Christians- How do you know Jesus and the Bible are true?

[Brian2]

No, you get this wrong over and over. I have ideas that I suspect are true but I want to know what is actually true.

You are not looking, you have made up your mind, as I have. All you want to do is post the same stuff over and over and waste my time and attack what the veracity of the Bible.
I cannot show that the supernatural elements of the Bible are true, but you have made up your mind about that anyway and want all the Bible to be a lie and to spread your good news that there is no God to everyone on this forum about religion.
I hope the following articles etc satisfy your desire for evidence from historians and archaeologists.

Here is an article that provides evidence of Semites, Canaanites, Hebrews in Egypt about when Israel was and in the same area. It gives other evidence that could relate to the Exodus also.

Were Hebrews ever slaves in ancient Egypt? Yes

***

www.haaretz.com

Here is probably an article which is more pointed and interpretative about who is who in Egyptian history and records, and points to a Biblically correct dating of the Exodus to 1450 BC.

Book Review: Origins of the Hebrews: New Evidence of Israelites in Egypt from Joseph to the Exodus

In a favorable review of Dr. Petrovich's book "Origins of the Hebrews," Dr. Billington summarizes its content, suggests improvements, and predicts its impact

biblearchaeology.org

Here are a couple of videos with evidence for Hebrews and even Israel in Goshen, where Joseph's family was sent to live by Pharaoh.

David Rohl lectures tomb of joseph - Google Search

www.google.com

David Rohl lectures tomb of joseph - Google Search

www.google.com

The Bible has an Exodus dating of about 1450 BC and a conquest beginning of about 1410 BC.
There are 3 cities in Joshua's conquest story that are said to have been destroyed and burned, Jericho, Ai and Hazor.
Here is some archaeology on the sites.

Biblical Sites: Three Ways to Date the Destruction at Jericho

Children in Sunday School often sing, “Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, Jericho, Jericho. Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the walls came a-tumbling down.” But did the walls of Jericho r…

biblearchaeologyreport.com

Biblical Sites: The Lost City of Ai…Found

Joshua 7 and 8 recount the First and Second Battles of Ai. Et Tell has been accepted as the default site of Ai since W.F. Albright’s article on the subject in 1924.1 Et-Tell, however, fails to me…

biblearchaeologyreport.com

Dating of Hazor's Destruction in Joshua 11: Biblical, Archaeological, & Epigraphical Evidence

The simple, biblical, solution is that Joshua destroyed an earlier city at Hazor in 1400 BC, while Deborah and Barak brought another destruction in 1230 BC.

biblearchaeology.org

So all of this shows that the Biblical history of Israel in Egypt and the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan cannot be dismissed. The archaeology supports the records.

 

[Audie]

You are not looking, you have made up your mind, as I have. All you want to do is post the same stuff over and over and waste my time and attack what the veracity of the Bible.
I cannot show that the supernatural elements of the Bible are true, but you have made up your mind about that anyway and want all the Bible to be a lie and to spread your good news that there is no God to everyone on this forum about religion.
I hope the following articles etc satisfy your desire for evidence from historians and archaeologists.

Here is an article that provides evidence of Semites, Canaanites, Hebrews in Egypt about when Israel was and in the same area. It gives other evidence that could relate to the Exodus also.

Were Hebrews ever slaves in ancient Egypt? Yes

***

www.haaretz.com

Here is probably an article which is more pointed and interpretative about who is who in Egyptian history and records, and points to a Biblically correct dating of the Exodus to 1450 BC.

Book Review: Origins of the Hebrews: New Evidence of Israelites in Egypt from Joseph to the Exodus

In a favorable review of Dr. Petrovich's book "Origins of the Hebrews," Dr. Billington summarizes its content, suggests improvements, and predicts its impact

biblearchaeology.org

Here are a couple of videos with evidence for Hebrews and even Israel in Goshen, where Joseph's family was sent to live by Pharaoh.

David Rohl lectures tomb of joseph - Google Search

www.google.com

David Rohl lectures tomb of joseph - Google Search

www.google.com

The Bible has an Exodus dating of about 1450 BC and a conquest beginning of about 1410 BC.
There are 3 cities in Joshua's conquest story that are said to have been destroyed and burned, Jericho, Ai and Hazor.
Here is some archaeology on the sites.

Biblical Sites: Three Ways to Date the Destruction at Jericho

Children in Sunday School often sing, “Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, Jericho, Jericho. Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the walls came a-tumbling down.” But did the walls of Jericho r…

biblearchaeologyreport.com

Biblical Sites: The Lost City of Ai…Found

Joshua 7 and 8 recount the First and Second Battles of Ai. Et Tell has been accepted as the default site of Ai since W.F. Albright’s article on the subject in 1924.1 Et-Tell, however, fails to me…

biblearchaeologyreport.com

Dating of Hazor's Destruction in Joshua 11: Biblical, Archaeological, & Epigraphical Evidence

The simple, biblical, solution is that Joshua destroyed an earlier city at Hazor in 1400 BC, while Deborah and Barak brought another destruction in 1230 BC.

biblearchaeology.org

So all of this shows that the Biblical history of Israel in Egypt and the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan cannot be dismissed. The archaeology supports the records.

Cannot ALL be dismiseed.

So big deal.

An end to what nobody was even doing.

Your flood is still and will remain fiction.

 

[CG Didymus]

Your flood is still and will remain fiction.

This thread was started by a Baha'i, and even they believe the flood was fiction. But, as I recall, for the flood to have been literally true, it would have had to have happened four or five thousand years ago. It sure don't seem possible to me. But to believe a myth about a flood started circulating a few thousand years ago... I could believe that.

 

[Audie]

This thread was started by a Baha'i, and even they believe the flood was fiction. But, as I recall, for the flood to have been literally true, it would have had to have happened four or five thousand years ago. It sure don't seem possible to me. But to believe a myth about a flood started circulating a few thousand years ago... I could believe that.

" The Flood" is at best some sort of cautionary
tale, a metaphor or something.

So I may as well use it to stand for the divers
comparable absurdities that religionists tend
to think they must swallow.

 

[Brian2]

Cannot ALL be dismiseed.

So big deal.

An end to what nobody was even doing.

Your flood is still and will remain fiction.

Of course they can all be dismissed. That is what minimalists do and that is what people who listen to them only do also. That means that they and you believe there was no Israel in Egypt and no Moses and no Exodus or Conquest of Canaan and you end up where you started, saying that the Bible is a fiction but supposedly having the backing of science.
And finding out that science does not necessarily agree with you doesn't change much but makes the playing field more level when it should have been level all along, but people were lying about what science has found, and keep lying about it even when they know what archaeology has found.

 

[Audie]

Of course they can all be dismissed. That is what minimalists do and that is what people who listen to them only do also. That means that they and you believe there was no Israel in Egypt and no Moses and no Exodus or Conquest of Canaan and you end up where you started, saying that the Bible is a fiction but supposedly having the backing of science.
And finding out that science does not necessarily agree with you doesn't change much but makes the playing field more level when it should have been level all along, but people were lying about what science has found, and keep lying about it even when they know what archaeology has found.

Don't be simple. It's perfectly obvious to everyone that
the bible gets some things right.
I nor you nor the man behind the tree has heard anyone
say, "the Bible is fiction".
Anyone who might is so stupid and ignorant,as to
be unworthy of notice.
This too is obvious to all, unless you make it all, minus one.
,
The Bible is such a mixture! Folk wisdom, poetry,
parable, genealogy, history, myth and magic realism.

Some is fiction, some is neither fact nor fiction. Some IS fact. Some is semi factual.

There is no way that " the Bible is fiction" makes sense.

You have it exactly backwards about science and
Bible belief, as the whole kerfuffle that Bible believers
have about science, is the way it keeps disproving
their precious fictions.

I sometimes mention "flood" in this connection.

Bible literalists though, just keep on lying about their
world wide flood and Noah's ark, citing all sorts of
childish and utterly bogus pseudo science to try to
prove that lies are truth.

Your Bible research aapssociates who you cite on
camels are among those liars. Charlatans.

If you just want to play dwelling websites, let's give you an analogy:
You've got wet powder in a toy gun.

 

[Brian2]

Don't be simple. It's perfectly obvious to everyone that
the bible gets some things right.
I nor you nor the man behind the tree has heard anyone
say, "the Bible is fiction".
Anyone who might is so stupid and ignorant,as to
be unworthy of notice.
This too is obvious to all, unless you make it all, minus one.
,
The Bible is such a mixture! Folk wisdom, poetry,
parable, genealogy, history, myth and magic realism.

Some is fiction, some is neither fact nor fiction. Some IS fact. Some is semi factual.

There is no way that " the Bible is fiction" makes sense.

There are people, believe it or not, who want to make the Bible look so full or made up stuff that it cannot be reasonably called a believable writing and something to base a faith on.

You have it exactly backwards about science and
Bible belief, as the whole kerfuffle that Bible believers
have about science, is the way it keeps disproving
their precious fictions.

I sometimes mention "flood" in this connection.

Bible literalists though, just keep on lying about their
world wide flood and Noah's ark, citing all sorts of
childish and utterly bogus pseudo science to try to
prove that lies are truth.

Your Bible research aapssociates who you cite on
camels are among those liars. Charlatans.

If you just want to play dwelling websites, let's give you an analogy:
You've got wet powder in a toy gun.

I could say the same about minimalist groups or people, (such as Tel Aviv Archaeology Dept. or Israel Finkelstein) but if a Christian does that it is not good form, but skeptics just dismiss everything certain groups say for the simple fact that they are Christian groups, and that it seems is reasonable.

 

[joelr]

You are not looking, you have made up your mind, as I have.

When you try to mind read you have already lost. I don't care if you refuse to use logic or have a rational methodology to form beliefs, many people can see this, when people are ready to face beliefs with honesty they will consider looking at their beliefs in an honest way. I
cannot control who does what and when.

All you want to do is post the same stuff over and over and waste my time and attack what the veracity of the Bible.

Actually I post new stuff all the time. The timestamped lecture by Dr Carrier on Mystery religions is entirely new. As are several other issues here and there. I have many other lines of evidence from new scholars I may use if needed. With you it's not really an honest discussion, as you said your mind is made up so you do not care about what is actually true, so I stick to basics. The Carrier post wasn't really for you but it is a new addition.
I don't attack the Bible but your constant mis-characterization of me just confirms my stance further. I present evidence.
If I posted evidence that Zeus was actually taken from an older Mesopotamian religion would I be "attacking" Greek mythology, or rather just updating our historical knowledge of Greek religion? It isn't my fault you buy into certain stories and are so ingrained that you consider historical analysis to be an "attack". That seems to be more of a paranoia or insecurity.

I cannot show that the supernatural elements of the Bible are true, but you have made up your mind about that anyway and want all the Bible to be a lie and to spread your good news that there is no God to everyone on this forum about religion.

More mind reading, this is a bit unhinged. Again, my mind is not "made up". What has happened is you decided to believe in supernatural stories without sufficient evidence and when challenged for sufficient evidence you seem to be in panic mode. Just because historical analysis
(and common sense) dictates that this and all religion is probably a man-made story doesn't mean I "want" that to be true. But I do want people to use critical thinking and use rational, logical skepticism when forming beliefs about reality.
OR, misinformation about all sorts of things can spread.

Christianity being a myth is a separate issue regarding no God existing. Christianity does not have the monopoly on God. I don't know if a God exists. It looks like the Gods from religions do not exist however.

I hope the following articles etc satisfy your desire for evidence from historians and archaeologists.

Here is an article that provides evidence of Semites, Canaanites, Hebrews in Egypt about when Israel was and in the same area. It gives other evidence that could relate to the Exodus also.

Were Hebrews ever slaves in ancient Egypt? Yes

***

www.haaretz.com

Article says exactly what I've been saying - \"There is no direct evidence that people worshipping Yahweh sojourned in ancient Egypt, let alone during the time the Exodus is believed to have happened. There is indirect evidence that at least some did. What's for sure is that thousands of years ago, Egypt was crawling with Semitic-speaking peoples."

"Conclusively, Semitic slaves there were. However, critics argue there's no archaeological evidence of a Semitic tribe worshiping Yahweh in Egypt."

"
The Exodus could be a distant Semitic memory of the expulsion of Hyksos, or small-scale exoduses by different tribes and groups of Semitic origin during various periods. Or it could be a fable."

I linked to an archaeologist who is AN EXPERT IN EXODUS, and has written a book on it as well.

NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Moses and the Exodus | PBS

In this article, archaeologist and biblical scholar Carol Meyers offers a new and surprising view of the iconic exodus from Egypt.

www.pbs.org

yet somehow because someone else mentions something that might help your beliefs a little you link to that?
None of the archaeologists are saying Exodus as written in scripture happened. The Bible is not correct

Here is probably an article which is more pointed and interpretative about who is who in Egyptian history and records, and points to a Biblically correct dating of the Exodus to 1450 BC.

Book Review: Origins of the Hebrews: New Evidence of Israelites in Egypt from Joseph to the Exodus

In a favorable review of Dr. Petrovich's book "Origins of the Hebrews," Dr. Billington summarizes its content, suggests improvements, and predicts its impact

biblearchaeology.org

Here are a couple of videos with evidence for Hebrews and even Israel in Goshen, where Joseph's family was sent to live by Pharaoh.

David Rohl lectures tomb of joseph - Google Search

www.google.com

David Rohl lectures tomb of joseph - Google Search

www.google.com

And we are back to the non-peer-reviewed crank. Good idea, ignore the consensus and keep posting crank from a fraud because it helps your beliefs. You do not care about what is true. You only care about making crap arguments that support your beliefs. Who are you trying to fool, yourself, others? What is the point? I've already posted so much debunking of that crap.
Heck, why not waste more time on nonsense?

Hebrew or Not?: Reviewing the Linguistic Claims of Douglas Petrovich’s The World’s Oldest Alphabet | Bible Interp

bibleinterp.arizona.edu

Hebrew or Not?: Reviewing the Linguistic Claims of Douglas Petrovich’s The World’s Oldest Alphabet​

Petrovich’s three arguments for reading the early alphabetic inscriptions from Egypt and the Sinai as Hebrew fall short, and with them his evidence for the historicity of the Exodus and the Israelite sojourn in Egypt.


Dear Aren Wilson Wright,
Many thanks for your work in exposing this pseudo- scholarship. I regret that someone has to waste their time with this, but it is necessary.
Thomas

Thomas L. Thompson
Professor emeritus, University of Copenhagen
#1 - Thomas L. Thompson - 07/07/2017 - 15:51

In a way Petrovich's theory seems like a mirror image of Freud's, which puts great weight on Moses' having an Egyptian name and proposes that Jewish monotheism was, at least in one strand, in and of Egypt. Here we have similar considerations being used to argue that Israel was in
Egypt but not of it - culturally separate.
Would it be reasonable to think that
there was always, even very anciently, some intercourse of people, commerce and ideas between Egypt and Palestine and that finding what may be traces of this intercourse would be no big
deal? Antiquarians of later times might have been aware of these traces and have constructed, with or without much evidence, their own theories and stories, such as 'the Israelites were the Hyksos', to explain
them.
What we have now, what with the claims about Hebrew language and about the turquoise mine, which you have discussed here earlier, is he claim that the mists of time clear to show us an Israelite community engaged for a long time in rather specialised industry and commerce which required written records and which would have linked them into the Egyptian economy at a rather superior level to the peasant mass or primary workforce. This picture, true or not, has almost nothing in common with any picture derived from the Bible. Indeed it might, by suggesting that there was an educated Israelite group connected with Egyptian religion by names like 'belonging to Neith' bring us some way back to Freud after all.

The Bible has an Exodus dating of about 1450 BC and a conquest beginning of about 1410 BC.
There are 3 cities in Joshua's conquest story that are said to have been destroyed and burned, Jericho, Ai and Hazor.
Here is some archaeology on the sites.

Biblical Sites: Three Ways to Date the Destruction at Jericho

Children in Sunday School often sing, “Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, Jericho, Jericho. Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the walls came a-tumbling down.” But did the walls of Jericho r…

biblearchaeologyreport.com

Biblical Sites: The Lost City of Ai…Found

Joshua 7 and 8 recount the First and Second Battles of Ai. Et Tell has been accepted as the default site of Ai since W.F. Albright’s article on the subject in 1924.1 Et-Tell, however, fails to me…

biblearchaeologyreport.com

Dating of Hazor's Destruction in Joshua 11: Biblical, Archaeological, & Epigraphical Evidence

The simple, biblical, solution is that Joshua destroyed an earlier city at Hazor in 1400 BC, while Deborah and Barak brought another destruction in 1230 BC.

biblearchaeology.org

So all of this shows that the Biblical history of Israel in Egypt and the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan cannot be dismissed. The archaeology supports the records.

Why yes actually, nonsense can be dismissed. When it gets peer-reviewed and reasonable evidence emerges it can be considered.


"Mainstream Egyptology has not adopted the New Chronology, continuing to employ the standard chronology in mainstream academic publications. Rohl's most vocal critic has been Professor Kenneth Kitchen, formerly of Liverpool University, who called Rohl's thesis "100% nonsense"

"Chris Bennett (1996), while saying "I am quite certain that Rohl’s views are wrong" "


of course, remember this, this was a classic we have visited several times,
"

Radiocarbon dating​

In 2010, a series of corroborated radiocarbon dates were published for dynastic Egypt which suggest some minor revisions to the conventional chronology, but do not support Rohl's proposed revisions.[41]"


"In conclusion, Rohl is fighting two battles on two fronts. He is attempting to rewrite Egyptian history to reflect his New Chronology, and he is attempting to rewrite Assyrian history to agree with his new Egyptian history. These are mammoth tasks. If he is successful, then he alone is right and all other Egyptian and Assyrian scholars are wrong."




yeah, been here, done this, and you had the audacity to say I wanted to post the SAME MATERIAL OVER AND OVER???? You actually just said that, just above?? And you go back to this nonsense? Why does everyone think they are the exception and get to do the very thing they complain about? Why?

What's worse is one hack fringe scholar might help your view and you are ALL OVER IT. Meanwhile all these peer-reviewed scholars you reject....? Mind boggling?

Rohl also doesn't believe the OT is the word of God. Do you take his word on that or is it again just what helps your beliefs?

 

[Audie]

There are people, believe it or not, who want to make the Bible look so full or made up stuff that it cannot be reasonably called a believable writing and something to base a faith on.



I could say the same about minimalist groups or people, (such as Tel Aviv Archaeology Dept. or Israel Finkelstein) but if a Christian does that it is not good form, but skeptics just dismiss everything certain groups say for the simple fact that they are Christian groups, and that it seems is reasonable.

But it is full of made up stuff, as anyone
who has any sense or attempts to be
educated knows perfectly well.

It's like that whether or not anyone "wants"
that, or doesnt.

I don't want anythung from the bible
one way or the other, though
you most clearly want / need it to beTrue.

Calling names and inventing base motives
for people who don't have your affliction
does nothing for credibility.

If you just have to believe every word for your
" bible" go for it.

Insulting others' intellectual integrity while
you display such gross bias and credulity
is vaguely amusing to behold, but your time
would be better spent on your sources,
and your bible' sm and your own obvious
.deficiencies

 

[Brian2]

But it is full of made up stuff, as anyone
who has any sense or attempts to be
educated knows perfectly well.

It's like that whether or not anyone "wants"
that, or doesnt.

I don't want anythung from the bible
one way or the other, though
you most clearly want / need it to beTrue.

Calling names and inventing base motives
for people who don't have your affliction
does nothing for credibility.

If you just have to believe every word for your
" bible" go for it.

Insulting others' intellectual integrity while
you display such gross bias and credulity
is vaguely amusing to behold, but your time
would be better spent on your sources,
and your bible' sm and your own obvious
.deficiencies

Some things in the Bible are hard to believe, esp if you do not believe in spirits and God and miracles etc. And of course there are other things, the flood and before, which are hard to understand and interpret and skeptics like to interpret them literally and according to translations which may not be accurate. Easier to say they are not true that way.
But I'm not talking about those things, I'm talking about things in the Bible which are beyond the era of pre history (a time which is being pushed back over the years with new finds) in an era where it is easy to see that the evidence points to the truth of the book.
But maybe you are right and what is easy for me is not so easy for others, and the past looks completely different for them because of the place they are looking from, relativity.

 

[Audie]

Some things in the Bible are hard to believe, esp if you do not believe in spirits and God and miracles etc. And of course there are other things, the flood and before, which are hard to understand and interpret and skeptics like to interpret them literally and according to translations which may not be accurate. Easier to say they are not true that way.
But I'm not talking about those things, I'm talking about things in the Bible which are beyond the era of pre history (a time which is being pushed back over the years with new finds) in an era where it is easy to see that the evidence points to the truth of the book.
But maybe you are right and what is easy for me is not so easy for others, and the past looks completely different for them because of the place they are looking from, relativity.

No, belief in magic makes anything believable.
So does just being gullible.

" Skeptics" like to interpret flood literall?
Look at this forum!
There's more funnies in the USA than skeptics in
the world,
But no matter any of that, the story is not true,
and it's a example of how the Bible is full of falsehoods.

" interpreting" till every detail is changed then
calling the story true is total dishonesty.

Evidence doee say a few things in the bible are true, nore or less. Everybody knows that.

So what?

 

[Brian2]

Actually I post new stuff all the time. The timestamped lecture by Dr Carrier on Mystery religions is entirely new. As are several other issues here and there. I have many other lines of evidence from new scholars I may use if needed. With you it's not really an honest discussion, as you said your mind is made up so you do not care about what is actually true, so I stick to basics. The Carrier post wasn't really for you but it is a new addition.
I don't attack the Bible but your constant mis-characterization of me just confirms my stance further. I present evidence.
If I posted evidence that Zeus was actually taken from an older Mesopotamian religion would I be "attacking" Greek mythology, or rather just updating our historical knowledge of Greek religion? It isn't my fault you buy into certain stories and are so ingrained that you consider historical analysis to be an "attack". That seems to be more of a paranoia or insecurity.

You're old and new stuff is based on the same presumptions. I see it as opinion and not evidence.

Article says exactly what I've been saying - \"There is no direct evidence that people worshipping Yahweh sojourned in ancient Egypt, let alone during the time the Exodus is believed to have happened. There is indirect evidence that at least some did. What's for sure is that thousands of years ago, Egypt was crawling with Semitic-speaking peoples."

"Conclusively, Semitic slaves there were. However, critics argue there's no archaeological evidence of a Semitic tribe worshiping Yahweh in Egypt."

There was more in the article than "semites were in Egypt".
Israel in Egypt was not a people who worshipped solely Yahweh and there is doubt about whether they even knew that name before the time of Moses even if it is used in Genesis. There is archaeological evidence of semetic tribe in Canaan worshipping Yahweh however.

The Soleb Inscription: Earliest-Discovered Use of the Name 'Yahweh'

And evidence for the much-debated era of the Exodus

armstronginstitute.org

The Exodus could be a distant Semitic memory of the expulsion of Hyksos, or small-scale exoduses by different tribes and groups of Semitic origin during various periods. Or it could be a fable."

I linked to an archaeologist who is AN EXPERT IN EXODUS, and has written a book on it as well.

NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Moses and the Exodus | PBS

In this article, archaeologist and biblical scholar Carol Meyers offers a new and surprising view of the iconic exodus from Egypt.

www.pbs.org

yet somehow because someone else mentions something that might help your beliefs a little you link to that?
None of the archaeologists are saying Exodus as written in scripture happened. The Bible is not correct

The exodus could be this, the exodus could be that, the exodus probably did not happen. All this is based on misinterpreting the archaeological evidence and what the Bible story says and deciding that the Bible story is not true even when it has evidence for it's truth.

And we are back to the non-peer-reviewed crank. Good idea, ignore the consensus and keep posting crank from a fraud because it helps your beliefs. You do not care about what is true. You only care about making crap arguments that support your beliefs. Who are you trying to fool, yourself, others? What is the point? I've already posted so much debunking of that crap.
Heck, why not waste more time on nonsense?

Maybe Dr Petrovich is wrong about the Hebrew language, I don't know, but that does not make him a crank and does not mean that his other work is wrong.

Why yes actually, nonsense can be dismissed. When it gets peer-reviewed and reasonable evidence emerges it can be considered.

"Mainstream Egyptology has not adopted the New Chronology, continuing to employ the standard chronology in mainstream academic publications. Rohl's most vocal critic has been Professor Kenneth Kitchen, formerly of Liverpool University, who called Rohl's thesis "100% nonsense"

"Chris Bennett (1996), while saying "I am quite certain that Rohl’s views are wrong" "

of course, remember this, this was a classic we have visited several times,

yeah, been here, done this, and you had the audacity to say I wanted to post the SAME MATERIAL OVER AND OVER???? You actually just said that, just above?? And you go back to this nonsense? Why does everyone think they are the exception and get to do the very thing they complain about? Why?

What's worse is one hack fringe scholar might help your view and you are ALL OVER IT. Meanwhile all these peer-reviewed scholars you reject....? Mind boggling?

Rohl also doesn't believe the OT is the word of God. Do you take his word on that or is it again just what helps your beliefs?

It is thought that the Hyksos were probably not foreign invaders, but asiatics from the same area as the Israelites, and who had lived in Egypt for generations, like the Hebrews and who lived in the same area that Israel was living and at the same time.

Who were the Hyksos? Challenging traditional narratives using strontium isotope (87Sr/86Sr) analysis of human remains from ancient Egypt

A foreign dynasty, known as the Hyksos, ruled parts of Egypt between c. 1638–1530 BCE. Their origins are thought to be rooted in the Near East, which is supported by architectural features and grave accoutrements of Tell el-Dab[c] a. In this former ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Instead, this research supports the theory that the Hyksos rulers were not from a unified place of origin, but Western Asiatics whose ancestors moved into Egypt during the Middle Kingdom, lived there for centuries, and then rose to rule the north of Egypt.

Exodus 1:8 Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt. 9 “Look,” he said to his people, “the Israelites have become far too numerous for us. 10 Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country.”

It appears that Egypt did not want the Hebrews to go. It is interesting to consider what relationship Israelites had with the Hyksos. Could they have been the same people, did they live in Avaris together peacefully because of their similar/same ethnicity?

But Keneth Kitchen disagrees with David Rohl's chronology and seems as passionate about David Rohl's new chronology as he is about Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman and their lack of knowledge about the Patriarchs and Exodus in their book "The Bible Unearthed".
From this site: An Interview With Israel Finkelstein - Apologetics Press

The minimalists’ approach, which Finkelstein’s resembles closely, is decried by many scholars, both theistic and atheistic. An example of the former is Kenneth Kitchen, one of the world’s foremost Egyptologists. In his book On the Reliability of the Old Testament, he spends considerable time examining the biblical minimalists and their history in the last two hundred years of biblical scholarship (2003, pp. 449-500). Specifically of Finkelstein’s book The Bible Unearthed (coauthored by Neil Asher Silberman), he says, “[A] careful critical perusal of this work—which certainly has much to say about both archaeology and the biblical writings—reveals that we are dealing very largely with a work of imaginative fiction, not a serious or reliable account of the subject” (p. 464). Concerning their treatment of the patriarchal period, which the two describe as a virtual fiction, Kitchen comments, “our two friends are utterly out of their depth, hopelessly misinformed, and totally misleading” (p. 465). Finkelstein’s and Silberman’s discussion of the exodus prompts Kitchen to remark, “Their treatment of the exodus is among the most factually ignorant and misleading that this writer has ever read” (p. 466).

I guess he also would not appreciate what you believe about those things.
Kitchen is a Biblical maximalist.
Peer reviewed scholars completely disagree with each other. It is not a majority of peer reviewed archaeologists who say the Exodus did not happen and the Bible is rubbish and then a few crank hacks who say the Bible is correct.

 

[Audie]

You're old and new stuff is based on the same presumptions. I see it as opinion and not evidence.



There was more in the article than "semites were in Egypt".
Israel in Egypt was not a people who worshipped solely Yahweh and there is doubt about whether they even knew that name before the time of Moses even if it is used in Genesis. There is archaeological evidence of semetic tribe in Canaan worshipping Yahweh however.

The Soleb Inscription: Earliest-Discovered Use of the Name 'Yahweh'

And evidence for the much-debated era of the Exodus

armstronginstitute.org

The exodus could be this, the exodus could be that, the exodus probably did not happen. All this is based on misinterpreting the archaeological evidence and what the Bible story says and deciding that the Bible story is not true even when it has evidence for it's truth.



Maybe Dr Petrovich is wrong about the Hebrew language, I don't know, but that does not make him a crank and does not mean that his other work is wrong.





It is thought that the Hyksos were probably not foreign invaders, but asiatics from the same area as the Israelites, and who had lived in Egypt for generations, like the Hebrews and who lived in the same area that Israel was living and at the same time.

Who were the Hyksos? Challenging traditional narratives using strontium isotope (87Sr/86Sr) analysis of human remains from ancient Egypt

A foreign dynasty, known as the Hyksos, ruled parts of Egypt between c. 1638–1530 BCE. Their origins are thought to be rooted in the Near East, which is supported by architectural features and grave accoutrements of Tell el-Dab[c] a. In this former ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Instead, this research supports the theory that the Hyksos rulers were not from a unified place of origin, but Western Asiatics whose ancestors moved into Egypt during the Middle Kingdom, lived there for centuries, and then rose to rule the north of Egypt.

Exodus 1:8 Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt. 9 “Look,” he said to his people, “the Israelites have become far too numerous for us. 10 Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country.”

It appears that Egypt did not want the Hebrews to go. It is interesting to consider what relationship Israelites had with the Hyksos. Could they have been the same people, did they live in Avaris together peacefully because of their similar/same ethnicity?

But Keneth Kitchen disagrees with David Rohl's chronology and seems as passionate about David Rohl's new chronology as he is about Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman and their lack of knowledge about the Patriarchs and Exodus in their book "The Bible Unearthed".
From this site: An Interview With Israel Finkelstein - Apologetics Press

The minimalists’ approach, which Finkelstein’s resembles closely, is decried by many scholars, both theistic and atheistic. An example of the former is Kenneth Kitchen, one of the world’s foremost Egyptologists. In his book On the Reliability of the Old Testament, he spends considerable time examining the biblical minimalists and their history in the last two hundred years of biblical scholarship (2003, pp. 449-500). Specifically of Finkelstein’s book The Bible Unearthed (coauthored by Neil Asher Silberman), he says, “[A] careful critical perusal of this work—which certainly has much to say about both archaeology and the biblical writings—reveals that we are dealing very largely with a work of imaginative fiction, not a serious or reliable account of the subject” (p. 464). Concerning their treatment of the patriarchal period, which the two describe as a virtual fiction, Kitchen comments, “our two friends are utterly out of their depth, hopelessly misinformed, and totally misleading” (p. 465). Finkelstein’s and Silberman’s discussion of the exodus prompts Kitchen to remark, “Their treatment of the exodus is among the most factually ignorant and misleading that this writer has ever read” (p. 466).

I guess he also would not appreciate what you believe about those things.
Kitchen is a Biblical maximalist.
Peer reviewed scholars completely disagree with each other. It is not a majority of peer reviewed archaeologist"s who say the Exodus did not happen and the Bible is rubbish and then a few crank hacks who say the Bible is correct.

You just presume the " Bible is correct"
and nobody says the Bible is rubbish.

Your claim, though, is.

The more you recklessly proclaim blatant untruths
the less anyone will take you seriously.

 

[joelr]

You're old and new stuff is based on the same presumptions. I see it as opinion and not evidence.

Right and the 2nd law of thermodynamics is also opinion. The first thing about the Bible is Genesis is a re-working of Mesopotamian myth. This is demonstrated with intertextuality and it is evidence.
The history of the early Israelites is based on archaeological (actual peer-reviewed finds and the general consensus) and textual evidence.
It isn't opinion. The Carrier lecture is 100% evidence, everything he says is based on historical truths. Hellenistic Greeks DID occupy Israel. Hellenism DID have baptism, a communal meal, souls go to heaven, a savior deity who dies and resurrects, those are FACTS.

Even 1st century apologist Justin Martyr admitted this. Calling historical truth opinion shows you are either using a cognitive bias or not being honest.

There was more in the article than "semites were in Egypt".
Israel in Egypt was not a people who worshipped solely Yahweh and there is doubt about whether they even knew that name before the time of Moses even if it is used in Genesis. There is archaeological evidence of semetic tribe in Canaan worshipping Yahweh however.

The Soleb Inscription: Earliest-Discovered Use of the Name 'Yahweh'

And evidence for the much-debated era of the Exodus

armstronginstitute.org

Yes, because Israel came from the Canaanites and used their theology and adapted it for their own religion. Yahweh coming from Canaan is excellent further proof of this. There is proof in th earticle in worldhistory as well

Ancient Israelite & Judean Religion

As early as the 10th century BCE, Israelite and Judean religion began to emerge within the broader West Semitic culture, otherwise known as Canaanite culture. Between the 10th century and 7th centuries...

www.worldhistory.org

"As early as the 10th century BCE, Israelite and Judean religion began to emerge within the broader West Semitic culture, otherwise known as Canaanite culture. Between the 10th century and 7th centuries BCE, ancient Israelite and Judean religion was polytheistic. The polytheism, though, was counterbalanced by devotion to one or two primary deities, a practice known as henotheism (van der Toorn, 2047). Henotheism is recognition and worship of many deities; however, the primary worship revolves around a single deity. Within Judean and Israelite communities, primary devotion was oftentimes towards Yahweh. As both Judah and Israel were emerging states, Yahweh was the national deity, an idea which finds its origins in religious practices from the Bronze Age.


Between the 10th and 7th centuries BCE, ancient Israelite and Judean religion took place in cultic and temple contexts. Although the many Jewish and Christians traditions suggest that Yahweh was the main and only deity through all Israelite and Judean religious history, archaeology, inscriptions, and the Hebrew Bible itself indicate otherwise. Even so, the deity being worshiped, usually Yahweh, was understood to be physically present in the temple, have a body, and be a personal god with emotions and willpower."


Not surprising. This is all mythology.

The exodus could be this, the exodus could be that, the exodus probably did not happen. All this is based on misinterpreting the archaeological evidence and what the Bible story says and deciding that the Bible story is not true even when it has evidence for it's truth.

This is completely wrong. There is no evidence for Exodus, this is why even religious scholars know it did not happen. The alternate timeline theory is a bunch of crank and not supported by evidence or proper academic scholarship. You continue to ignore reality for crank archaeology and a delusional sense of entire fields of study. As if entire fields are completely inept and unable to see the actual truth that you secretly know.

Maybe Dr Petrovich is wrong about the Hebrew language, I don't know, but that does not make him a crank and does not mean that his other work is wrong.

Regarding Biblical studies he is an absolute crank. He is a creationist and works with extreme fundamentalist apologists. Nothing they produce is peer-reviewed and they are 100% bias and working toward a goal of making their personal beliefs in a myth fit into scientific standards. It is a conspiracy theory.

The minimalists’ approach, which Finkelstein’s resembles closely, is decried by many scholars, both theistic and atheistic. An example of the former is Kenneth Kitchen, one of the world’s foremost Egyptologists. In his book On the Reliability of the Old Testament, he spends considerable time examining the biblical minimalists and their history in the last two hundred years of biblical scholarship (2003, pp. 449-500). Specifically of Finkelstein’s book The Bible Unearthed (coauthored by Neil Asher Silberman), he says, “[A] careful critical perusal of this work—which certainly has much to say about both archaeology and the biblical writings—reveals that we are dealing very largely with a work of imaginative fiction, not a serious or reliable account of the subject” (p. 464). Concerning their treatment of the patriarchal period, which the two describe as a virtual fiction, Kitchen comments, “our two friends are utterly out of their depth, hopelessly misinformed, and totally misleading” (p. 465). Finkelstein’s and Silberman’s discussion of the exodus prompts Kitchen to remark, “Their treatment of the exodus is among the most factually ignorant and misleading that this writer has ever read” (p. 466).

I guess he also would not appreciate what you believe about those things.
Kitchen is a Biblical maximalist.
Peer reviewed scholars completely disagree with each other. It is not a majority of peer reviewed archaeologists who say the Exodus did not happen and the Bible is rubbish and then a few crank hacks who say the Bible is correct.

It actually is, it seems only fundamentalists are trying to make Exodus have some sort of historical reality.
One of the specialist archaeologists, Caroyl Meyers, who I linked to, no mention of her work?
Dever, the most prolific, no mention....

More?
"
It’s that time of year. Across the world, Jewish families are sharing stories about Moses, the 10 plagues and Israel’s march through the Red Sea. The chief source of all these stories is the Bible, which gives a wonderfully detailed account of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus.

But how accurate is the biblical record? What does archaeology tell us about the Israelites in Egypt?

Archaeologists and scholars provide varying answers. “Really, it’s a myth,” says Dr. Zahi Hawass. Archaeologist Philippe Bohstrom looks at the evidence more favorably. For Haaretz, he wrote a piece titled “Were Hebrews Ever Slaves in Ancient Egypt? Yes.” Three days later, Haaretz posted another article by archaeology correspondent Ariel David titled “For You Were (Not) Slaves in Egypt.”

“The whole subject of the Exodus is embarrassing to archaeologists,” wrote Stephen Rosenberg in a 2014 Jerusalem Post article. “The Exodus is so fundamental to us and our Jewish sources that it is embarrassing that there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it.” Apparently, archaeologists dislike questions about the Exodus because, Rosenberg says, “there is nothing in the Egyptian records to support it. Nothing on the slavery of the Israelites, nothing on the plagues that persuaded Pharaoh to let them go, nothing on the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, nothing.”


Fundamentalists cannot have the "word of God" being not literally true so they have to spend all sorts of effort into somehow making their worldview true. Secular scholars don't have this worry and can simply report the evidence as it is.
If Genesis was written after the exile then so was Exodus making it obvious that a fictive history was created for Israel to unite them and erase their Canaanite past, people they hated. Mayers calls it a national foundation myth. Dr Baden says some Israelites must have come from Egypt escaping slavery and possibly their stories sparked the creation of Exodus.

We also have DNA evidence and the consensus is Israelites were Canaanites.


Canaanites Were Israelites & There Was No Exodus

Prof. Joel Baden Harvard PhD, Yale Divinity speaker, author - The Composition of the Pentateuch: , The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero, The Promise to the Patriarchs


1:20 DNA shows close relationship between Israelites and Canaanites. Israelites ARE Canaanites who moved to a different place.


6:10 Consensus. Biblical story of Exodus and people coming from Egypt and taking over through battle is not true. With slight variations here and there basically everyone will tell you they gradually came from the coastlands into the highlands. Canaanites moved away to the highlands and slowly became a unified nation after first splitting into tribes.

No Israelites until after 1000 BCE.

 

[joelr]

Of course they can all be dismissed. That is what minimalists do and that is what people who listen to them only do also. That means that they and you believe there was no Israel in Egypt and no Moses and no Exodus or Conquest of Canaan and you end up where you started, saying that the Bible is a fiction but supposedly having the backing of science.
And finding out that science does not necessarily agree with you doesn't change much but makes the playing field more level when it should have been level all along, but people were lying about what science has found, and keep lying about it even when they know what archaeology has found.

We do have the backing of science.
The archaeology AND DNA show Israelites come from Canaanites. Evidence in previous post in video with Dr Joel Baden

Genesis is a re-working of the Mesopotamian myths the Israelite Kings were exposed to during the Exile. Using Intertextuality PhD researchers have long concluded the Biblical text relies on older myths.
All college textbooks reflect this fact,


John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.
2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”
The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”
THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”

The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”
The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”

Moses is generally considered a literary creation. No evidence exists and his story contains many Egyptian myths, including a deity giving laws atop a mountain on stone.


A world flood did not happen. There would be evidence, there is not. Here is what we know,


Modern geology and flood geology

Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines use the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.[5][6][7][8][9] Modern geology relies on a number of established principles, one of the most important of which is Charles Lyell's principle of uniformitarianism. In relation to geological forces it states that the shaping of the Earth has occurred by means of mostly slow-acting forces that can be seen in operation today. By applying these principles, geologists have determined that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. They study the lithosphere of the Earth to gain information on the history of the planet. Geologists divide Earth's history into eons, eras, periods, epochs, and faunal stages characterized by well-defined breaks in the fossil record (see Geologic time scale).[111][112] In general, there is a lack of any evidence for any of the above effects proposed by flood geologists and their claims of fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists.[113]

Erosion


The global flood cannot explain geological formations such as angular unconformities, where sedimentary rocks have been tilted and eroded then more sedimentary layers deposited on top, needing long periods of time for these processes. There is also the time needed for the erosion of valleys in sedimentary rock mountains. In another example, the flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly

Geochronology


Geochronology is the science of determining the absolute age of rocks, fossils, and sediments by a variety of techniques. These methods indicate that the Earth as a whole is about 4.54 billion years old, and that the strata that, according to flood geology, were laid down during the Flood some 6,000 years ago, were actually deposited gradually over many millions of years.

Paleontology


If the flood were responsible for fossilization, then all the animals now fossilized must have been living together on the Earth just before the flood. Based on estimates of the number of remains buried in the Karoo fossil formation in Africa, this would correspond to an abnormally high density of vertebrates worldwide, close to 2100 per acre.[85] Creationists argue that evidence for the geological column is fragmentary, and all the complex layers of chalk occurred in the approach to the 150th day of Noah's flood.[115][116] However, the entire geologic column is found in several places, and shows multiple features, including evidence of erosion and burrowing through older layers, which are inexplicable on a short timescale. Carbonate hardgrounds and the fossils associated with them show that the so-called flood sediments include evidence of long hiatuses in deposition that are not consistent with flood dynamics or timing.

GeochemistryProponents of Flood Geology are also unable to account for the alternation between calcite seas and aragonite seas through the Phanerozoic. The cyclical pattern of carbonate hardgrounds, calcitic and aragonitic ooids, and calcite-shelled fauna has apparently been controlled by seafloor spreading rates and the flushing of seawater through hydrothermal vents which changes its Mg/Ca ratio.[117]

Sedimentary rock features[edit]


Phil Senter's 2011 article, "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology", in the journal Reports of the National Center for Science Education, discusses "sedimentologic and other geologic features that Flood geologists have identified as evidence that particular strata cannot have been deposited during a time when the entire planet was under water ... and distribution of strata that predate the existence of the Ararat mountain chain." These include continental basalts, terrestrial tracks of animals, and marine communities preserving multiple in-situ generations included in the rocks of most or all Phanerozoic periods, and the basalt even in the younger Precambrian rocks. Others, occurring in rocks of several geologic periods, include lake deposits and eolian (wind) deposits. Using their own words, Flood geologists find evidence in every Paleozoic and Mesozoic period, and in every epoch of the Cenozoic period, indicating that a global flood could not have occurred during that interval.[118] A single flood could also not account for such features as angular unconformities, in which lower rock layers are tilted while higher rock layers were laid down horizontally on top.[119]


Physics[edit]


The engineer Jane Albright notes several scientific failings of the canopy theory, reasoning from first principles in physics. Among these are that enough water to create a flood of even 5 centimetres (2.0 in) of rain would form a vapor blanket thick enough to make the earth too hot for life, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas; the same blanket would have an optical depth sufficient to effectively obscure all incoming starlight.[120]

 

[Brian2]

We do have the backing of science.
The archaeology AND DNA show Israelites come from Canaanites. Evidence in previous post in video with Dr Joel Baden

Genesis is a re-working of the Mesopotamian myths the Israelite Kings were exposed to during the Exile. Using Intertextuality PhD researchers have long concluded the Biblical text relies on older myths.
All college textbooks reflect this fact,

Really, you have to go to the flood of Noah to show that science has evidence that the Bible is not true?
And you do that when a careful reading of the story, using an alternative, but legitimate translation that has high hills (instead of high mountains) and the whole land (instead of the whole earth) shows that the story does not speak a one world wide flood.
I guess that's a fail.

 

[joelr]

Really, you have to go to the flood of Noah to show that science has evidence that the Bible is not true?
And you do that when a careful reading of the story, using an alternative, but legitimate translation that has high hills (instead of high mountains) and the whole land (instead of the whole earth) shows that the story does not speak a one world wide flood.
I guess that's a fail.

Yes, there are some fails here.
1) thinking Jewish cosmology accounted for an entire globe Earth. Whole land means the world. See below.

2)Forgetting that I've gone everywhere and demonstrated evidence the entire Bible is syncretic mythology. Have you forgotten the detailed Carrier lecture on Hellenism and Persian myths which make up the entire NT? I'm commenting on the flood because I'm responding to a post about the flood. We can go in many directions, 99% of which you ignore and move on to something else. Yeah those silly Yale Divinity lectures, all wrong. Nutty people.

3) missing the fact that all textbooks teach Genesis IS A MESOPOTAMIAN MYTH redone to their liking and Genesis relies on older myth, demonstrated with advanced intertextuality (explained in -)

Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Volume 1: Thematic Studies​

Scholarly interest in intertextuality remains as keen as ever. Armed with new questions, interpreters seek to understand better the function of older scripture in later scripture. The essays assembled in the present collection address these questions. These essays treat pre-Christian texts, as well as Christian texts, that make use of older sacred tradition. They analyze the respective uses of scripture in diverse Jewish and Christian traditions. Some of these studies are concerned with discreet bodies of writings, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, while others are concerned with versions of scriptures, such as the Hebrew or Old Greek, and text critical issues. Other studies are concerned with how scripture is interpreted as part of apocalyptic and eschatology. Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality includes essays that explore the use of Old Testament scripture in the Gospels and Acts. Other studies examine the apostle Paul's interpretation of scripture in his letters, while other studies look at non-Pauline writings and their utilization of scripture. Some of the studies in this collection show how older scripture clarifies important points of teaching or resolves social conflict. Law, conversion, anthropology, paradise, and Messianism are among the themes treated in these studies, themes rooted in important ways in older sacred tradition. The collection concludes with studies on two important Christian interpreters, Syriac-speaking Aphrahat in the east and Latin-speaking Augustine in the west.



4) you think your translation is more accurate than The Jewish Bible, accurate translation of Noah, ?????? Where it says not only Earth several times but ALL LIVING SUBSTANCES WERE BLOTTED OFF EARTH. "all" living substances. And you are now attempting to make this a local flood? Because of another "legitimate" translation?


So you have proven it beyond a shadow of doubt. ANYTHING that backs what you want to be true, will immediately become truth.
For a methodology to know what is true, that is a fail many times over.

 

[Brian2]

Right and the 2nd law of thermodynamics is also opinion. The first thing about the Bible is Genesis is a re-working of Mesopotamian myth. This is demonstrated with intertextuality and it is evidence.

That is not evidence it is opinion. The flood story is similar but if the flood is true then that is what you would expect. Evidence for the flood (large local) in writing from more than one culture and you can't see it. All you can see is that it shows the story was plagiarized.

The history of the early Israelites is based on archaeological (actual peer-reviewed finds and the general consensus) and textual evidence.
It isn't opinion.

The Bible story of early Israelites is shown by archaeology to be possibly true. The archaeology agrees with the story.
There are different opinions concerning the archaeology and what it shows.
When the archaeology shows the historical record is true, the archaeology confirms the record and the record confirms that view of the archaeology.

The Carrier lecture is 100% evidence, everything he says is based on historical truths. Hellenistic Greeks DID occupy Israel. Hellenism DID have baptism, a communal meal, souls go to heaven, a savior deity who dies and resurrects, those are FACTS.

Even 1st century apologist Justin Martyr admitted this. Calling historical truth opinion shows you are either using a cognitive bias or not being honest.

The Carrier lecture has historical facts but the conclusions are opinion. Baptism and communal meals etc are just common religious practice in that time and that is the fact. Anything beyond that is opinion, and in the case of Carrier it is based on the idea that Jesus did not exist and so the gospels were made up and was copied from other religions. That, after all, is what happened in religions and no religion is actually true.
The dying and rising saviours are so different in other religions as to be ridiculous to say the gospels were copied from them.
The gospels can be found prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures usually before the other religions came up with similar things.
Why not say the other religions copied from the Hebrew scriptures? Hmmm, good question.
Ahh, I know, because the scriptures are said to be written hundreds of years after the Bible tells us.
One error, built on another error, built on another error.
This is your evidence.

Yes, because Israel came from the Canaanites and used their theology and adapted it for their own religion. Yahweh coming from Canaan is excellent further proof of this. There is proof in th earticle in worldhistory as well

Ancient Israelite & Judean Religion

As early as the 10th century BCE, Israelite and Judean religion began to emerge within the broader West Semitic culture, otherwise known as Canaanite culture. Between the 10th century and 7th centuries...

www.worldhistory.org

"As early as the 10th century BCE, Israelite and Judean religion began to emerge within the broader West Semitic culture, otherwise known as Canaanite culture. Between the 10th century and 7th centuries BCE, ancient Israelite and Judean religion was polytheistic. The polytheism, though, was counterbalanced by devotion to one or two primary deities, a practice known as henotheism (van der Toorn, 2047). Henotheism is recognition and worship of many deities; however, the primary worship revolves around a single deity. Within Judean and Israelite communities, primary devotion was oftentimes towards Yahweh. As both Judah and Israel were emerging states, Yahweh was the national deity, an idea which finds its origins in religious practices from the Bronze Age.


Between the 10th and 7th centuries BCE, ancient Israelite and Judean religion took place in cultic and temple contexts. Although the many Jewish and Christians traditions suggest that Yahweh was the main and only deity through all Israelite and Judean religious history, archaeology, inscriptions, and the Hebrew Bible itself indicate otherwise. Even so, the deity being worshiped, usually Yahweh, was understood to be physically present in the temple, have a body, and be a personal god with emotions and willpower."


Not surprising. This is all mythology.

The Soleb inscription and it's dating is evidence for the early, Biblical, conquest dating and shows Israel being in Canaan and worshipping Yahweh around 1400 BC.
If you assume a different origin of Israel (iow deny the Bible and make up a scenario) then the inscription can be fitted into your made up story.
It is around the 10th century that the Temple to Yahweh was built and it was not long before idol worship was happening also, as it had happened in the time of the Judges when God repeatedly allowed the surrounding nations to punish Israel and then saved them.
Most of what you just posted above is seen in the Bible and shows the Bible to be true.

This is completely wrong. There is no evidence for Exodus, this is why even religious scholars know it did not happen. The alternate timeline theory is a bunch of crank and not supported by evidence or proper academic scholarship. You continue to ignore reality for crank archaeology and a delusional sense of entire fields of study. As if entire fields are completely inept and unable to see the actual truth that you secretly know.

All you need to do is type Bible Maximalism and Minimalism into google search and you will be educated about it.

Regarding Biblical studies he is an absolute crank. He is a creationist and works with extreme fundamentalist apologists. Nothing they produce is peer-reviewed and they are 100% bias and working toward a goal of making their personal beliefs in a myth fit into scientific standards. It is a conspiracy theory.

Maybe you are right, but I could say something similar about Carrier.

It actually is, it seems only fundamentalists are trying to make Exodus have some sort of historical reality.
One of the specialist archaeologists, Caroyl Meyers, who I linked to, no mention of her work?
Dever, the most prolific, no mention....

The article is about an interview with Israel Finkelstein, so what do you expect.
But actually Dever is mentioned in the article as someone who disagrees strongly with Finkelstein's approach to the Bible.
So there is a spectrum of views on the Exodus and these days it seems that most say that Israel came from Canaan, locals who took over eventually.
But the whole thing revolves around a view of the Bible and a view of the archaeological evidence for the Conquest, which is there and shows the Exodus story to be true in about 1400 BC as the Bible tells us.

“The whole subject of the Exodus is embarrassing to archaeologists,” wrote Stephen Rosenberg in a 2014 Jerusalem Post article. “The Exodus is so fundamental to us and our Jewish sources that it is embarrassing that there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it.” Apparently, archaeologists dislike questions about the Exodus because, Rosenberg says, “there is nothing in the Egyptian records to support it. Nothing on the slavery of the Israelites, nothing on the plagues that persuaded Pharaoh to let them go, nothing on the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, nothing.”

The Ipuwer Papyrus from Egypt mentions something like the plagues.
The Egyptians would not write of that defeat by slaves and their God.
Archaeologists however who have been convinced by the wrong archaeology of the conquest (Jericho in particular) and the timing of the Conquest are embarrassed that their religion has been found to be BS.
But really it is not BS, the archaeology and scientific opinions of many archaeologists is BS.

Fundamentalists cannot have the "word of God" being not literally true so they have to spend all sorts of effort into somehow making their worldview true. Secular scholars don't have this worry and can simply report the evidence as it is.

That is not really true. Using the Bible as a source in archaeology has helped in finding correct sites and in showing the correct time frame to check for evidence.
Secular scholars have their beliefs also, anthropological ideas and social development of religion ideas, the prophecies are not true, etc.
It is these things which have led to their having to make up the story, a story that disproves the Bible.
BS in, BS out. Circular reasoning.
The maximalists otoh say that the Bible is pretty much true until shown to be inaccurate by the evidence.

If Genesis was written after the exile then so was Exodus making it obvious that a fictive history was created for Israel to unite them and erase their Canaanite past, people they hated. Mayers calls it a national foundation myth. Dr Baden says some Israelites must have come from Egypt escaping slavery and possibly their stories sparked the creation of Exodus.

We also have DNA evidence and the consensus is Israelites were Canaanites.

Yes the secular beliefs lead to the Bible being untrue and written after the Bible tells us it was written and that Israel came from Canaanites and rose up to overcome them.
The DNA evidence does not prove anything however because Israel and the nations of Canaan are related biologically according to the Bible and did intermarry also according to the Bible.
The DNA evidence confirms the Biblical record.

6:10 Consensus. Biblical story of Exodus and people coming from Egypt and taking over through battle is not true. With slight variations here and there basically everyone will tell you they gradually came from the coastlands into the highlands. Canaanites moved away to the highlands and slowly became a unified nation after first splitting into tribes.

No Israelites until after 1000 BCE.

Yes a story was made up because the archaeologists made mistakes in the interpretation of the Bible and in archaeology and so needed another story to account for the evidence.
Israelite culture did no doubt start to blossom when the monarchy came along and the Canaanites and Philistines were defeated more thoroughly, but Israel turned back to the worship of idols as well as Yahweh all the way till the Exiles both of Israel and Judah.

 

[Brian2]

I can't and don't want to continue to post varying opinions of scholars.

4) you think your translation is more accurate than The Jewish Bible, accurate translation of Noah, ?????? Where it says not only Earth several times but ALL LIVING SUBSTANCES WERE BLOTTED OFF EARTH. "all" living substances. And you are now attempting to make this a local flood? Because of another "legitimate" translation?


So you have proven it beyond a shadow of doubt. ANYTHING that backs what you want to be true, will immediately become truth.
For a methodology to know what is true, that is a fail many times over.

There was no reason until recently to think that the flood was not global. All the translations showed that. That does not mean that the alternative translation is wrong however.
" ALL LIVING SUBSTANCES WERE BLOTTED OFF EARTH" or "off the land".
What land, the land under the heavens where Noah was.
People in other parts of the earth could have been killed by other floods at the time, the end of the ice age, but the Bible is talking about the land where Noah lived imo.
BUT yes I do look for ways to interpret the Bible so that it can fit in with the science if I can do that.
That is not a fail, it is showing that the Bible can be shown to be true even when science finds things that seem to contradict it.

 

[Muffled]

It's sad that the other Baha'is here let just one Baha'i be their main spokesperson. As if what she says is the official Baha'i view.

However, I think it is a more accurate view of what Baha'is are really saying about the Bible... that it is fiction.

But where is coming out and plainly saying that going to get the Baha'is? To admit that they reject the Bible as the Word of God. So, they don't. They come up with things like, "It's true, but not literally true." "It's inspired by God, but not wholly authentic."

I've tried to believe in both born-again Christianity and the Baha'i Faith. I can't do it, but I understand why some people can. But for each, Baha'is and Christians, it depends on believing your Scriptures as true. And neither can tolerate or allow the Scriptures of the other to be totally and completely true. And for Christians, it is usually more than that... to say the Baha'i prophet and his writings are completely false.

And that's what I'd expect each of them to do. But, for the Baha'is, they need Christianity and all the other religions to be true, in some way and somehow to support their belief in their concept of "progressive" revelation. So, they find ways to interpret the Scriptures and teachings of the other religions to make them compatible with the teachings and beliefs of the Baha'i Faith... which includes rejecting things some religions like reincarnation and incarnations of God and things like the resurrection of Jesus that is stated in the NT and is believed to be literally true by some Christians.

But born-again, Fundy Christians have absolutely no need for the Baha'i Faith. No way do they believe Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ. So, for them, it's a total rejection of the Baha'i Faith.

I believe it isn't as simple as that. I believe the Bahai's have to believe everything the B man says or else throw everything out. I believe if they could see that it is human philosophy then it is more likely that some things are true and some are not. It does appear that the B man was not averse to either Christian or Muslim thinking. Whether he understood either fully is hard to say. Certainly his errors suggest he did not understand fully.