Yes or No. Is the universe 12,000 years old? Dont hide behind your bible. No but

[nlm]

THOU SHALT NOT KILL. (unless you need to, and they are of a different religion, and a pre-emptive strike might stop them from doing something bad, and, and , and...)

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR. (Unless they have different politcal beliefs, then lie your ass off, spin as much as you can, and, and, and...) You would never do that jmfcst, would you?

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS. (unless you really need it, like oil, and the long term good of your country is served by it and, and and....)

It's all greek to me jmfcst, let's hear some good bible quotes that have more bearing on a Christian life than the "10 commandments" - are there such things?

I can not say I take the 10 commandments any more seriously than I take the words of Santa Clause in a bed time story - but are you not supposed to.

[nlm]

What, you're not going to give me the pleasure of watching you try and spin the bible? Damn!!!!! I was really looking forward to that.

Oh, and the math is one of the many reasons I find our over sea adventures to be such an abuse of tax payers in this country. And when I think about Wolfie talking out his butt about the war paying for itself.....hehehehehe!



And you're not a spin machine jmfcst, what would ever make me think you bear false witness against others at will??? Take a look through your own posts, I don't know, maybe a look in the mirror might help you, but it would need to be an honest one, the self proclaimed true believers don't seem to be so good at that (just an opinion).

That's a little mean spirited of me - so sorry. It's just watching you spin the bible to justify rubbing salt in the wounds of those that disagree with you was so damn funny, I needed to see if it could be duplicated.

[nlm]

I'm not coming out against trash talking (I was a huge trash talker back when I played ball - for both the reason you note and to get an edge in the aggression department).

Like I said, I was simply amused by your earlier statements and wanted to see if they could be duplicated - I have no pretense that I know squat about who you are beyond some of your ramblings and self justifications and absolutisms posted on this board. Really, you could say I was just doing a little trash talking with you - hehehehehe - to watch a self justifying machine at work. Aces.

[nlm]

I don't know squat about your religion, other than it is used to justify what ever is being done at the moment and that many seem to disagree about the justifications being used. I don't want to know squat about a religion that has been used as excuse through out history for harming other people and is still being used that way today.

I honestly could care less if YOUR idea of YOUR religion incorporates the idea of trash talking. It's like asking what the code of conduct is for Santa's elves. Who cares (other than the elves that is).

While as amusing as it would be to watch you justify your self justifying (I'm assuming it would be more amussing than watching you pretend not to be a self justifying machine), I'll make a deal with you - if I note you doing it in the future, I'll be sure to point it out - as looking through your old posts sounds more like torture than fun, and that isn't why I come here.

[nlm]

I don't claim anything is sinful, the whole idea of religous sin is silly.

As far as trash talking goes - I don't go around with a holy than thou attitude either. It gives me some wiggle room you don't afford yourself.

When people connect just about everything to religion, as you seem to do, it wasn't hard to connect your religion to your trash talking. I mean is there something in your life not connected to your religion?

Like I said, just having a little fun with you. I find the true believers to be an "interesting" sub set of humanity. Shaking some chains, and seeing if I can gain some insights into the oddities of the thought process.

[nlm]

I am only told not to be like the following: the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

But I thought if you put your faith in Jesus all sin was forgiven? Is that not the case anymore?

[nlm]

This is fun, but it's really not that fair to you. I'm talking about something that is comical and absurd and you're talking about the same thing, accept it's the center of your life. I don't think I can keep it up with out crossing some lines, in terms of mean spiritedness, I'd really rather not cross. You seem like an amicable enough nutter to me - so no need to be cross with you.

"bumbles bounce"

How foolish of you to mock the words of Yukon Cornelius!

I'm quoting verbatim from "rudolph the red nosed reign deer".

Silly mortal! Have you been in a closet all your life, or just wrapped up in fiction? hehehehehehe

[nlm]

The parts not supported by empirical evidence. Just because somebody wrote something down on a piece of paper (or carved it in a stone tablet) doesn't make it so.

Let me test that.

"I'm an invisible, ethereal, omnipotent being!"

Damn, I was right.

I look at the bible the same way I look at the Koran, or the Bhagavad Gita , or The Egyptian Book of the Dead, or Tao Te Ching, or the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Kells, or the Poetic Edda for that matter. There is really no logical reason not to.

I get it jmfsct, some folks were raised on the bible and need that mystical belief in something better than this life to keep going. It gives a person a feeling of accomplishment and superiority and more with no real effort, people would pay money for that - and they do. There are a lot of folks out their just like that, in fact, the world over it seems to be more common than not. It could be called the typical human condition. It serves a purpose and it has a wide market. So of course folks will sell it and buy it and be used by it and use it. That's life. I really don't begrudge you your flight of fancy. I really do understand that some folks actually couldn't continue in their lives with out their mystical beliefs in something better than the here and now. I feel for those folks. Now the ones that just follow along never asking a pertinet question about the flight of fancy their parents (or some other person) directed them to, I don't feel them. They are simply a waste of brain matter (if you ask me).

Like I said this is comical and absurd to me, and the root of your existance. I'll keep talking to you on this topic if you want, but I don't know why you would want that.

[nlm]

Empirical evidence. I need empirical evidence for zinggy stuff, not words on a page.

I have a feeling I would find your definition of "historical evidence" to be some what lacking. Though you may define your use of the term for me if you so wish.

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."  - Napoleon.

He, of course, is correct.

[nlm]

Empirical evidence. I need empirical evidence for zinggy stuff, not words on a page.

Well, since Christianity exists today, when and where does your empirical evidence suggest it started?

Which form are you speaking about?

The bible?

I don’t believe any empirical evidence exists for the exact date. Though there is scholarly evidence based on carbon dating of an existing text.

About 7,000 years ago, give or take a bit (in present day Iraq of all places) ancient Mesopotamian culture created the Epic of Gilgamesh (which was lengthy narrative of heroic mythology that incorporates many of the religious myths of Mesopotamia, and it is the earliest complete literary work that has survived). Many of the stories from that epic appear to be the foundation of the bible, given that the Book of Genesis borrowed the stories of the creation of man in a wondrous garden, the introduction of evil into a naive world, and the story of a great flood brought on by the wickedness of man, that flooded the whole world from it.

So that would be a logical starting point for the bible as a written work. It is impossible to tell how long prior to that the ancient forefathers of Iraq started telling the stories that would be co-opted by the Christians. It could well date back quite a ways beyond that.

[nlm]

Empirical evidence. I need empirical evidence for zinggy stuff, not words on a page.

Well, since Christianity exists today, when and where does your empirical evidence suggest it started?

Which form are you speaking about?

The bible?

I don’t believe any empirical evidence exists for the exact date. Though there is scholarly evidence based on carbon dating of an existing text.

About 7,000 years ago, give or take a bit (in present day Iraq of all places) ancient Mesopotamian culture created the Epic of Gilgamesh (which was lengthy narrative of heroic mythology that incorporates many of the religious myths of Mesopotamia, and it is the earliest complete literary work that has survived). Many of the stories from that epic appear to be the foundation of the bible, given that the Book of Genesis borrowed the stories of the creation of man in a wondrous garden, the introduction of evil into a naive world, and the story of a great flood brought on by the wickedness of man, that flooded the whole world from it.

So that would be a logical starting point for the bible as a written work. It is impossible to tell how long prior to that the ancient forefathers of Iraq started telling the stories that would be co-opted by the Christians. It could well date back quite a ways beyond that.

I was speaking about the Christian church.  Where and when did it begin, according to your evidence?

Honestly, I've never looked at it from that stand point. Once I reviewwd the scholarly evidence on the origins of the book that is the foundation of the church - I didn't see a reason to waste more time in fantasy land.

[nlm]

I was speaking about the Christian church.  Where and when did it begin, according to your evidence?

Honestly, I've never looked at it from that stand point. Once I reviewwd the scholarly evidence on the origins of the book that is the foundation of the church - I didn't see a reason to waste more time in fantasy land.

Then let's go straight to the scholarly evidence you have reviewed…you stated:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is the evidence that “the Book of Genesis borrowed the stories”?

As amusing as this is jmfsct, I'm not going to get caught at a tactical disadvantage in an easter bunny debate by being the only one answering questions.

There are dozens of scholarly books about the writing of the bible ready for purchase at your local book store. I'm not going to do them the injustice of trying to compress them into a few lines on the internet.

You are the one that has dedicated your life to this crazy stuff, you are the one walking around judging who is good and who is bad based on identifiable tripe. Maybe you should show the intellectual curiosity to go pick some of this stuff up, think outside the box, learn how the book you think so much of was constructed, weight the evidence, and move forward. Haha, as if there is a chance of that.

[nlm]

nlm,

So, basically, the one demanding empirical evidence can NOT substantiate his claims that the "Book of Genesis borrowed from other stories".

Did you not read my post? Though your reply is exactly what I was expecting. You will not seek out information if there is the chance it could show you how much tripe you have bought into to. You will continue on with blinders pointing the direction you wish to look. I already figured that out.

You're smoking something really good if you think I can layout the foundations of the bible in two paragraphs or less, or that I store such information in my head for ready use. This is hardly the core of my existance, it's something I studied and dismissed. But you already knew that (unless you're not so bright), so really I've got to believe you simply have a desire to believe as you believe, regardless of what evidence may be out there that concludes your bible is a work of fiction.

Like I said, some people need to live in fanatsy land. You may be one of those folks - and that Ok by me. It just seems like a waste.

[nlm]

You are starting to get creepy Jmfsct.

The fact is that with all that is known of Egyptian history from this time (since scholars can now read the records the ancient Egyptians with the ease of a modern newspaper), and the fact that the history of Egypt in this period is well documented, there is no evidence from the records of Egypt itself that the events of Exodus ever occured, either archaeologically or documentarily in the manner in which the Bible describes the events. The reality is that if a series of plagues had been visited upon Egypt, thousands of slaves escaped in a mass runaway, and the army of the Pharaoh were swallowed up by the Red Sea, such events would doubtless have made it into the Egyptian documentary record. But the reality is that there isn't a single word describing any such events.
Instead, what we do have from Egyptian sources is a remarkably different story of the Exodus. From about the beginning of the second millenium B.C.E., through about 1200 B.C.E., Egypt ruled the region known today as Palestine. How do we know this? We know it not only from Egyptian records themselves, which talk about tribute taken from the various towns and cities in Canaan, but from archaeological evidence within the region itself, which shows a number of settlements which were clearly Egyptian military outposts.

During this time, the region which was to become the land of Israel, occupying the northern highlands between the coastal plain and the valley of the Jordan river, was sparsely populated and densly forested with stands of oak and terebinth trees. This land was populated by one of two groups (we're not sure which), either the Apiru or Shoshu peoples. The former were known to have originated as intinerant nomads, largely on the fringes of lowland society, who may have taken refuge in the highlands, or the Shosu, a more cohesive, well-defined group. The linguistic association of Apiru (sometimes Habiru) with the word, "Hebrew" had long, in the minds of scholars, been considered good evidence that this was the group that gave rise to the Hebrews, but we now know that the association wasn't quite that simple. The name may have been from that source, but the people probably weren't.

In any event, the highlands of northern Palestine which was home to the Kingdom of Israel has a highly variable climate. Agricultural productivity, and the ability of people to sustain trade with the lowlands, was subject to varying climatic conditions, meaning that famine was a frequent occurence. When crops failed and trade could not be sustained, it was not uncommon for people to flee the region and head for refuge where crops were dependable. The nearest such place was the Nile delta in Egypt.

So many of the "Hebrews" (culturally indistinct from the Canaanites at this time), who were citizens of Egypt, fled to the Nile delta. Time and again. Every time there was a famine in Judah, Israel or Canaan, refugees headed for Egypt. The event was so common, and the refugees so numerous, that they eventually became a substantial minority group, influential in Egypt, where they were known as the Hyksos, as is now very clear from the archaeological record.

The story of the expulsion of the Hyksos is easily the closest parallel we have from either the Egyptian record or the archaeological record to the story of the Exodus as recorded in the Bible. There are problems, though. Besides the Exodus story line, the biggest problem is the dates: the Bible places the Exodus at about 1200 B.C.E., yet the story of the Hyksos culminates in 1570 B.C.E. It is quite likely that the story of the Hyksos is the story that eventually, through generations of revisionistic retelling, became the myth of the Exodus -- another example of history being rewritten to flatter the storytellers rather than to record the unvarnished truth.

Anyway, the Hyksos grew in influence until they eventually took control of Egypt, which they ruled, with considerable cruelty and tyrrany during the Fifteenth Dynasty, beginning in 1670 B.C.E. The Egyptians had finally had enough, though, and rebelled against the rule of the Hyksos and drove them out a century later in 1570 B.C.E. They weren't just driven out, either; the Egyptians pushed them back into Canaan with considerable force, driving them all the way to the Syrian frontier, sacking and burning Canaanite cities along the way. Sometime later, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, Avaris, in the eastern Nile delta, was razed to the ground by the Pharoah Ahmose, who chased the last remnants of the Hyksos back into Canaan and even laid siege to Sharuhen, the main Canaanite citadel, destroying it and ending Canaanite influence there. At least one historian claims (a millenium after the fact) that the Hyksos refugees settled in Jerusalem and built a temple there, but the archaeological record does not support the claim of either a temple or large numbers of refugees in Jerusalem from this period.

It is quite clear from the archaeological record, as well, that there never was a "wandering in the desert for 40 years," either. Extensive archaeological surveys of the Sanai desert have never shown any encampments dating from the time of the Exodus, either before, during or after the time of the Ramsean pharoahs. At least two sites mentioned in the exodus story have been positively identified and carefully and extensively excavated, but no evidence of late bronze-age occupation or encampment has been found at either site. Additionally, the Sanai Desert was literally dotted with Egyptian military outposts, and nowhere in the Sanai could the Hebrews have been more than a day's travel from one of them. It is inconceivable that they could have remained undetected in the Sanai for forty years. The story of the Exodus is clearly mythmaking designed to portray a possible forced expulsion of oppressors as an escape of victims.

By the 12th century B.C.E., the Hebrews assumed an identity unique enough in the archaeological record to become discernible for the first time. In the mountains and plateaus of the northern highlands of Canaan, from Jerusalem north to the Jezreel Valley, the highland settlements, poor for their day, begin to show a single distinguishing feature from other, similar highland settlements in regions around them. There is little to go on - pottery shows an impoverished lifestyle, with little decoration and use other than as storage and cooking vessels. Yet one thing is clear - the bones of pigs become absent from the archaeological record. The prohibition on eating pork is therefore the oldest archaeologically supported feature of Jewish culture. It is representative of the beginnings of the transformation of the god "El" into "El-ohim," the god of gods, the god of Israel.

We now know this Mesopotamian god as "El-ohim," and our author "E," one of the earliest scriptorialists writing about this time, first has El introducing himself to Abraham as "El Shaddai" (El of the Mountain). He also appears as El Elyon, or El of Bethel in other, non-canonized scripture, and his name is also preserved in such Hebrew names as Isra-El and Ishma-El. The word Elohim was originally a plural of El.2

To the south, from Bethel to the Valley of Beersheba, a similar transformation is taking place. In this climatically and geologically harsher place, a place with a much smaller and less settled population with greater geographical isolation, the Canaanite god Yahweh is being transformed by a culturally similar people of the land of Judah. The unknown author known to scholars simply as "J" has his god being familiar with and comfortable with Abraham, and he casually appears to Abraham in Genesis 18, introducing himself as Yahweh. But "J's" contemporary, author "E" in the north can't have God being so casual, and first appears as a voice, commanding Abraham to leave his people in Mesopotamia and settle in Canaan.3

Yahweh, in his transformation from a pagan Canaanite god to the god of the Jews, becomes a cruel and vindictive god in the hands of author "J." He commands Abraham to sacrifice his first born son, an act which is not at all surprising given the nature of the pagan religions of the time. Many of these pagan religions (and remember that Yahweh got his start as a Canannite pagan god) considered the first-born to be the seed of a god. Because of this, they were often sacrificed to the god who presumably sired them.

[nlm]

Yet Elohim in the north continues to be a much more subtle god, who directs the affairs of men by revelation of the voice, hidden from the view of mere mortals. There is a tension among these peoples, both of whom identify themselves as culturally decendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. One people, perhaps, but two gods.

The people of the north, with a much more favorable geography and climate, eventually prosper and establish trading links with their neighbors. Their wealth eventually comes to greatly exceed that of the south - to the extent that they become a nation in their own right - the nation of Israel. Israel prospers to the extent that it becomes a significant trading nation - greatly eclipsing its poorer neighbor, Judah. The archaeological record clearly shows Israel to be a major regional power, one that certainly attracted the interest of its neighbors.

By now, the Egyptian hegemony in the region has faded, and the geopolitical vacuum was filled by Assyria. The Assyrians eventually assumed control of the region, with two provincial areas, Israel in the north, and Judah in the south. Israel, vastly more prosperous and populous than Judah, had its capital at various times in Megiddo, Samaria and Seschem, and Judah had its capital at Bethel, on it's northern frontier, or sometimes at Hebron in the south. Jerusalem, up until this time, was a tiny agricultural village of insignificance, and, until the Assyrian deportations, was certainly not a cultural center.

By the end of the eighth century, B.C.E., a Hebrew alphabet appears, and literacy rapidly spreads among the wealthier Hebrews. Finally, after centuries of oral tradition, writing becomes widespread for the first time, and culturally changes everything. The myths are written down and compared. And the two gods come into open conflict with each other.

Widespread literacy and the geopolitical events of the day, changed everything. Israelite rebellion against the Assyrians brought repression in the north, and with it, waves of refugees into the south. With the arrival of waves of refugees, Jerusalem is quickly transformed from a tiny agricultural village of no particular significance into a major town, with a religious influence of its own. The arriving Israelites with their gods with El at the helm, and the Judeans, with their single god Yahweh, are now forced to reconcile their religious differences. It is also from this era that the myths of the Old Testament become frozen in the form in which they have come down to us - the story of Abraham and his family travelling and trading Arabian goods with the use of camels, the myth of Exodus transformed as it was from the story of the expulsion of the Hyksos, the stories of the conquest of Canaan with David slaying Goliath, which was really a story based on the forced resettlement by the Egyptian authorities, of Solomon's great wealth and his great temple at Jerusalem; all were myths substantially altered from the facts as they originally occured. But writing them down now froze those myths, and it is from this time they came to us unaltered for the most part. For the first time, the Biblical record begins to correspond with the archaeological record.

[nlm]

It is at least a century after the first books of the Pentatuch was written that the gods of the Old Testament are harmonized into a singular being, this having been done by the third major writer of the Old Testament books, a writer (or more probably group of writers) called by scholars, "D" the Deuteronomist. If we are going to have a monotheistic religion here, we can't go around having two competing gods, so something must be done. The tribes of Israel and Judah had a choice to make, and Joshua warned them that Yahweh was a jealous god. Which god would it be? In essence, there was no difficulty making a choice. Yahweh was the more powerful, having demonstrated his power by intervening on their behalf in Egypt, and in the desert at Sinai. The choice was easy. It was Yahweh.
So the second great revision of Judaic religion has happened. In the original Pentatuch, written in the 8th century B.C.E., there isn't a clearly monotheistic statement to be found, but by the time of the writings of the Deuteronomist, a century or so later, the Deuteronomist has Joshua threatening the Israelites and making sure they became monotheistic under threat of being destroyed. The Deuteronomist pulls off this neat harmonization of two competing gods by having the Israelites reminded that their fathers had promised Yahweh that he would be their god, and so they made him their elohim, their high God. So now, Elohim, who originally was the king of the gods of Fertile Crescent, is now Yahweh, the god of Israel. If you have two conflicting gods, its a neat trick to just get rid of the conflict by declaring they're the same being.4

A god has to have a home, and the home of the god Yahweh was in heaven. But his priests on earth had to have a place for the ritual sacrifices that were handed down as part of the ritual of the "El" pantheon, as well as the original pagan Canaanite god, Yahweh, which of course had been descended into the Hebraic monotheism. This place was the temple, of course, whose construction was attributed to Solomon, a mythical king. The reality is that it was built at least a century later than the period attributed to the rule of Solomon. The whole story of Solomon, his father David and the events surrounding that dynasty were created during this era to explain the fading splendor of Jerusalem and provide a centering myth around which to rally the culture towards a monotheistic religion, under assault from the Assyrian culture that politically was hegemonous in the region.

In the year 742 B.C.E., while the Deuteronomist writers were still busy getting rid of Elohim, a member of the Judean royal family had a vision. In it, he saw Yahweh sitting on his throne, directly above the temple in Jerusalem. In the vision, Isaiah is commanded to bring a new message to Israel. Isaiah is filled with foreboding and with good reason; King Tigleth Pilesar, who had recently ascended to the throne of Assyria had designs on Israel, and now the god of Israel had to take up the duties of defending the people of his covenant.

Isaiah was commissioned by his god to carry the message to Israel that he is the only god there is; this comes as a great problem to the Israelites who see Isaiah's concept of God as being the very god who had aided the Assyrians in their victories against them. Isaiah is largely rejected with his message, and Yahweh becomes a pensive, introspective god, who invites his followers to enter into a dialogue with him. Isaiah's second innovation was the notion that the commandments of the god should be integrated into the very lives of those who follow him, and not just be restricted to temple observance and ritual. Only by doing so would Yahweh be appeased and Israel saved. This also did not have much resonance in the lives of the average Hebrew.

In punishment for disregarding the prophet's message, Yahweh conveniently permits King Sargon II of Assyria to occupy the northern portion of Palestine and deport the population. Suddenly, the warnings of Isaiah are taken a bit more seriously as the ten "lost" tribes of Israel are marched off into forced assimilation in Assyria and Palestine becomes the land of the Jews. The reality of course, is that Sargon was punishing Israel for its insurrection and refusal to pay tribute. Israel, with a wetter, more productive climate and much easier geography was much easier pickings than the dry, rocky, thinly populated and more distant Judah. So it was only natural that Sargon would choose to occupy Israel rather than Judah. Yet even as Sargon occupied Israel his own empire was beginning to crumble. Assyrian power was fading, but Babylonian power was increasing.

In the south, to ensure that the people of Judah hear his message, Yahweh sends a succession of prophets to them. They preach from the temple and ally themselves with the political power of the Jewish kings. In so doing, the temple and the political process become allied in the fight against the military power of their neighbors. There is no longer an Elohim cult, and the Israelites are long gone. The Hebraic religion and culture becomes a Jewish one. Amos and Jeremiah were the prophets of note from this period.

[nlm]

Jeremiah's message was that God is dependent on man to carry out his wishes in the world, a view very much in contrast to the writers of Exodus, who had Yahweh being a powerful, independent and even capricious god. And Jeremiah warns that only following the dictates of God would keep the newly ascendant Babylonians at bay. But it was not enough. He predicted that Babylon would conquer Palestine and the occupants of that land would spend 70 years in captivity by the rivers of Babylon. Well, the captivity happened, but it didn't last 70 years. We know from secular sources that it actually lasted from 586 to 538 B.C.E., a period of only 48 years.
By 600 B.C.E., the Babylonians were capturing bits of Palestine. By 586, Jerusalem itself was conquered and the temple destroyed. But as conquests of the period went, it was not a bitter one, as only some of the Hebrews were taken into captivity and those who were, were not forced to assimilate. Many were allowed to remain in Palestine. Archaeological surveys indicate that at most, about 10% of the population was forced into exile, most of them being the most economically and politically useful.

Among the first batch of deportees, in 597 B.C.E. was a young priest known as Ezekiel.

Ezekiel claimed to have had a great vision. It was a typical Yahwehian affair, a great and horrible thing, in which was revealed a plan of action. And in Ezekiel's case, the plan of action was unique, indeed. He first had to eat the word of God. Yes, he was required to eat and swallow the scroll containing the word. This was to make it a "part of" himself.

Then his wife died, and Ezekiel was forbidden to mourn. Instead, he had to lie down on one side for 390 days and then on the other for 40. On another occasion, he was required to eat excrement. For a period of five years, he spoke to no one.

Yahweh had not just become a violent and jealous god, he was also demanding and irrational at times. No wonder Ezekiel complained about the burden of being a prophet.

It seems that Yahweh could not only allow his chosen people to be taken captive, he seemed to have made a circus performer out of his prophets. The irrationality of all this was not lost on the Jews. Exiled as many of them were in Babylon, it seemed that the whole world was topsy-turvy, and practice of their religion, based as it was in a destroyed temple, was impossible outside their homeland. They resented their captivity and relished the thoughts of dashing out the brains of Babylonian babies.

But a new prophet preached tranquility.

Scholars know him as Second Isaiah, as his true name is lost to history, and his message was much like that of the first Isaiah. Second Isaiah also preached that God was unknowable, hence the irrationality of trying to understand him as Ezekiel had gotten in trouble for. Yet this newer incarnation of Yahweh was a more tranquil god, who transcended the pettiness of human politics, and declared himself to be the god that Egypt and Assyria would ultimately worship alongside Israel. So Yahweh's jurisdiction seems to be transformed once again, from the god of the Jews, then all of Israel, to the whole world, and now back to just Palestine, Egypt and Assyria.

The numerous writers of this period became known to scholars as the Priestly writers, or "P." They gave us the books of Numbers and Leviticus, and also gave their interpretations to the events described by "J" and "E," including the account of the creation, taken from the Babylonian myth, Enuma Elish, a decendant from the Epic of Gilgamesh. "P" subscribes to the Ezekielian vision that God is unknowable and unseeable; it is from this revision that we now have Moses shielding himself from the sight of God by hiding behind a rock. It is also from this period that we have the Levitical proscriptions, the cleanliness laws, which do not define sin, but instead define simply what is Hebraic as opposed to the hated paganism (read: Babylonian) religions (it would only be the Christians centuries later who would assume the Levitical proscriptions to have been descriptions of sin). All this new material was inserted into the Pentatuch about the time Cyrus conquered Babylon in 538 B.C.E. and allowed the Jews to return to Palestine.5

The returning Jews wished to rebuild the temple and reestablish the kingdom it all its glory, but they had a problem. Being still governed by foreigners, they weren't allowed a king.

They solved this problem by simply denying that a king was even necessary, instead heaping their veneration on the high priest of the temple, which they were allowed to have. This would be the pattern of religious practice they would maintain, even during periods when they escaped foreign domination and were able to have their own kings, until the destruction of the Second Temple, centuries later. It was during this period, about 400 B.C.E., that the Torah finally became canonized as scripture.

[nlm]

That is a far greater waste of Dave's space than I should use. Just a little fun I found, there's a ton more where it came from. I really don't have any scholarly credits on the work, and would recommend Bertrand Russel as a starting point, not this. But given that you made it clear reading a book that might conflict with your beliefs was out of the question - I figure it was this or nothing. Have fun, or don't, with this (while long in terms of a post) short opening piece of a summary. It appears to be based on bits and pieces taken from a number of scholars, some points I've encountered repeatedly, others are new to me.

And seriously, if you want clarification on a point - go find the scholarly work that this summary is based on, don't come whinning to me. I'm no scholar of ancient texts. The only reason you would come to me would be an act of avoidance of knowledge. I certainly can not answer your questions as well as the source material for this summary could. If you want to know - LOOK, don't whine or try and misrepresent me.

I would also note that you are missing the difference between scholarly evidence and empirical evidence. I said I needed empirical evidence for zinggy stuff (zinggy stuff = supernatural goings on), I didn't say I needed it for all things. I would also note that you have not provided a single piece of evidence of any kind or even a source or summary of evidence.

I know your game jmfsct, you believe what ever comes to your mind is proven and it falls on others to disprove it. While that is illogical and can never lead to new information, if it works for you - that's fine. Cultists depend on an insular environment to keep their beliefs together, nothing new there.

[nlm]

I would also note that you are missing the difference between scholarly evidence and empirical evidence. I said I needed empirical evidence for zinggy stuff (zinggy stuff = supernatural goings on), I didn't say I needed it for all things. I would also note that you have not provided a single piece of evidence of any kind or even a source or summary of evidence.

And on we go?

[nlm]

And seriously, if you want clarification on a point - go find the scholarly work that this summary is based on, don't come whinning to me. I'm no scholar of ancient texts. The only reason you would come to me would be an act of avoidance of knowledge. I certainly can not answer your questions as well as the source material for this summary could. If you want to know - LOOK, don't whine or try and misrepresent me.

I wasn't kidding

Look dude - the entire principle of your religion is illogical.

The fact that your religion appears to be constructed in a similar fashion as every other religion comes as no suprise to me (nor should it come as a suprise to anybody). Pieced to together from earlier myths, largely unsupported by archeological evidence, often contradicted by histories written apart from your religion, etc.

You clearly have no understanding of the term "negative evidence" based upon your last post. That they believe in their own gods comes as no surprise (no more so than your illogical beliefs) - that they have provided a comprehensive history of events outside their gods, from multiple sources also comes as no suprise (I guess it does to you - oh scholar of ancient texts). Not all the Egyptians where nutters (did you know that), plus, there is an archeological record to help verify their accounts. Certainly, I would discount anything that gives credit to Seth, but let's not pretend that is typical of the records kept by the Egyptians. Using your line of logic, we should discount the histories written 20 years ago, because there were also nutters giving credit to some mystical being named "God" at the same time.

Before I entertain any thoughts of trying to burrow through the scholars of ancient texts again, I'm going to need some evidence that there is some invisible, ethereal, human like being (or what ever it is you call your god). So what do you have?

[nlm]

I think the point being made in the summary is that the Hyksos being expelled in 1570 B.C.E. is the most similar recorded history to the book of Exodus. Not that the 1200 B.C.E. date was simply incorrect.

[nlm]

And seriously, if you want clarification on a point - go find the scholarly work that this summary is based on, don't come whinning to me. I'm no scholar of ancient texts. The only reason you would come to me would be an act of avoidance of knowledge. I certainly can not answer your questions as well as the source material for this summary could. If you want to know - LOOK, don't whine or try and misrepresent me.

Still not kidding

Before I entertain any thoughts of trying to burrow through the scholars of ancient texts again, I'm going to need some evidence that there is some invisible, ethereal, human like being (or what ever it is you call your god). So what do you have?

Still need something ?

[nlm]

And if you find that "foolish"...GOOD...because that is exactly how God intended it to sound.

Well, if it was in fact the plan of an omnipotent being to provide only for fools - than your religion does fit the bill.

Have fun giving praise to the Easter Bunny

[nlm]

For the non-fundamentalists, or even the fundamentalist that have an open mind (not sure if there is such a thing), that wander into this thread and are looking for some more info on the construction of the bible and the Christian "faith" here is a link to the entire summary of which I posted a small amount.

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

It also lists a number of books on the topic to reference if you so wish.

I'm fairly sure that quite a few of todays Christians would drop their belief in fairy tales on a dime if they were exposed to some of this stuff or at least start asking meaningful questions about the core belief in their lives. Of course, there are plenty that would not. It just seems unfair to the youth of this country that the orgins of the bible are kept hidden from plain view and that they are asked to answer questions so complex without any where close to all the available information.

[nlm]

I don't pretend that the web site I gave a link to ( http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm ) is anything more than a place to spark questions in the minds of some people that may never have known such questions were there to be asked. And, I hope, any that ask such questions will seek more than the content of that web page for the answers to those questions.

Critical thinking requires information. Blind faith requires an avoidance of information. Faith, on the other hand, is a completely different story than blind faith. But blind faith is the calling of many.