Everyone Here is a Genius Until...

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Berean,

All arguments about the author to the side, what is your opinion of the information?

 

[Hasan_ibn_Sabah]

I meant to say maybe the Bible isn't wrong but the chronology is

 

[The Berean]

Berean,

All arguments about the author to the side, what is your opinion of the information?

Before I can have an opinion of the information I need to see the sources that he used. Allsmiles challenged us to review and refute (if possible) the information. Since the author didn't perform the actual research and he didn't cite sources I cannot give an opinion.

I posted the other information as evidence of bias the author has. The author is obviously very biased against "religion". This logically doesn't prove his infomation is false of course. But how do I know if he didn't just use infomation that bolstered his postion and ignored information that contradicted his position. Since he didn't cite sources I have no way of knowing this.

Christian apologists sometimes get accused of only using evidence that supports their veiwpoints. Well, I believe this author is doing the same thing.

 

[The Berean]

So that means you can't use the internet to do research? That's awful! I'm sure there's a medical name for a condition like this...

Wait, someone is arguing for a position and the I have do the research for them? That's kind of silly don't you think?

Seeing as how the tale of Gilgamesh predates the writing of Genesis and the stories are both so similar, he probably thought that it was a safe assumption to make. He's not the first to make this assertion and you should know that. I do. Try refuting his assertion instead of discrediting him.

How can one refute an assertion without looking at the evidence. He hasn't posted any. Everyone pretty much agrees that Gilgamech predates Genesis, or more specifcally the story of Noah since Genesis has other stories in it. However because Gilgamesh predates The Noah narative, that doesn't "prove" Noah was a copy. Some points

1) There are similarites between the two stories yet they are many significant differences:

2) What is the actual evidence that the author of Genesis actually copied Gilgamesh besides the "similarities"?

Justchristian is doing his research to respond to this, I have, Granite seems to know what he's talking about, Fool was appreciative and seems to be interested in looking into it. Everyone's on this bandwagon but you. You're more interested in discrediting the author than critically examining his work.

I am actually doing my own research on this. I was showing strong evidence that the author is highly biased. It's so obvious a blind man can see this.

Well, it's a free country, he can think what he likes. That hardly changes the evidence that supports his assertion. I've been studying the story of the Hyksos and their corroboration to the Hebrews and I'm an unbeliever. You've been studying the author of the assertion in the hopes of discrediting him because his political views differ from your own. So far you've displayed no previous knowledge of the Hyksos.

Of course he can think what he likes. And? I wasn't even talking about Hyksos. Did I even mention this in my previous post. I was asking for the sources that the author used?

Maybe if you do some research into this you'll learn something new. How scary.

I'm always trying learning something. But I prefer to learn new things from people that actually know what they are talking about.

Once again, free country and it doesn't change the evidence that supports his assertion.

Again, what "evidence? Sources, please.

You appear to not know what you're talking about, and while that is welcome here (I want us all to learn something new together ) taking blind pot shots at someone for presenting an evidence-supported theory is not.

Thank you!

Whatever. Typical :kookoo:

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Since the author didn't perform the actual research and he didn't cite sources I cannot give an opinion.

Well, actually it's not impossible to give an opinion in that situation, but I quite agree that it's impossible to give an effective rebuttal.

I much prefer William G. Dever's Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Not only did Dever do the research, he's one of the most vocal (and effective) opponents of the "Biblical Nihilist" sschool of thought. And Israel Finklestein's The Bible Unearthed. They do come up with some different conclusions on some things (Finklestein is not one or Dever's favorite people), but these are two people who have "been there and done that" as far as the Biblical Archaeology.

 

[The Berean]

Well, actually it's not impossible to give an opinion in that situation, but I quite agree that it's impossible to give an effective rebuttal.

I much prefer William G. Dever's Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Not only did Dever do the research, he's one of the most vocal (and effective) opponents of the "Biblical Nihilist" sschool of thought. And Israel Finklestein's The Bible Unearthed. They do come up with some different conclusions on some things (Finklestein is not one or Dever's favorite people), but these are two people who have "been there and done that" as far as the Biblical Archaeology.

This is the kind of stuff I like to read. I'm a bit of a history and archeology buff. Thanks, Justin. I shal lreturn in a few days after I've done some reading...

 

[fool]

The Berean;
Like you said the essay didn't say anything that hasen't been said before.
I liked it because it wasn't to smarmy
I know of others that are.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
is one
google will get you 800,000 hits for "jesus never existed"
http://www.google.com/search?source...LD,GGLD:2005-02,GGLD:en&q=jesus+never+existed
that in itself proves nothing
other than it's not a new idea

 

[justchristian]

Here I go allsmiles. A little more rushed than I wanted but I am off camping tommorow for the weekend. But not being an historian or really interested in history this is as much of a response from me as you'll get. I'll just run through the article as I read it on the john throughly.

Firstly,
[font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]

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.

Since would a slaves God kicking your butt and then freeing your free man power be a matter of public record? I think it's perfectly reasonble to assume the reason we dont see a record of the events in Exodus in egypt is becasue that would be something they would rather forget. Could the Hykos accout be the historical coverup? I am not saying it is. If you were to hold that Exodus events did happen you would either say they weren't recorded at all in Egypt or the were recorded different (most likely the Hyksos).

[/size][/font][font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]

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.

If you trust the Egypt account so much why mention the military outposts at all. Assuming the Hyksos ended up where these out posts were isnt it possible these were their outposts based on what they new from Egypt?

[/size][/font]

[font=arial, helvetica][size=-1] 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.[/size][/font]

...
[font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]

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.

Isnt this the Jospeh story? right before exodus? According to the bible thats how they became slaves. Indebited to Egypt for food dutring famines they eventually became servents in Egypt, over time this turned to slavery.
[/size][/font]

[font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]
[/size][/font][font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]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.[/size][/font]

Just curious how sure they are on their dates. And even if they are right so the timeline is off by 370 years? Does that matter? I'll give you the Exodus account has a bias slant. But So does the Egyptian account. I would think it impossible to derive "unvarished truth" about history.
[font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]

[/size][/font][font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]

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.

OK so this is where my rushed reponse takes affect. I didnt fact check this cruel/tyrannical ruling. Even if it is accurate, if slaves beat me up and ran off I'd claim they took over and were meanies too. (that is going along with the historical coverup theory).

[/size][/font][font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]

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.

I've have actually seen archeology shows on tv who claim the contrary. Mount Sanai for example is thought to be found through matching biblical geography and there was an encampment there.

[/size][/font][font=arial, helvetica][size=-1][/size][/font][size=-1][font=arial, helvetica]
Sorry I accidently hit post reply so I'll continue on next post....[/font][/size]

 

[justchristian]

[font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]

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.

[/size][/font]
[font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]These military outpost scatterd in the Sanai couldnt be Hyksos encampments? Again I no historitan but just a thought. And its inconcievable eh? Assuming they were actually being lead by God daily?
[/size][/font][font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]

The story of the Exodus is clearly mythmaking designed to portray a possible forced expulsion of oppressors as an escape of victims.

Or the Egypt records are a false account designed to portray a possible escape of victems through a real God(who flys in the face of their religion) as a clorious forced explusion of oppressors.


[/size][/font][font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]

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.

Is it just me or did he forget something.....hmmmm....oh yeah it was a test....a ram was provided....there was no son sacrifice.
[/size][/font]
[font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]This is where he starts making statments seemingly void of historical/archeological reference. But this is all long enough.



In closing let me again state I am no historian. This is my response to his history but it is only a uneducated response. IF the Exodus story is pure fiction loosely based on a explusion of tyrannical oppressors it really has little bearing on my faith. I have said before and say again I dont believe in God because I believe in the Bible - I believe in the Bible becuase I believe in God. My preexisting faith in God is not dependant on the Bible's (esspecially the OT's) historical accuracy. It is a story of God working through and in his people. It is filled with truths. These truths are the divine inspiration. They are what are inerrant and reliable, not the literal Bible. The Word not the word, the Spirit not the text, the Christ not the nation.
[/size][/font][font=arial, helvetica][size=-1][/size][/font]

 

[allsmiles]

Here I go allsmiles. A little more rushed than I wanted but I am off camping tommorow for the weekend. But not being an historian or really interested in history this is as much of a response from me as you'll get. I'll just run through the article as I read it on the john throughly.

Have fun camping man. I'm no historian myself, so don't worry about. We all only know what we hear or read.

Firstly,
[font=arial, helvetica][size=-1]

Since would a slaves God kicking your butt and then freeing your free man power be a matter of public record? I think it's perfectly reasonble to assume the reason we dont see a record of the events in Exodus in egypt is becasue that would be something they would rather forget. Could the Hykos accout be the historical coverup? I am not saying it is. If you were to hold that Exodus events did happen you would either say they weren't recorded at all in Egypt or the were recorded different (most likely the Hyksos).

This makes sense, but if it applies to Egypt, than it applies to the Hebrews too. History can be embellished, especially if you're passing it on to posterity, it makes sense to present it in the best light possible, without regard to complete honesty. I'll admit it's a strong possibility, but if it is for the Egyptian records, than it's a possibility for Biblical record as well.

Considering the significance of sun worship is ancient Egypt I think it's a stronger possibility of the plagues, particularly the darkness, being mentioned.

If you trust the Egypt account so much why mention the military outposts at all. Assuming the Hyksos ended up where these out posts were isnt it possible these were their outposts based on what they new from Egypt?

It's a great possibility actually. I hope everyone here understands that I'm very open to the possibility of being wrong.

Isnt this the Jospeh story? right before exodus? According to the bible thats how they became slaves. Indebited to Egypt for food dutring famines they eventually became servents in Egypt, over time this turned to slavery.

All right, so the bible corroborates history, very cool, it makes sense.

Just curious how sure they are on their dates. And even if they are right so the timeline is off by 370 years? Does that matter? I'll give you the Exodus account has a bias slant. But So does the Egyptian account. I would think it impossible to derive "unvarished truth" about history.

I've been checking around and the dates the auther quoted seem pretty solid. And yes, I would say a near 400 year disparity does make a difference. Not sure how big yet, but it is a difference.

OK so this is where my rushed reponse takes affect. I didnt fact check this cruel/tyrannical ruling. Even if it is accurate, if slaves beat me up and ran off I'd claim they took over and were meanies too. (that is going along with the historical coverup theory).

Yeah, that makes sense. Remember though, we have two account of this happening. We have the biblical record of the Hebrews leaving Egypt which is biased towards the Hebrews (obviously, and wasn't there some sacking involved with that?), and we have the story of the Hyksos which is biased towards Egypt, obviously. Christians would have to argue that the Hyksos and Hebrews co-existed and were not one in the same. I think it makes more sense for the Hyksos and the Hebrews to be one in the same.

I've have actually seen archeology shows on tv who claim the contrary. Mount Sanai for example is thought to be found through matching biblical geography and there was an encampment there.

There's always going to be dispute over that which we cannot explain. There's evidence for both sides, but the idea that the Hyksos and the Hebrews were two different entities when the stories are so close and when the time lines, though there's a 400 year disparity, are so close.

At first I didn't understand why christians would be opposed to this, but now I understand perfectly

In closing let me again state I am no historian. This is my response to his history but it is only a uneducated response. IF the Exodus story is pure fiction loosely based on a explusion of tyrannical oppressors it really has little bearing on my faith. I have said before and say again I dont believe in God because I believe in the Bible - I believe in the Bible becuase I believe in God. My preexisting faith in God is not dependant on the Bible's (esspecially the OT's) historical accuracy. It is a story of God working through and in his people. It is filled with truths. These truths are the divine inspiration. They are what are inerrant and reliable, not the literal Bible. The Word not the word, the Spirit not the text, the Christ not the nation.

I like this part, except for the historical accuracy part. When it comes to this story, I can understand how you would let the origin of the Exodus myth slide. If you go further back than you'll discover where historical accuracy becomes very, very important. I'm going to get into this later.

 

[Granite]

You would think if Egypt was crippled by a foreign god's plagues that Egypt's neighbors would have noted these events.

That I'm aware of nobody did.

 

[allsmiles]

Wait, someone is arguing for a position and the I have do the research for them? That's kind of silly don't you think?

Do the research for yourself, TB. If the Hyksos and the Hebrews were on in the same, don't you think you owe it to yourself to be well informed on the subject?

How can one refute an assertion without looking at the evidence. He hasn't posted any. Everyone pretty much agrees that Gilgamech predates Genesis, or more specifcally the story of Noah since Genesis has other stories in it. However because Gilgamesh predates The Noah narative, that doesn't "prove" Noah was a copy.

TB, none of us can look at the evidence unless we're archaeologists. All we know is what we read and hear. And yes, I hear you, just because Gilgamesh was written before the biblical deluge story doesn't prove that Noah was a rip off. But the evidence is strong and it makes more sense than them being two completely different stories unrelated to each other.

Some points

1) There are similarites between the two stories yet they are many significant differences

Of course, this makes sense. They were written in different periods of time and they were written in different cultures. The main thrust is similar enough to make a well based assumption that Noah was a retelling of the same story, only by a different author, at a different time, in a different place. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that instead of the entire planet being flooded, perhaps only the known world was flooded? One particular section. It would definitely take the burden of that embarrassing "Every animal on the planet" story off of your collective shoulders. Wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to keep toting the flood story as if it were literally true? Wouldn't that make your lives as christians a little easier?

2) What is the actual evidence that the author of Genesis actually copied Gilgamesh besides the "similarities"?

I think the similarities are damning enough, besides, what evidence would someone who takes the story literally actually except?

I am actually doing my own research on this. I was showing strong evidence that the author is highly biased. It's so obvious a blind man can see this.

If you're doing your own research, why have you been complaining? And no evidence needs be presented to demonstrate your strong bias, it speaks for itself, and in that sense you're no better than the author.

I'm always trying learning something. But I prefer to learn new things from people that actually know what they are talking about.

So far this guy is just fine. I've been looking into the Hyksos and there's nothing in historical archaeology that disputes his claim that the Hyksos and the Hebrews were one in the same.

Again, what "evidence? Sources, please.

I did post additional links, and I believe Justin hooked you up with some sources.

As for being a kook, I guess we'll see.

 

[allsmiles]

So no one has anything else to say?

 

[Johnny]

Another good example of this is the thread regarding "evolve.exe" in Bob Enyart Live forum. You'd think the thread had the plague. Yet another good example is any good refutation of Bob's arguments any time he talks about science. The thread goes dead silent. I guess it's just easier to pretend it's not there.

 

[On Fire]

Something comes along that no one can refute.

Was this an original thought or were you quoting someone else?

 

[Granite]

As a general rule any thread started by one of the troublesome gadflies is usually ignored. Nothing unusual.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Was this an original thought or were you quoting someone else?

Just remember, On Fire: Ad Hominem != Refutation.

 

[allsmiles]

On Fire, as always, a complete waste of time.