Do you think Moses existed as a historical figure?

[Zulk-Dharma]

Please, @outhouse. Keep your comments in one post instead of multiple of posts.

He does not use the word referencing. He said the source was the bible.

Re-read my comment: He supports my statement, the sources of the Quran - indicating it's referencing the chronicles from the Bible and not "plagiarized" as you wrongly claimed.

Plagiarize | Define Plagiarize at Dictionary.com

Not an actual dictionary website - it is computer generated and takes from any website - credible or not. Merriam-Webster: to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas

You're dismissed.

Koran makes claim of moses historicity.

So your saying the Koran is useless and has no historical credibility for moses????????????

What the hell Are you spewing out of your mouth? I don't get a word of it. Point being, stop polluting the thread.

 

[outhouse]

What the hell Are you spewing out of your mouth? I don't get a word of it. Point being, stop polluting the thread.

Answer the question.


So your saying the Koran is useless and has no historical credibility for moses????????????

 

[outhouse]

Not an actual dictionary website

Facepalm

Dictionary.com

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

NO.

I quoted an article in an encyclopedia.

You then tried to sneak in a discrediting statement from another paragraph that did not apply to the one I posted in any way. How honest is that?

It was not from a paragraph, only an illiterate would claim that, it was a disclaimer warning the readers for the content that will be shown due to their unreliability. Your quote firstly contained a weasel word.

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

Facepalm

Dictionary.com

^ You're a troll.

Answer the question.


So your saying the Koran is useless and has no historical credibility for moses????????????

Nothing to answer, your question is polluting the thread, rubbish and self-defeating. I know your trollish tricks and I won't fall for them.

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

YOU STATE opinion only and have only provide one right winged obscure source. Assman.

I've never provided Assman as a source - that's a straw man fallacy.

That's all you're good at, fallacies and conjectures.

I like to see where your source is that NT has any historical value, you've only cited an open source article with no creditbility.

PS: I stated facts. Live with it.

 

[outhouse]

I've never provided Assman as a source -

So you have not supplied one credible source yet? just your opinion?

 

[outhouse]

It was not from a paragraph, only an illiterate would claim that,

How honest is it? when you use a quote from the paragraph on adam and eve talking about the name of a tree ONLY, that is below the paragraph I used as a source.

"""""This comparison on the name/kind of tree between Qur'an & Bible needs additional citations for verification.""""

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

So you have not supplied one credible source yet? just your opinion?

No, not my opinion and you can find the credible sources I've multiple of times cited if you had the ability to read the posts.

How honest is it? when you use a quote from the paragraph on adam and eve talking about the name of a tree ONLY, that is below the paragraph I used as a source.

Your English made no coherent sense. I will repeat what you left out: it was a disclaimer warning the readers for the content that will be shown due to their unreliability. Your quote firstly contained a weasel word.

You're dismissed, troll.

 

[outhouse]

I've never provided Assman as a source

Correct.

 

[outhouse]

No, not my opinion and you can find the credible sources I've multiple of times cited if you had the ability to read the posts.

You have only supplied names. Not names backed with their exact quote.

Unsubstantiated opinion for the most part.

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

You have only supplied names. Not names backed with their exact quote.

I'm not here to make your home-work, kid. Go and make your research from those I've listed. If you're knowledgeable on topic, which you're not.

Unsubstantiated opinion for the most part.

You've described yourself perfectly here.

 

[outhouse]

"""""This comparison on the name/kind of tree between Qur'an & Bible needs additional citations for verification.""""

How does that apply to this?

From a modern scholarly perspective, similarities between Biblical and Quranic accounts of the same person or event are evidence for the influence of pre-existing traditions on the composition of the Qur'an.

I don't see a tree mentioned, do you?????

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

""""This comparison on the name/kind of tree between Qur'an & Bible needs additional citations for verification.""""

How does that apply to this?

From a modern scholarly perspective, similarities between Biblical and Quranic accounts of the same person or event are evidence for the influence of pre-existing traditions on the composition of the Qur'an.

I don't see a tree mentioned, do you?????

No sources to support your quote anyway.

 

[outhouse]

No sources to support your quote anyway.

Red Herring

It is sourced, but source is not the issue. How your quote applies my quote is however questioned.

Your lack of answer is telling.

""""This comparison on the name/kind of tree between Qur'an & Bible needs additional citations for verification.""""

How does that apply to this?

From a modern scholarly perspective, similarities between Biblical and Quranic accounts of the same person or event are evidence for the influence of pre-existing traditions on the composition of the Qur'an.

 

[Pegg]

The Tanakh is an incoherent collection of Bronze/Iron Age pre-scientific prophylactic literature. Strained thru a Hellenistic Greek paraphrase poorly translated into Latin and then English in the version/textual transmission you appear to be using. It would be dead wrong in the original; what has come down to you is both dead wrong and garbage.

Well you are entitled to you opinion. I dont hold the same view of the Hebrew scriptures as you. If Hebrew was a dead language, you might actually have a point. But its not. There are millions of people who actually speak hebrew and can read the Hebrew portion of the bible in its original language and they dont find it to be incoherent or hellenistic or paraphrased or poorly translated at all.

 

[outhouse]

Hebrew portion of the bible in its original language and they dont find it to be incoherent or hellenistic or paraphrased or poorly translated at all.

Its not as much the translation as it is the context and interpretation. People tend to ruin the beauty with a literal translation.

 

[Deadtroopers]

Unsubstantiated personal opinion. But your welcome to follow what ever you like and if you would like help in this area, you I would offer.



False.

It was written in rhetorical prose, and some sections have historicity. It is a sentence by sentence basis.



False.

The mainstream consensus is that he existed, and at least two facts cab be determined. His baptism by John and his Crucifixion.

The 100% failure in a 100% mythical Jesus lies in the fact, mythicist cannot produce a credible replacement hypothesis that explains the poor evidence.

An Aramaic Galilean teacher from Nazareth who traveled with a small group, his inner circle, and was baptized by John, who taught after Johns death for 1 to 3 years, and made at least 1 trip to the temple where he caused some kind of trouble and died under Pilates and Caiaphas rule. Is about as strong as it gets, and has complete historicity.

Ah, sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. While I am personally satisfied that Jesus Christ is a mythical figure, what I am talking about is mainstream NT scholarship. They think there was a real Jesus; but the stories in the Gospels are fiction. Your bare skeleton sums up more or less the data points it is believed the narrative was built around. I've edited the original post to make it clearer.

 

[Kenny]

Ahab and Xerxes were of course historical. Both of course were well after 1000BC. We have archaeological evidence, from an inscription, for bet w dwd (I think that's the transcription) 'house of David' or 'temple of the beloved' (a god) are possible and accepted translations. What the phrase 'house of David' means; if that is the correct translation; is anyones guess.

Moses is well beyond the historical horizon. There is no period of Egyptian history either the Joseph or Moses tales can be fitted into. You don't have to do much digging to find that David Rohl, Peter James and others who have touted a telescoped chronology began by trying to prove the Bible. David Rohl thinks he has done, James and most of the others have moved beyond that, just as Lehner, now a very noted Egyptologist, began as a Pyramidiot.

Mention has been made of Troy. Here archaeology has turnred up plausible cognates for the major place names and peoples, plus cognates for the names of individuals.The basic outline of the Iliad can be fitted into our reconstructions of that era. We have found actual artefacts and places previously known only from Homeric description; etc, etc. We can say none of that for Palestine before the Omrides. In fact the opposite; the facts on the ground contradict the tale; the itineraries in Egyptian inscriptions contradict the tale; etc, etc.

Insisting things are otherwise in the face of the evidence, the history and the science only marks a person as wilfully ignorant and their opinion to be discounted until they come to their senses.

I think you have a point in that "Moses is well beyond the historical horizon" at this point until some discovery helps. Point being, because it is beyond the scope what is available at this time, it neither confirms nor does it deny his existence. What have some evidences of possibilities but nothing yet concrete. Thus my position of "let's wait until more info comes in". We can have our opposing positions and agree to disagree. The only sure thing that I have is that discoveries continue to confirm that what was written has been correct. If it isn't correct about Moses, we will find out but until then... let's wait patiently.

 

[Kenny]

Yes true.



False and based on severe lack of education on the topic.

Not all the stories in the bible are mythology, this is a fact.

Yes Jesus was a real man.





The bible does not report on Canaanites accurately.





The OT is not a history book. It is theology.




No the Culture who's book Christians plagiarized, the Jews, you know its their book? Jews will tell you not to look at this as a historical book.

It is filled with poem, songs, mythology, pseudo history, allegory, metaphor, and some history, and much more.


BUT it is factually not a literal historical account of the past.


Next thing you will denounce evolution, claim a flat earth, and tell us the universe was made in 6 days, and the earth is 6000 year sold that does not fly anymore.

And a literal interpretation of history only ruins the epic beauty in the text, meant to teach moral lessons and proselytize devotion to one god.

We will have to agree to disagree.

You are exemplifying a flat earth disposition. If some scientific archaeological evidence runs contrary to your position... ATTACK THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PROPOSING IT!

I'm fine with your position.