Do you think Moses existed as a historical figure?

[Vishvavajra]

Could you give me some direct comparisons from other cultures that are essentially the same as the Torah?
Seriously.
And, just to be fair - I have studied a lot of religious or legal or mythological codes of law, including Hammurabi's and, the Torah is most definitively different. But, please try as I am interested in this kind of thing.

Are we talking the Torah as a whole or just the law codes, which take up a minority of the overall page count? Genesis, Exodus, etc., are mostly a collection of national origin myths. Those can be found in pretty much every culture in the entire world, from the Babylonian creation epic to the Memphite Theology (both of which may have influenced the first bit of Genesis) to the works of Hesiod to the Popol Vuh and the recorded myths of various indigenous peoples. Granted, the anthology format of books like Genesis is really more similar to the Library of Apollodorus. The Exodus narrative is not unlike the tale of Aeneas. Like the Hebrews, the Irish had mythic accounts of how they had migrated to their current home and conquered it, destroying its previous inhabitants--even though in both cases the archaeological record points to continuity. In short, all the individual elements are present in some form in other cultures' mythologies. The only unique thing is the particular form they take.

As for the law code, that's also something you find in many ancient civilizations. I'm not sure exactly what criteria we're using to judge the Torah's law codes as unique. There are plenty of sacred laws from the Greek world alone--I studied with a guy who was planning to write a book about them, but I don't think it's done yet (and would be on the scholarly side in any case).

And, quite frankly, there is NO basis in science for macroevolution nor does "science" claim that macroevolution is an established theory or fact.
However, if y'all would like to educate my uneducated opinion on this specific data - that would be nice. No objections on my part. Maybe I'm wrong. Please - give me some short factual data to prove the error of my ways. Thank you.

"Macroevolution" is a term made up by creationists. It has no scientific significance whatsoever. Again, you're lobbing stones at biological theory from the standpoint of someone who has made no effort to understand it. And as much as I'd love to give you a basic scientific education via forum posts, that's neither my job nor something that can really be accomplished via this medium. Suffice it to say, either genetic mutation occurs or it does not. If it does (and we can easily observe that it does), then there's not magical barrier that stops its effects from progressing beyond a certain point. To give just one example of the potential variability from genetic mutation, look up "HeLa cells." Beyond that, I'm sure you have the resources at your disposal to educate yourself about most things. You don't need to rely on the kindness of strangers. Hint: if you really want to understand something, look for proper authoritative sources--i.e. not just polemics by people who are against that thing.

 

[Kenny]

When you are ready to follow the advice Jesus gives and become as God then I am here for you my friend.

I do follow the advice of Jesus and am made in His image and in His likeness

The only God fit to rule men and women is a man or a woman. That is how it has always been and all we have ever had. Who but a man can express the will of God?

There have always only been men and women of good hearts able to express God’s will.

But it still takes God to make it work right.

Like Jesus and his wife who preached to seek God perpetually even after finding a bit of him or her within the self.

He wasn't married.

We are to perpetually raise the bar of excellence for ourselves and our God.

Regards
DL

GREAT!

And Shalom to you.

 

[Kenny]

I chose the Mesopotamian and Greek examples for a reason. Those are names that appear in king lists. By your logic, one must accept Gilgamesh, Agamemnon, et al., as real historical people. Many ancient Greek noble houses claimed descent from Heracles, including the royal house of Macedon and by extension the successors of Alexander the Great. Therefore Heracles' slaying of the Lernean Hydra must be historical fact, yes?

No, because you are comparing apples with oranges. Is Gilgamesh promoted as non-fiction?

When is non-fiction billed as non-fiction?

We know about the Two Kingdoms period from external sources. That's not the same as saying that the Biblical account of that period (written during the Exile) is historically accurate. Indeed, Judaic national identity has a lot to do with how the inhabitants of Judah framed their relationship with the northern kingdom. Similarly, they used myth to frame their relationship to their big neighbors on either side, Mesopotamia and Egypt. So Abraham is identified as Mesopotamian, whereas Moses later rescues the Hebrews from of Egypt--so the ancestors of the people of Judah are tied to both those ancient cultures by extension. Figures like David and Solomon also allow Judah to claim the legacy of the kingdom to the north.

That certainly can be one viewpoint. You are correct that external sources doesn't necessarily mean that biblical account is historically accurate. However, if we continue to verify biblical accounts as correct, it would give it greater value.

In archaeology, there will always be some discrepancies.

The Romans did something very similar in their national myths with Aeneas the Trojan and other figures, which not only tied them to the older Greek culture via the Trojan War narrative, but it also laid down mythic relationships with various peoples that the Romans had conquered in historical time. Pretty much every culture does this sort of thing; it's hardly unusual.
The question would be, do we know if the Jewish people did it and what support do we have that they did do that.


Not sure what the off-hand snipe at biological science is supposed to be doing here, but if you think that evolutionary theory is simply speculation, then you're going to want to educate yourself about that. The term "theory" in a scientific context refers to a conceptual model of how things work that is supported by a great deal of empirical evidence (indeed, it's a cornerstone of modern biological and medical science). To suggest that it has the casual meaning of mere speculation makes you sound as if you're talking about something without bothering to learn about it first.

And really, it's not about science or anything being the be-all, etc. It's a question of objectivity. One doesn't get to believe things just because one wants to believe them and still claim objectivity. Now, there's nothing wrong with subjective beliefs and impressions, but if we're making decisions about what to believe based not on what the evidence requires of us, but rather on personal desires, then in the process we relinquish any claim to objective truth. If objective truth doesn't matter, then that's fine as far as it goes. The problem is when people lay claim to it despite approaching things in a decidedly subjective manner.

Since this was addressing someone else's post, no need for me to respond.

 

[outhouse]

Is Gilgamesh promoted as non-fiction?

It was promoted identical to Noahs flood. Being that is what helped influence Noahs mythology.

No one with credibility argues both Noah and Gilgamesh did not come from pre existing traditions originating in Sumerian cultures from a real river flood.

In archaeology, there will always be some discrepancies.

Yes because theological stories and mythology do not line up with historical reality.

 

[Kenny]

It was promoted identical to Noahs flood. Being that is what helped influence Noahs mythology.

No one with credibility argues both Noah and Gilgamesh did not come from pre existing traditions originating in Sumerian cultures from a real river flood.

Interestingly enough, most religions that never crisscrossed paths tell about a global flood. It gives the possibility of:

1) There was a global flood and they all developed the story
2) One of them could be correct.

Yes because theological stories and mythology do not line up with historical reality.

Or, man's estimations of time can be off as there is a margin of error. And, man can give a theory that will be corrected later.

 

[outhouse]

Interestingly enough, most religions that never crisscrossed paths tell about a global flood. It gives the possibility of:

The real FACT here is that it floods everywhere in the word every single year. And thus mythology is generated.

Your avoidance of academia is noted.

Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Andrew George submits that the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[23] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.[24] In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."[25] Ziusudra ("he who found long life"), Utnapishtim ("he who found life") and Noah ("he who found rest") are the respective heroes of the Sumerian, Akkadian and biblical flood legends of the ancient Near East.


And the flood of Ziusudra is a factual flood of the Euphrates in 2900 BC. 1700 years before any Israelite existed.

 

[Vishvavajra]

No, because you are comparing apples with oranges. Is Gilgamesh promoted as non-fiction?

When is non-fiction billed as non-fiction?

The question itself has problems. Fiction vs. non-fiction is a dichotomy that modern people seem to find very clear and sensible--or at least they think they do--but it does not accurately reflect the attitudes of ancient peoples. That is the real apples-and-oranges problem here.

As for Gilgamesh, do you doubt that people in ancient times regarded him as a real figure? People today are not likely to regard the events in the Epic of Gilgamesh as historically accurate, but the fact remains that his name appears on king lists of Uruk. Or do you mean that because Gilgamesh is not regarded as a factual character by most people today that the comparison is somehow invalid? If that were the case, then the main thing determining factuality would be the majority opinion of any given moment, which would be absurd. And that's not even getting into the fact that Moses is only considered a literal, historical figure by laymen, contrary to scholarly consensus. So whose opinion determines the fact of the matter? Do we go simply by the numbers?

The point is that mythic figures like Gilgamesh, Agamemnon, and Moses help to define national/ethnic identity and as such are very important to the peoples who look back to them as progenitors. The fact that the people of Uruk no longer exist as such, or that the Greeks are now a Christian culture, doesn't mean that at one time they didn't regard those figures in exactly the same way that many people still regard Moses. If it were simply a matter of which culture were still left standing, then we wouldn't be talking about historical veracity at all, but rather a kind of triumphalism in which the prevailing culture's values are treated as inherently superior or true just because they happen to be the prevailing culture.

In short, there's no way around the comparison that doesn't rest on a kind of relativism that in turn defeats the purpose of the discussion in the first place.

 

[outhouse]

Or, man's estimations of time can be off as there is a margin of error

No, dating methods are very accurate. Your historical bias is noted.

You going against all academia is also noted.

And, man can give a theory that will be corrected later.

They can also wrote mythology and fiction.

 

[outhouse]

1) There was a global flood and they all developed the story
2) One of them could be correct.

There was factually no flood as reported in the bible. The date is not accurate and factually did not happen then or ever.


Your refusal of academia is noted in favor of mythology.

 

[outhouse]

As for Gilgamesh, do you doubt that people in ancient times regarded him as a real figure?

he is 100%^ unaware that Gilgamesh has historicity that Noah does not have.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Interestingly enough, most religions that never crisscrossed paths tell about a global flood. It gives the possibility of:

1) There was a global flood and they all developed the story
2) One of them could be correct.

There are just enough examples of the flood myth that it's worth having a category called "flood myth." It is not true that every religion or every culture has such myths, or even a majority of them, nor is it true that most of those cultures never crossed paths.

There's one main font of flood myths in Eurasia, and that's the Sumerian culture of Mesopotamia, from which the flood myths of neighboring cultures such as the Jews and the Greeks are drawn. Similar ideas also show up in Ugarit and Vedic India--again, not outside the sphere of cultural contact.

The interesting thing about flood myths is that a few pop up across the sea among American tribes. There are Maya and Quechua and Tlingit flood myths, at least, and it's safe to say there was no cultural contact with Mesopotamia (although they may have had contact with each other, directly or indirectly). However, those cultures were not unfamiliar with flooding and may have experienced disastrous floods in the distant past, providing them with a sense of what might happen if the same thing occurred on a massive scale. In addition, the mechanics of continental drift mean that people can find marine fossils even on mountains, since there used to be an ocean there. Any ancient peoples who made that discovery might have come up with their own explanation.

Nobody seriously believes that the world was ever completely covered with ocean. In fact, the sea levels are higher now than they have been for most of our species' existence. To take the flood myths at face value requires the belief that there's some kind of mass conspiracy in the geological field to cover up the mountains of evidence it would have left behind, when in fact being able to demonstrate that sort of thing would be a career-making move. No, there are much more reasonable explanations that fit what we can observe, and they do not include the two you offer.

 

[Greatest I am]

Okay.
Could you give me some direct comparisons from other cultures that are essentially the same as the Torah?
Seriously.
.

The first that pops into my mind is The Book of the Dead from Egypt.

But not being a Jew, I might be taking the simple way out as I go by what this Rabbi says of it.

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Also, this scholar seems to think that the Golden Rule should be what all religions should focus on to make their immoral sounding Gods look better.

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

But it still takes God to make it work right.

.

Yes. Without us, nothing would work. Or better said, it would all work but we would not be here to enjoy it.

If you are a Jew then remember that a Rabbi can overrule God.

Man/woman is the power here. Not an imaginary construct. If a creator type God were real, he would be here serving us and we would all know of him or her.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Interestingly enough, most religions that never crisscrossed paths tell about a global flood. It gives the possibility of:

1) There was a global flood and they all developed the story
2) One of them could be correct.

Or, man's estimations of time can be off as there is a margin of error. And, man can give a theory that will be corrected later.

You forget that the majority in the old days lived near the sea and that that is why the flood stories are rampant. You might also note that the area of the Middle East has a lot of continental plates, volcanic eruptions and earth quakes that can cause tsunamis.

Regards
DL

 

[Kenny]

No, dating methods are very accurate. Your historical bias is noted.

You going against all academia is also noted.



They can also wrote mythology and fiction.

Making statements that are obviously wrong doesn't help you case. Dating ALWAYS has a margin of error.

 

[Kenny]

The question itself has problems. Fiction vs. non-fiction is a dichotomy that modern people seem to find very clear and sensible--or at least they think they do--but it does not accurately reflect the attitudes of ancient peoples. That is the real apples-and-oranges problem here.

As for Gilgamesh, do you doubt that people in ancient times regarded him as a real figure? People today are not likely to regard the events in the Epic of Gilgamesh as historically accurate, but the fact remains that his name appears on king lists of Uruk. Or do you mean that because Gilgamesh is not regarded as a factual character by most people today that the comparison is somehow invalid? If that were the case, then the main thing determining factuality would be the majority opinion of any given moment, which would be absurd. And that's not even getting into the fact that Moses is only considered a literal, historical figure by laymen, contrary to scholarly consensus. So whose opinion determines the fact of the matter? Do we go simply by the numbers?

The point is that mythic figures like Gilgamesh, Agamemnon, and Moses help to define national/ethnic identity and as such are very important to the peoples who look back to them as progenitors. The fact that the people of Uruk no longer exist as such, or that the Greeks are now a Christian culture, doesn't mean that at one time they didn't regard those figures in exactly the same way that many people still regard Moses. If it were simply a matter of which culture were still left standing, then we wouldn't be talking about historical veracity at all, but rather a kind of triumphalism in which the prevailing culture's values are treated as inherently superior or true just because they happen to be the prevailing culture.

In short, there's no way around the comparison that doesn't rest on a kind of relativism that in turn defeats the purpose of the discussion in the first place.

Not disagreeing with your points of whether or not those things happen... they do.

But when is historical data, historical?

 

[Kenny]

You forget that the majority in the old days lived near the sea and that that is why the flood stories are rampant. You might also note that the area of the Middle East has a lot of continental plates, volcanic eruptions and earth quakes that can cause tsunamis.

Regards
DL

That is another theory.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes. Entirely historical.

 

[Moishe3rd]

The first that pops into my mind is The Book of the Dead from Egypt.

But not being a Jew, I might be taking the simple way out as I go by what this Rabbi says of it.

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Also, this scholar seems to think that the Golden Rule should be what all religions should focus on to make their immoral sounding Gods look better.

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

Regards
DL

Talmud; Tractate Shabbos; 31a -
"There was another incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai and said to Shammai: Convert me on condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot. Shammai pushed him away with the builder’s cubit in his hand. This was a common measuring stick and Shammai was a builder by trade. The same gentile came before Hillel. He converted him and said to him: That which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation. Go study."

And, this is also Torah.
It's a trick question.
But, you gave a good answer.
Is this in the "Book of the Dead?" I would be surprised.

 

[Kenny]

There are just enough examples of the flood myth that it's worth having a category called "flood myth." It is not true that every religion or every culture has such myths, or even a majority of them, nor is it true that most of those cultures never crossed paths.

I never said that every religion or every culture talks about a flood.

The following is the list of those areas that say a global flood happened:
Assyrio-Babylonia
Persia
Syria
Asia Minor
Greece
Lithuania
Russia
China
India
Cree Indians
Cherokee Indians
Papagoa (Mexico)
Aztecs
Peru
Leeward Islands
Fiji Islands
Hawaii

So basically all around the world

There's one main font of flood myths in Eurasia, and that's the Sumerian culture of Mesopotamia, from which the flood myths of neighboring cultures such as the Jews and the Greeks are drawn. Similar ideas also show up in Ugarit and Vedic India--again, not outside the sphere of cultural contact.

Yes, there are some contact points.

The interesting thing about flood myths is that a few pop up across the sea among American tribes. There are Maya and Quechua and Tlingit flood myths, at least, and it's safe to say there was no cultural contact with Mesopotamia (although they may have had contact with each other, directly or indirectly). However, those cultures were not unfamiliar with flooding and may have experienced disastrous floods in the distant past, providing them with a sense of what might happen if the same thing occurred on a massive scale. In addition, the mechanics of continental drift mean that people can find marine fossils even on mountains, since there used to be an ocean there. Any ancient peoples who made that discovery might have come up with their own explanation.

Yes, that is another theory.

Nobody seriously believes that the world was ever completely covered with ocean. In fact, the sea levels are higher now than they have been for most of our species' existence. To take the flood myths at face value requires the belief that there's some kind of mass conspiracy in the geological field to cover up the mountains of evidence it would have left behind, when in fact being able to demonstrate that sort of thing would be a career-making move. No, there are much more reasonable explanations that fit what we can observe, and they do not include the two you offer.

Certainly "nobody" shouldn't be used. Here are some assumptions that people make that aren't necessarily true--they could be true, but at this point, I'm not sure how they would establish that it is.

I also wouldn't subscribe to some sort of conspiracy. Men are trying their best to know what happened geologically to the best of their ability.

We know that there are continental rifts. Do they always grow at a constant rate? Or was there a catastrophic moment where it moved with immense pressure and great rapidity? Were the continents always apart or were they together at one point? Were mountains as high then as now since we know, by their jaggedness, that they are young as far as mountains go? Were their underground fountains that opened up during that time?

One thing for sure, it isn't how high waters are today, but 5,000 years ago.

Reasonable and reasoning are two different things.

Are there evidences that could indicate a flood? yes. Can coal be formed faster that we thought? Yes. Are there fossils that could be explained by a flood? yes. Are there recent massive cuttings in the ground due to floods that gives similarities to the Grand Canyon? Yes.

I'm not saying I am right, but rather that there are points that make it a possibility.