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

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

nlm,

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

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

nlm,

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

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.

Well, if you can’t quickly summarize it, I will do it for you:

Despite his insistence for empirical evidence, NLM has built a hypocritical trap for himself, for he lacks empirical evidence to back up his claim that the "Book of Genesis borrowed from other stories", and he will never be able to produce such empirical evidence no matter how many books he reads.

He simply arrived at his “conclusion” based on the fact that similar stories existed throughout human history.  He failed to take into account the fact that similar stories, like the Flood, present throughout the world is completely compatible with the bible’s claim that the whole world is the offspring of those who disembarked from the Ark.  In fact, a common origin for all mankind is the most reasonable explanation for the commonality of the various accounts.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

'And i'll get your little dog too!'

I was quoting verbatim from scripture.  Yet I didn't place it in quotes in order to gauge the reaction of those unfamiliar with scripture.

How foolish of you to mock the word of Jesus Christ:

Rev 21:6-8 He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But 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. This is the second death."

[??????????]

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.

'And i'll get your little dog too!'

I was quoting verbatim from scripture.  Yet I didn't place it in quotes in order to gauge the reaction of those unfamiliar with scripture.

How foolish of you to mock the word of Jesus Christ:

Rev 21:6-8 He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But 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. This is the second death."

The "Catholic" AFleitch pwn3d again.

[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.

[afleitch]

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.

'And i'll get your little dog too!'

I was quoting verbatim from scripture.  Yet I didn't place it in quotes in order to gauge the reaction of those unfamiliar with scripture.

How foolish of you to mock the word of Jesus Christ:

Rev 21:6-8 He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But 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. This is the second death."

The "Catholic" AFleitch pwn3d again.

Not really. I just couldn't be bothered replying to him that day.

I love how you put 'Catholic' in inverted commas as if I'm somehow making it up

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

Interesting story, but where is your beloved “empirical evidence” to back up this account of your conspiracy theory?  Do you not have anything more than mere speculation? 

Maybe you’re confusing the definitions of “empirical evidence” and “wild speculation”…maybe your standard of “empirical evidence” is merely a façade to your unbelief.

---

I know your game jmfsct, you believe what ever comes to your mind is proven and it falls on others to disprove it.

Actually, nlm, this is YOUR “game”, for you’re the one that asked for “empirical evidence”, I simply turned the tables on you.

[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?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.....And on we go?

NLM,

You have present the recorded history of Egypt as a witness against the bible's account.  So, are you saying you trust the Egyptian history as written by the Egyptians?

If so, do you also believe the following?:

From the historical account of the Egyptians, Pharaoh Ramesses II was to marry a Hittite princess from Turkey. The Egyptian record tells how, as he awaited the arrival of his bride, he realized she would be traveling with her entourage through the mountains of Turkey and Syria in the winter, so he prayed to the god Seth. "'The sky is in your hands, the earth is under your feet, whatever happens is what you command. So may you not send rain, icy blast or snow, until the marvel you have decreed for me shall reach me!' Seth heeded all that he said, and so the sky was calm and summer days occurred in the winter season."

So, do you believe your witness, or not?  And if you don't believe your own witness, why should anyone else?

[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?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the Bible places the Exodus at about 1200 B.C.E.

The 1200BC date is a derived date and is based on many assumptions that I do not hold as fact.

Plug another pharaoh into your equation: Amenemhat IV (1599-1591), as the pharaoh of the Exodus.  This is the one I honed in on when I briefly looked into this topic.  There is little agreement on the timespan of the book of Judges, hence little agreement within Christianity on the date of the Exodus.

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

Only if you use Egyptian dating.  If you use Assyrian dating, then the Hyksos would be expelled 75 years later.

The Assyrian dating is not in alignment with the Egyptian dating, so your non-biblical Egyptian witness is in contradiction with other non-biblical witnesses.  Also, the only thing the Hyksos had in common with Israel is that they were both descended from Shem.

[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 ?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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 ?

First, nlm, I am NOT the one demanding or pretending to have "empirical evidence”, rather YOU are.  So don’t try to get me to adopt your argument, for your argument is idiotic.

The bible never claims that there is direct evidence of God.  It never wastes time arguing God’s existence.  It simply begins by making the point: “In the beginning, God created the heaves and the earth.”

However, the bible does argue the INdirect evidence of God:
1) the testimony and actions of those who have had God intervene in their lives
2) the fact that the universe exists
3) the authority of the Word of God

The ACTS of the faithful are spelled out in the bible, so there is no need to go over that.  And I could add my own testimony to the long list of others.

The evidence from facts that 1)the universe exists and 2) its laws state that entropy can’t decrease and that energy can not be created or destroyed by natural forces…testify that the existence of the universe itself requires a God.

The existence of God is also evident in the authority of the Word of God to completely define human behavior and emotions.  It is illogical to think that, by chance, dozens of writers conspired across many centuries and contrived a book that is as inexhaustible as it is interconnected, while at the same time completely and accurately painting the picture of man’s heart.

Therefore, no “empirical evidence” is going to be given to you, nor would you believe even if you had the evidence: “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.” (Luke 16:31)

…rather God chose the testimony of men to save other men: “God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” (1Cor 1:21)

…so…The bible is explicitly clear in that He chose to save people by the preaching of others.  And the bible is also explicitly clear that He has denied you hard evidence and has revealed himself to those he has chosen.

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

[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

[John Dibble]

The evidence from facts that 1)the universe exists and 2) its laws state that entropy can’t decrease and that energy can not be created or destroyed by natural forces…testify that the existence of the universe itself requires a God.

This again? This is you jumping to conclusions to satisfy your own beliefs, not empirical proof of the existence of a god. It could simply be explained by natural forces which we don't currently understand.

[Emsworth]

However, the bible does argue the INdirect evidence of God:
1) the testimony and actions of those who have had God intervene in their lives
2) the fact that the universe exists
3) the authority of the Word of God

Point 3 isn't really evidence at all. It attempts to use "the Word of God" to prove that God exists. Clearly, this is a circular argument.

Point 2 does not in any way suggest that God exists. As has been demonstrated numerous times, the fact that the universe exists in no way implies that someone created it.

Point 1 is unreliable at best. In any event, I am sure that there are several people who would testify that there is not one God, but many gods. That hardly makes them correct.

Hence, there is neither direct nor indirect evidence for God's existence. Belief in God is just that -- a belief.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is another invalid argument. The Second Law of Thermodynamics only states that total entropy tends to increase. Nothing in the laws of science suggests that "entropy can't decrease."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So how can we choose between different religions? Many different religious texts can lay claim to dozens of writers across many centuries.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More circular reasoning. "God exists. If you don't accept him, it's because God intended it that way."

[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.

[MODU]

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.

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.

You would be quite surprised by how many of us open-minded fundamentalists actually exist.  And while the website you provided does try to point out some of the inconsistencies in the Bible (after all, it was written by more than one person, in multiple languages, and then translated over and over again over time), the site itself is not free of some bias.  The majority of Christians understand this, but that doesn't mean the core of the Bible isn't flawed . . . which is where faith comes into play. 

Of course, with anything, knowledge comes with age.  Kids  aren't going to fully understand the Bible nor history at first.  I know many adults who still don't.  It requires effort and time . . . something which seems to be lacking in modern times.