamar what has happened. King David hears of the event and is pissed. Absalom  spoke to Amnon over the issue but neither good nor bad. 2 years passes and Absalom has his own plan for revenge. He arranges for all the king's sons to Baalhazor where he had his sheep being sheared to party out. He expressly wanted Amnon to come. Absalom orders his servants to kill Amnon when he is trashed. They do. All of the other sons flee. David hears that Absalom has killed all of his sons. He learns it is but Amnon, the rapist incestuous son. The king is told not to let it bother him as it was only Amnon. Never the less Absalom flees to the king of Geshur where he stays for 3 years.

2 Samuel 14

David's servant Joab understood that David wanted Absalom to come home and schemes to have him return. He gets a woman from Tekoa to go the David and made up a pretend story similar to David's situation with his sons. He eventually determines that Joab is behind it. He then ordered Joab to fetch Absalom home. He does, Absalom returns home.

2 Samuel 15 This chapter will raise an issue in regard to time periods, I will point it out.

Time passes and Absalom is scheming himself. He is the 1st to interview all that come to David for judgment. He always tells them it's too bad there is none to judge as the king will not. He tells them all the same thing, if he were king he'd help them out. In verse 7 we have this statement, " And it came to pass at the end of forty years, that Absalom said unto the king". 40 years after Absalom came home? Or 40 years into David's reign? Or when Absalom was 40 years old? All have the same problem as David ruled for but 40 years, see 1 Kings 2:11. Since David died after 40 years of rule everything from here to 1 Kings 2 must have all occurred quickly.

Let's see if that is possible. Going forward from this point we have a civil war started by Absalom. It lasts for an unknown period of time. David leaves Jerusalem and Absalom and the rebels take over. Time passes, battles occur, Absalom is murdered by Joab. Time passes. David goes back to Jerusalem. Sheba rebels against David. Sheba and his rebels are killed. Time passes. In chapter 21, 3 years of famine happen. What's this, can this be? 40 + 3 = 43 years. Problem here methinks. There are several more chapters describing events in regard to David, so perhaps this legend has some issues, like perhaps it's not correct.

This why why you need an outline when you write a story, so you can keep it straight.

Anyway back to chapter 15.

Absalom asks David to take leave and go to Hebron. David says OK. Absalom however had plans to be declared king and revolt. Along with Absalom went 200 innocent men who had no idea of his plan. David learns that the people are behind Absalom from a messenger. He decides to flee Jerusalem, there is a long detailed list of those that leave. The ark is taken along but David sends it back along with the priest Zadok and his sons. David also sends Hushai his friend and servant back to spy on Absalom.

Chapter 16
Ziba a servant of Mephibosheth met David's party, with 2 asses carrying 200 loaves of bread, raisins fruits, and only a single bottle of wine, sale at the local market perhaps? David asked him what was the deal and Ziba told him the asses are for the king's household, the foodstuffs are for the young men while the wine is for those that might be faint in the wilderness. David asked him where his master's son was and was told he was in Jerusalem. He also told him that today, the house of Israel would restore him his father's kingdom.

David's entourage continues and encounters Shimei the son of Geraa of the house of Saul. He cursed them throwing rocks at them. Calling David a man of blood and Belial. He said that David received that which he deserved for all the blood he had done of the house of Saul. David's men wanted to kill Shimei but David said to let him continue his cursing because perhaps the god has said to Shimei to curse David.

As mentioned by me earlier, to know David was a life shortening possibility based on these story telling episodes, not to mention you were also likely to have your wife, mistress, concubine or girlfriend taken from you by David.
Meanwhile, Absalom arrives at Jerusalem as does David's spy Hushai. Hushai claims he will serve and work for Absalom as he did for David. Absalom also violates taboo by going into the concubines of David, supposedly before all of Israel. The text does not mention if this was a sexual event or not, either way it violated taboos.

Chapter 17

Ahithophel counsels Absalom to get an army together of 12,000 men to chase down David and kill him, exact word used is smite the king. This then will bring peace to Israel. Absalom was pleased at the thought of parentcide and being the king. His bubble however is burst by more level headed advice from Hushai who says that Ahithophel's counsel is not good. He tells Absalom you know your father and his men to be mighty men and they are riled up and fierce  as a bear robbed of her cubs. He and his men will not let this go and will not stay with the people, as he is hiding out in a cave or someplace. If he is attacked rumors will be such that people will lose heart as he will fall upon the attackers. What he said should be done is all Israel should go after him lead by Absalom. This would bring about the end of the king and his men.

Hushai then inform Zadok of what was discussed. He tells him to let the king know he should leave the wilderness and cross the river. Then Ahithophel saw his advice was not followed put his affairs in order and killed himself. Perhaps he didn't want to put publicly executed after David eventually stopped the rebellion. There is discussion of a resupply by Shobi with his genealogy listed to give it "the power of legitimacy". This is done many times to make stories seem credible regardless of whether they were creative or documentaries.

Chapter 18

David divided his forces and placed commanders over the thousands and the hundreds. He then put 1/3 under Joab, 1/3 under Abishai the son of Zeruiah, Joab's brother and 1/3 under Ittai the Gittite. David wanted to lead them all but his men told him not to in case they had to flee or were routed. So David stays by the gate of the city. City? What city? I thought they had gone over the river Jordan. David told his commanders not to kill Absalom.

The people of Israel went in battle against David's servants in the forest of Ephraim. 20,000 of Israel were slain and defeated that day. The forest killed more than the swords of David's servants. Is this where Tolkien got the scene for the 2 Towers? Where the trees grab people and smash them? OK, they weren't really people in that story.  Trees kill? Really? Really!! In chapter 17 we were discussing only 12,000 men, perhaps 8,000 more wandered into Absalom's army.

Absalom encounters David's servants while riding on a mule and he got his hair caught in a very thick bough of an oak tree. One of Joab's men saw this and told him of it. Joab asked why he had not killed him. The men mentioned the command not to kill Absalom. Joab, wasted no time and thrust 3 spears into Absalom's heart. Then Joab's armor bearers finished him off. Joab blew the trumpet to call off the battle and Israel fled as they had lost. The body was taken and dumped in a pit then covered with stones. Then we have an explanation of why some monument has a name to this day (when this was written) called Absalom's monument. The final verses have some playing around on telling David what has occurred and that Absalom is dead.

Moral of this chapter -

If you have rebelled and made yourself the king, do not go into the woods if you have very long hair unless you have a very good hair tie as your hair shall be thine own enemy and be thine end.
In other words, if you have long hair, don't go riding a mule through thickets or you will get it caught and then die.

These chapters are just storytelling with nothing of substance that can be verified. As always, I don't buy that 20,000 men of Israel were slain that day, especially with the trees doing the majority of the slaying.
Could a scaled back version have some basis in the real world? Possible, but so are any of the stories from Sumer and Greece that are detailed like this story. I have no way to tell what is true and what is not, except of course the bloated numbers are not true once again.

Yes. If you had read the thread you'd know this. We will come back to it when we get to the stories in 2 Kings. This is what happens when you start talking in the middle of a movie without understanding what has transpired. See post 473 and several posts after it.

I'm aware of this. Can you try to stay on track with the discussion.

As with the Tel Dan inscription, we will discuss this too when we get to the 2 kings and 2 chron accounts. You realize that these accounts differ right?

1 - Mesha stele - Moab pushed Israel out of the area east of the Jordan river.

2- 2 kings - Judah helps Moab defeat Israel.

3- 2 Chron - Moab, Ammon and mt Seir invade Judah.

Judah helps Moab or Moab invades Judah. A bit different.

From scraps you wish to build mountains?

There are scraps in Akkadian tablets talking of Enki. Was he real? Did he brew beer? Was he irrestible to all females?

And Herakles is mentioned in many places too in Greek storytelling.

ALWT WLT are small scraps on a potsherd. It takes extreme imagination from those living under high voltage power transmission lines to come up with it validates anything.

So joesphus indicates he was 6'9" tall, so was one of my uncles. And???

see - http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/how-tall-was-goliath/

Does this mean all legends are true? Where's Atlantis? Where were the people fighting across the sea in the hindu Vedas. Where are their air ships?

Learn to be patient and we will discuus these things as we go through the stories.

Since you came in mid movie, you will have to wait until we finish in a year or 2 if you are still alive to go back.

McD's backroom philosophy student drivel.

Your English composition is so bad I cannot understand your points.

You appear to indicate  that the bible is unsupportable. If so, we agree, the Bible is hyped legends with some points in regard to how to live one's life, including examples, parables, storytelling, and propaganda.

And we will discuss their relevance as we encounter the stories to which they may pertain.

Still quoting a forgery?

We understand and have agreed that timing/dates aren't exact and that the stories weren't written or told by government sources, therefore the literacy and accuracy is understandably skewed.  It's funny after all we've talked about that you can do some math with such a small period of time mentioned and use it to question the story's validity.  

My take would not be that it's not correct, but that it's likely not in chronological order.  All the author knows is that these events happened...  as far as what order they happened... well he likely doesn't know and is guessing by what he was told, also because he knows that chronology isn't as important as mentioning the events period.  

The slaying could imply Godly intervention.  Either way, We've agreed about the bloated numbers being consistent in history generally speaking, so why is it that you keep using that as an excuse to disregard these stories as historically valid?   Lack of historical information generally, I get that, but I thought we've clarified the rest.

No it is from the MT. There is high correlation between the MT and most of the DSS. Visit Virtual Jewish encyclopedia I think.

He is not on track with this thread. He calls atheists lazy but doesn't read through 500 posts to catch up. If he was a reasonable person, I might consider summary discussions. Nothing about Jean on this site indicates he is that type of person, including his own comments about himself.

I told him I will not play his way.

One can say this about the Sumerian stories as well. If you put them all together do they really form actual reality once upon a time long long ago?

We still have no proof of David, we have mention of his house, not anything from elsewhere that gives him substance.

And there is always the little fantasy magic episodes spread in the stories that detracts them from the reality we see.

Jeanize is not a recognized language. If he chooses to be snarky and intermingle excrementos de caballo (horse crap) with his points he will get similar responses from me in return.

 This is something I have mentioned repeatedly in this thread. I have spent many hours reading the Sumerian and Ugaritic texts. A good place to start is the site , http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/

As an Ex-Christian, indoctrinated from birth, it's like learning to use your left hand when you are right handed.

As we were brought up on the Bible stories we learned when we were very young all of the characters deemed important, at least that's what happened to me. I was brought up on all of the stories 1st starting with picture books, reinforced every week in Sunday School, discussed everyday with my mother a former Lutheran school teacher. What this does is make the characters more real.

In the case of the Sumarian/Akkadian gods and Ugaritic gods and stories the unfamilar characters are difficult to follow until you do a similar thing. Once you get the basis of their stories, who did what and who was the god of this, and what characters interacted with them it becomes easier. As there are no longer any Sumerian priests like there are countless preachers there is no set way to follow. Develop a chart or outline for each set and learn how they interact with one another, that may help.

Ancient history has been something for which I have always had a fascination. When learning of their gods it is helpful to understand more about their cultures and history as well. There are many books on these ancient civilzations as well as many web sites.

Here's a few sites -

http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/index.html

http://phoenicia.org/

http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/canaanite-ugaritic-mythology/index.html

http://www.adath-shalom.ca/ugarit.htm

http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/531.php

This site has some good articles, though some are in Spanish ( my 2nd language), some are conjecture and some are unrealistic - http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sumer_annunaki.htm

And there's always Google Books too - http://books.google.com/books/about/Religious_texts_from_Ugarit.html?id=m85MB7RkgEIC

Wki has good lists for both summarizing the gods -

Sumerian - Mesopotamian gods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mesopotamian_deities

Ugaritic gods - mythology - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugaritic_mythology#Pantheon

Anyway, maybe that will help you get a start somewhere.

sure I see these "problems" but i don't see them as problems.  These stories and their "problems" are congruent with any other historical story from that time era and earlier.  Considering the source and the fact that most of the authors weren't there watching and recording the events, these "problems" don't shed any light on suspicion of these stories not actually taking place.   Only that they weren't eye witness accounts, as to which, most government based documents of the time weren't either, but they had more resources as far as recording date and time and logically so.  To question the validity of these stories based on these "problems" we'd have to question the validity of history in general from these time periods and prior.  
Just a note, say a well educated person made up a story during that time.  They'd likely get names and dates more accurate and/or made sure that any varience in those details would be so minute that there'd be no reason to question the validity.  If anything, the "problems" only further validate due to the manner at which stories were passed around during that time.  We can be assured that these stories were carefully passed down from generation to generation to even be as accurate as they are.  Otherwise, there wouldn't even be an effort at dating or geneology, only that it happened.  The main reason why you see many many examples of who begot who in the OT is to further validate its place in history.  We're futher out of place, but geneology was extremely important to families back then and to claim a false genealogy would easily be refuted by the family it was claimed of.  

news gets information wrong all the time.. but no one questions the basis of the story due to their ignorace.  why should this be any different?

Should always take all texts into consideration.  So far the only comparison is time period and form of writing.  If in fact they do follow the same protocol as the Bible stories have, then they likely should be considered valid in history as well.  It might help if I go read to see if in fact they do follow the same.