OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real
Offline In discussions with Caposkia on his thread regarding his recommended book (New Atheist Crusaders) we have mutually agreed to open a discussion on the OT discussing reality versus myth for stories in the OT. My position is that the OT is largely myths and legends with little basis in reality. There may be stories that may be considered literature as Rook has suggested though it still incorporates myths and legends as well in my opinion. The intent is to examine major stories and discuss the mythical components versus the interpretations by Christians and Jews that these events were real. Caposkia has indicated in many of his posts that he agrees that some of the stories are reality based and in those areas I'm interested in understanding his reasoning or any other believer for acceptance versus others where he does not consider them to be. It may be there are a few where we may find agreement as to a story being a myth or it being real though my inclination is little more is reality based other than kingdoms existed in Palestine that were called Israel and Judah and they interacted with other nations in some fashion.
Since the basis of Christian beliefs started with creation and the fall of man we'll begin there and attempt to progress through Genesis in some sort of logical order sort of like Sunday School for those of you that went. I’m not particularly concerned about each little bit of belief in these stories but I’m more interested in the mythology aspects. We could for pages argue over original sin or free will but that isn’t even necessary in my opinion as the text discredits itself with blatant assertions and impossibilities. Instead consider for example Eve is created in one version from Adam’s rib which can be directly compared to the Sumerian goddess of the rib called Nin-ti which Ninhursag gave birth to heal the god Enki. Other comparisons can be made to the Sumerian paradise called Dilmun to the Garden of Eden as well. These stories predate the OT by thousands of years and tell the tale of the ancient Annuna gods that supposedly created the world. Visit www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/# for more information and some of the translated stories, click on corpus content by number or category.
In order for salvation through Christ from our supposed sins against the God the events of Genesis must have occurred in some fashion. If the Genesis stories are largely mythical or they are simply a parable then this basis is poorly founded and weakens the entire structure of Christian belief. Caposkia claims I error at square one because I don't acknowledge a spiritual world. I suggest that he and other followers error by accepting that which there is no detectable basis. This is done by interpreting parables and myths by the ancients to be more than inadequate understanding by unknowing people that looked for an answer to why things were in the world they observed.
In Genesis 1 is the supposed creation of the world by God. In this account illogical explanations start immediately with the description of the Earth being without form and darkness was upon it. Light is then created and explained as day and night. Next God molded his creation into better detail by creating Heaven above meaning the sky and waters on the earth. He then caused dry land to appear calling it the Earth and the waters the Seas. On this same day he created vegetation with the requirement that it bring forth after its kind by duplication through seeds. The following day he created the heavenly bodies to divide day from night and to be signs for seasons and for years. He made the great light to rule the day and the lesser light the night as well as all the stars. On the 5th day he created all the life in the seas and air with the requirement they reproduce after their own kind. The 6th day he created all the land animals including man both male and female. The gods in this case made man after their image as male and female in their own likeness. He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth.
Problems start with this account immediately. The Earth according to science is leftover material from the forming of our star, the Sun. This material would have been a glowing mass of molten material. The land in any event would emerge first before water could exist as a liquid upon it due to the extreme heat. Light would already exist in the form of the Sun which according to current science is not as old as other stars in our galaxy not to mention in the Universe. The account mentions that day and night were made but this is not so except for a local event on the planet. An object not on the Earth would have no such condition or a different form of night and day. The account further errors in claiming the Sun, Moon, and stars were all formed following the creation of the Earth. In theories of planet formulation the star is formed first and planets afterwords. In the case of the moon multiple theories occur though not one where it zapped into the Universe suddenly. The statement that the heavenly bodies were created for signs and seasons is more evidence of a legend. The other planets and stars are purposeful in ways that aid in life existing or continuing to do so on Earth. Jupiter for example is a great big vacuum cleaner sucking into its gravitational field all sorts of debris that could eradicate life on Earth. Is this then a design by the god or just part of the situation that helped to allow life to progress as it did on the Earth? The observation of specific planets or stars in specific areas of the sky is just that, an observation no more and not placed there by a god to indicate the change of seasons.
One can also see some similarity between Genesis 1 and the Egyptian creation myth Ra and the serpent, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/StudTxts/raSerpnt.html . In this myth Ra is the first on the scene and he creates all the creatures himself doing so before he made the wind or the rain. Ra does not create man but the gods he created gave birth to the people of Egypt who multiplied and flourished.
Some Jewish sects as well as Catholic belief allow for evolution to have been the method for creation of life on Earth. This however is in contradiction to Genesis in that all vegetation and animals were to reproduce only after their own kind. If this is so, then evolution is not compatible with the creation story. Simply put the life could not alter and produce different versions not after its kind. Since obvious examples exist for variation in species such as evolution even as simple as fish in caves without eyes or color versus those that are in streams outside there is obvious adaption thus discrediting this part of Genesis as myth.
The creation of man in Genesis 1 also suggests multiple gods as man was created in their likeness male and female thus following Canaanite gods such as Yahweh and his Asherah or Ba'al and Athirat that may be a reflection of an older tradition from either Egypt or Sumer. Genesis 2 on the other hand has a slightly different version from a variant I'll discuss in a later post.
I consider Genesis 1 to be a myth, legend or a parable based on all the problems discussed with basis in ancient stories from Sumer and Egypt. I leave it to Caposkia and other believers to indicate where they accept parts of Genesis 1 as reality and to indicate their reasoning if they do so.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:caposkia wrote:As we go through, I still do homework on everything we've covered up to this point. I don't remember if we talked about Pepy II or the Egyptian Admonitions. The papayrus in posession has had some difficulty in dating, but it seems that Egyptologists are split as far as it being evidence of the Exodus.
Just a random thought if you wanted to discuss it.
He reigned supposedly 2284 BCE - 2184 BCE, far to early to have anything to do with the Exodus tale. According to the Biblical story tales Abe had yet to leave Mesopotamia at this point in time.
Th Egyptian Admonitions were likely written 400 years after Pepy II at best guess - see http://archive.org/details/admonitionsofegy00gard and - http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipuwer.htm
The 1st link is to a book by Alan Henderson Gardiner titled - " The admonitions of an Egyptian sage from a hieratic papyrus in Leiden(Pap. Leiden 344 recto)" It is FREE online.
I would generally subscribe to the position that this papyrus is relevant to the Hyskos invasion, though it may be others such as the Libyans or the Bedouins.
I have obviously not read all of Gardiners book as of yet.
What is it that you see here that is relevant to the Exodus, specify either page from Gardiner or the section from the other link.
Very generally, the story in Exodus dates the reign of the particular emperor to be quite long. Pepy II happened to be one such emperor... I think the only emperor to have an extensive reign of over 80 years I think. This would fit with the story at hand. His son would have been the new emperor that grew up with Moses.
How many years off would you say this would be? Keep in mind that those first 5 books are written much later than their happenings.
Pepy II ruled from 2278 to 2184 BCE according to Oxford's Ancient Egypt by Ian Shaw. That's 94 years! Kind of a very long time. He began his reign at the age of 6. He had many children over the years many he outlived. The problem of trying to put the Moses story tale here is Abraham's family were still in Mesopotamia based on the earlier stories in Genesis. The movement of the Semites from Mesopotamia is dated to the period around 2200 BCE. The tales indicates the Hebrews were enslaved for about 400 years in Egypt, taking the story of Joseph back to around 2600 BCE or so if Pepy II was the father of the Exodus Pharaoh. However, he was succeeded by Queen Nitiqret from 2184-2181 and then numerous kings called Neferkara from 2183-2160 BCE. Meaning the Joseph story would involve the Old Kingdom period of the 3rd or 4the dynasty. This all doesn't fit well into the Genesis scenario.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sorry for the delay, been kind of busy.
1 Kings 16 to 1 Kings 22:40 is a rant against King Ahab of Israel, this rant is far longer than even the supposed good kings of Judah. One wonders what Ahab did or his armies did to the writer or his family to warrant such an attack. maybe the writer's girlfriend or sister became one of Ahab's concubines or something. Just saying.
2 Chronicles 18 is a far shorter version, perhaps the writer's family was not kidnapped or raped by Ahab's forces.
1 Kings 16 begins discussing Baasha and the promise the god had made to eliminate all of his descendants as given by the prophet Jehu. Baasha dies and his son Elah ruled 2 years when Zimri instituted a coup killing "all that pisseth against a wall" - 1 Kings 16:11 of Baasha's family. This completes the threat made by the prophet Jehu from the god. After 7 days, the people made Omri king over them. Omri began a conflict against Zimri and encircled Tirzah. Zimri then committed suicide when he saw the city was taken by Omri according to 1 Kings. He torched the palace and died in the fire. 2 Chronicles has none of this story at all. There is no mention of Baash'a son Elah, the Jehu threat, or Omri. It begins its discussion of Ahab in regard to his consultation of prophets in regard to a possible battle. So no real help is found in Chronicles. Thus 1 Kings has to stand on its own against the history of others and archeology.
Omri reigned over Israel according to 1 Kings 16:21-27 for 12 years. He reigned from Tirzah for 6 years and 6 in the new capital, Samaria. The story goes Omri bought the real estate for Samaria from Shemer for 2 talents of silver. It also claimed of course that Omri did EITSOTL (Evil in the Sight of the Lord) and made Israel to sin provoking the god. Again there is nothing in 2 Chronicles as Omri is skipped over.
Finkelstein has lots to say in regard to both Omri and Ahab. 1st let's discuss Omri. Finkelstein attributes the building activities in Israel/Palestine to both Omri and Ahab not Solomon. His discussion begins on p 169 of Bible Unearthed continuing to p 195. Finkelstein in studying both Samaria and Megiddo attributes the Omride dynasty to be the most significant kingdom in the area called Israel - which I call Samaria to be neutral. Instead of Solomon he details how and why the developments are of both Omri and Ahab. The city of Samaria itself was a tremendous building project, see pp 181-186 of Bible Unearthed. In the 1920s an Iron Age palace was discovered in Megiddo by Clarence Fisher. He and John Crowfoot had also worked the site at Samaria and saw they were very similar. However, the expedition was primarily trying to show Solomon was real and so dated it to him. One of many expeditions that used a hammer to slam pieces of archeology into the story tales of the OT ignoring the reality they didn't fit.
Later on Yadin of the Hebrew University in the 1960s also dated it to Solomon. Instead, Finkelstein shows this was wrong and should be the Omrides, evil though the story tales of the OT indicate of them. Also the city of Hazor adds to the Omride evidence. And others, like the city of Dan. Both Hazor and Megiddo had elaborate tunnels to bring water to the cities, both dated to the Omrides. So why should they all be dated to the Omri's and not the supposed great king Solomon. According to Finkelstein, the proof is in the city of Jezreel. A city built under Ahab. It existed only a short time and so artifacts from it and the style of construction can be used to define and compare to other sites. And when that is done, it is crystal clear that the supposed great building projects in the cities of the north were of the Omri's not a king Solomon who has never been found to be mentioned anywhere else other than the storybook tales of the OT. See pp 186-195 of The Bible Unearthed.
There should be little doubt that either Omri or his son Ahab were real kings of the city state Samaria. Ahab was discussed by the Assyrian king Shalmanser III in the Monolith Inscription which commemorates his battles including the 853 BCE booty trip to Syria-Palestine. see - http://www.livius.org/q/qarqar/qarqar_battle.html and the Mesha Stele or Moabite stone - http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/6_15.html more on this when we get to 2 Kings, for now it helps show the Omri's were real kings of Samaria. Whether or not anyone called the area they were from Israel is unknown, the translation usually call it Israel but take that with a grain of salt.
As always, nothing indicates the city state of Samaria were of the Abe religion, nor is there anything to indicate a relationship ever existed with the small city state of Jerusalem aka Judah at this point in the time line. Finkelstein continues to expand on the point that the Northern city state, Samaria (Israel) and the Southern city state Jerusalem (Judah) were always separate and not a United kingdom as in the story tale.
Next up, Ahab the most vile evil king of all, at least according to the 1 kings story tales, enters the scene.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
- Login to post comments
Offline Pepy II ruled from 2278 to 2184 BCE according to Oxford's Ancient Egypt by Ian Shaw. That's 94 years! Kind of a very long time. He began his reign at the age of 6. He had many children over the years many he outlived. The problem of trying to put the Moses story tale here is Abraham's family were still in Mesopotamia based on the earlier stories in Genesis. The movement of the Semites from Mesopotamia is dated to the period around 2200 BCE. The tales indicates the Hebrews were enslaved for about 400 years in Egypt, taking the story of Joseph back to around 2600 BCE or so if Pepy II was the father of the Exodus Pharaoh. However, he was succeeded by Queen Nitiqret from 2184-2181 and then numerous kings called Neferkara from 2183-2160 BCE. Meaning the Joseph story would involve the Old Kingdom period of the 3rd or 4the dynasty. This all doesn't fit well into the Genesis scenario.
Considering the idea that the dates were exact, yes it doesn't fit well... however, we know there is quite the margin of error in the OT in regards to dating. I can see the difficulty in tying it all together strictly on dating.
- Login to post comments
guess that all worked out.
again sorry for the extreme delay on this. I'll try to get back quicker. times are busy.
[/quot
Do you realize that is me in the grey suit, James E.F.Frederick = Jeffrick, it has been on the RRS posts back in March, I just put the video up rather then look for the original RRS post. I have a big ego and when I do a TV show I post it here, so far Brian Sapient doesn't object. Only two appearences deal with religion "Contemporary Issues "ep25 & ep 45 [the one you've seen half of] watch the rest, I get far more animated [and pissed at the airhead], the engineer was worried about the power of my voice so he set the microphone foreward to the Rev. & host that's why I sound so quite, note the table is round and I sit in the middle, that way all three of us look equal in size; BUT, I am larger then the Rev. and twice the size of the host: TV engineers pay attention to these details; appearences!!!! the way story writers pay attention to appearences, they want you to see the story NOT the reality.
I've done 4 other appearences on the same show withOUT a religious topic "Contemporary Issues" Ep60, ep66, ep70 and ep71[soon to come] where I am ID as a "member of Rational Response Squad" : Brian Sapient [so far] has not objected. The Rev. has not been invited back. You left a slight comment on your post and I drove an ego-inspired link through it. Comment has you wish, [watch the entire video] . Sometimes I operate on pure ego. How meny TV shows have you done?
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
I did realize it was you in the video. Just in case I wasn't sure, when the host said your known online as Jeffrick it confirmed it.
Me I don't do tv shows. I was in the latest Andy Pratt music video however
Anyway, what was the title of that thread based on this video? I"ll comment there.. or if you want we can start another one. your choice. Just for basis, I'm not motivated by ego. If that tends to get in the way with you, I will take you less seriously and likely my responses will show such. I tend to get sarcastic and goofy rather than objective and factual with people like that. Just ask Brian37.