Evolution of what?

[IndigoChild5559]

What do you mean?

Circular reasoning: "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it's the word of God."

Thus, sacred texts really are not appropriate to use as evidence of anything. Better sources are things like scientific research or logical arguments.

For whatever it's worth, I do believe in God, and I do use my Tanakh.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

He believes he found Eden in a totally different place. This does not make the Bible stories true however. They and their over all sentiment is demonstratably proven false with science.

I have published a paper in the International Journal of comparing the possible location of the Garden of Eden in Turkey, Iraq and Pushkar and the evidence overwhelmingly is in favor of Pushkar. So, the Bible is not falsified if the Garden of Eden is located at Pushkar.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The answer is a flat no, There is no evidence for the Created history and mythology of Exodus as described in the Bible and Joshua's invasion without considering a Created history involving the Indus valley.

I humbly request you to consider your flattener when you say that there is no evidence for history and mythology of Exodus, I believe you are looking at the evidences in Egypt. Please consider that if the Exodus took place from the Indus Valley, then the evidence must be looked for in the Indus Valley and not in Egypt and in that case, we find supporting evidence which cannot be simply denied because there is no evidence from Egypt. That said, I am in total agreement with you that the exodus from Egypt is not supported by archaeological evidence at all.

On Joshua's invasion, i have not thoroughly studied it, but my suspicion is that this may have been in the form of smaller skirmishes and does not necessarily involve a major invasion. So, the archaeological evidence may not be as, prominent as we would like it to be.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Even though the Exodus created history is not remotely an accurate history and contain many inconsistencies. There are aspects of the story that are tooted in history of Egypt and the Levant.

(1) There were Hebrew/Canaanite slaves in Egypt at time Exodus took place, but their is a problem when it took place because of conflicts with the evidence.
(2) The account of the journey through the Sinai does follow known trading routes and landmarks of the Sinai establishing that the Biblical description by those that compiled intended an Exodus from Egypt.
(3) There is evidence of small migrations and rebellions from Egypt to the Levant, because of plagues and environmental disasters in Egypt that reflects the history the Exodus story is based on. This period of rebellion were called the "empty years."

Like most of the Pentateuch it is a compilations of narratives compiled fter 600 BCE set in history and not historical records.

The following reference does well to describes the history of Egypt during the period that the Exodus st0ry is set in.

Is The Exodus a Myth? | The Bart Ehrman Blog

In my upcoming course on Finding Moses I will be discussing some of the most important features of the foundation of Judaism -- in particular, the Exodus and the giving of the Jewish Law, both connected directly in the Hebrew Bible with Moses (8 lectures, given live with Q&A on…

ehrmanblog.org

I am aware of and I acknowledge the evidences that you mentioned for Exodus from Egypt. But we must distinguish between the direct evidence, such as that of- a river going dry, leading to the plagues, the separation of water and the appearance of a volcano, a place named Paran, which are all found in the exodus from Indus Valley. On the other hand, the evidences you say you are invoking are circumstantial and hence these evidences could equally be found in the Indus Valley. So, the problem has to be solved by looking at the direct evidences of the factors I have enumerated above.
I think we have to give some respect to the Bible being an inspired text, although it may have been composed at 600 BCE, that is not evidence that it is false. What we have to see is that the oral traditions carried from 1500 to 1600 BCE and written down under inspiration may yet contain truths which have to be examined on their own setting rather than just denied because they were composed at 600 BCE.

 

[ChieftheCef]

Circular reasoning: "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it's the word of God."

Thus, sacred texts really are not appropriate to use as evidence of anything. Better sources are things like scientific research or logical arguments.

For whatever it's worth, I do believe in God, and I do use my Tanakh.

No, they are, they're used as evidence of themselves, their culture and many other things. You CAN use anything to prove something, even prove it wrong.

 

[ChieftheCef]

For whatever it's worth, I do believe in God, and I do use my Tanakh.

I'm curious, why do you believe in God? WHat do you mean? Do you mean Yahweh or something more universal and applicable to everyone? Because Yahweh is not the God. He is a lesser Pagan God.

 

[ChieftheCef]

I have published a paper in the International Journal of comparing the possible location of the Garden of Eden in Turkey, Iraq and Pushkar and the evidence overwhelmingly is in favor of Pushkar. So, the Bible is not falsified if the Garden of Eden is located at Pushkar.

No, dude.

Let’s think about it this way: Jesus said the disciples would be around and they aren’t. The Bible states Mathew 16:28 "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." “

Cain’s wife came from a town that had already existed prior to Eden. Genesis 4:16-17 “So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.”

Yahweh is the lesser deity, El, the later “variant” of the supreme god of the Ancient Israelites (including other Abrahamic religions) lands, because the Israelites won by being seeming friends and having a “good” idealistic, nonpragmatic, approach to life (besides also stopping needless bloodshed that had accumulated due to age).

The ark was 500 feet big, how could any ship hold a breeding population (which you actually need to make a species in the wild, not just two organisms)?

Jesus’s never resurrected any of us. The way Jesus disdains Nature doesn’t make us happy, it makes us unhappy, even contorted into sheerly doing ridiculous things like hurting ourselves or each other out of jadedness. The source: Monotheism.

If the foundations of Genesis are shaken the whole things wrong. As you can see now if you have an honest heart and are not attached to the idea that is true.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm curious, why do you believe in God? WHat do you mean? Do you mean Yahweh or something more universal and applicable to everyone? Because Yahweh is not the God. He is a lesser Pagan God.

To me, God is the Creator of the universe, the Source behind it. He is one, not many. He cannot be entirely known, as the finite cannot fathom the infinite.

In my view, anyone who believes in just one God who is the Creator worships the same god. It doesn't matter to me if they call him Allah, Adonai, or Wakȟáŋ Tȟáŋka (Great Spirit).

If you want to make the argument that YHWH began in the beginning as a god of non-Hebrews, and that the Israelites were often polytheistic or monolatrous, I have no issue with that. So long as you admit that the religion did indeed develop into monotheism, and those today who worship YHWH are in no way worshiping some pagan god in a pantheon.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, they are, they're used as evidence of themselves, their culture and many other things. You CAN use anything to prove something, even prove it wrong.

Not and still be rational. Circular reasoning is a well known fallacy.

If you want, you can argue "All dogs are furry. All cats are furry. Therefore all dogs are cats," but it is still irrational. So what we see here is that simply making an argument is not enough. The argument must be logical. Circular reasoning, such as when something proves itself, is illogical.

 

[ChieftheCef]

If you want to make the argument that YHWH began in the beginning as a god of non-Hebrews, and that the Israelites were often polytheistic or monolatrous, I have no issue with that. So long as you admit that the religion did indeed develop into monotheism, and those today who worship YHWH are in no way worshiping some pagan god in a pantheon.

I entirely disagree, do you mind if I prove abrahamic religion wrong?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I entirely disagree, do you mind if I prove abrahamic religion wrong?

Well, you are certainly free to. I have no problem with others sharing their views. But you should know, since I've studied these things for myself, it is highly unlikely that anything you say will convince me, so if your purpose is to change my mind, you would be spinning your wheels.

Again, I have absolutely no problem with people having different opinions than me. Separate brains and all. Also, Judaism doesn't claim to be the one true religion. We are fine with people worshiping God in their own way. I'm really not in the forum to convince anyone. I just enjoy reading their POV and sharing mine.

 

[ChieftheCef]

Well, you are certainly free to. I have no problem with others sharing their views. But you should know, since I've studied these things for myself, it is highly unlikely that anything you say will convince me, so if your purpose is to change my mind, you would be spinning your wheels.

Again, I have absolutely no problem with people having different opinions than me. Separate brains and all. Also, Judaism doesn't claim to be the one true religion. We are fine with people worshiping God in their own way. I'm really not in the forum to convince anyone. I just enjoy reading their POV and sharing mine.

The key, actually, is do you study all and any religion. Not that you study religion.

I'll give you a sample of what I'm writing.

Hmmm

Mathew 5:23 “But let your “yes” be “yes” and “no” be “no” for whatever is more than these is from the evil one.”

See a swear is an extra step for someone to detect them lying.

Then he goes about saying “But I tell you not to resist an evil person.”, Denoting that he is not using hyperbole because he says “resist”,
“But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” saying that you should allow yourself to be hurt. Umm, lolwut?

They burned Giordano Bruno for saying what is now known to be true: that there are multiple worlds with multiple inhabitants.

Galileo Galilei who was sentenced to house arrest for believing the Earth was not the center of the universe.

Joan of Arc, a saint, who was executed by an ecclesiastical court.

Hypatia of Alexandria who was a mathematician who was murdered by a Christian mob.

They were written before by people who had the intel from other, including enemy, nations of what’s going to happen. They also knew the science of the day, which included spirituality (diseases were known to be spread by contact, they couldn’t understand why such a positive world would make it so horrible}. They knew the land was drying by the receding of the deserts; drying of aquifers.

They knew the weather would change because they had historical scientific records. They just also knew no one believed them at the time.

“Interestingly enough, the section that makes the claim is not able to present even one verse that specifically makes a prophecy about restoring the Jews to their homeland (such verses do exist), but rather a series of verses that simply state that if they don’t fall in line, then God will scatter them. To be honest, I think you would be extremely hard pressed to find any nation state from that time that has not seen their descendants scattered across the earth.”

This shows that they were man-made by teams of people so eloquently.

Ezekiel 26:1-7

“A Prophecy Against Tyre
26 In the eleventh month of the twelfth[a] year, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, because Tyre has said of Jerusalem, ‘Aha! The gate to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper,’ therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves.They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. She will become plunder for the nations, and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the Lord.”

See according to the Babylonians at the time Tyre would be no more. They released the story…

“Here God explicitly states that Nebuchadnezzar would completely sack and destroy the city of Tyre and that Tyre’s land would never be built upon again. However, this never occurred. After a 13-year siege, Tyre compromised with Nebuchadnezzar and accepted his authority without being destroyed. Despite being conquered and razed by Alexander the Great 240 years later, Tyre still exists.”

And had to change it but couldn’t.

“These “prophets” were also frequently so vague in the predictions they made that you could mold them into about any historical event you wanted.”

All quotes below Hypatia from Claimed Evidence: Prophecy in the Bible • Skeptical Science (skeptical-science.com)

No uncircumcised person will ever enter Jerusalem (Isaiah 52:1) can't happen, someone who isn't circumcised will always be in Jerusalem.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The key, actually, is do you study all and any religion. Not that you study religion.

No, it's really not. For one thing, even if someone is a scholar who has devoted their entire life to the study of religion, they cannot possibly learn about each and every one of the thousands of religions still around in the world.

If a person studies a variety of different kinds of religions (usually the main ones, plus a sampling of smaller ones) they can learn how the same issues are dealt with, and what themes keep coming up.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

No, dude.

Let’s think about it this way: Jesus said the disciples would be around and they aren’t. The Bible states Mathew 16:28 "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." “

Cain’s wife came from a town that had already existed prior to Eden. Genesis 4:16-17 “So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.”

Yahweh is the lesser deity, El, the later “variant” of the supreme god of the Ancient Israelites (including other Abrahamic religions) lands, because the Israelites won by being seeming friends and having a “good” idealistic, nonpragmatic, approach to life (besides also stopping needless bloodshed that had accumulated due to age).

The ark was 500 feet big, how could any ship hold a breeding population (which you actually need to make a species in the wild, not just two organisms)?

Jesus’s never resurrected any of us. The way Jesus disdains Nature doesn’t make us happy, it makes us unhappy, even contorted into sheerly doing ridiculous things like hurting ourselves or each other out of jadedness. The source: Monotheism.

If the foundations of Genesis are shaken the whole things wrong. As you can see now if you have an honest heart and are not attached to the idea that is true.

No, my friend, it does not work. I have done a thorough study of the location of the Garden of Eden, which is not negated by invoking the location of Cain or Matthew 16:28 or any other verse. You have to meet the challenge of showing why my paper is not tenable. Please note it is published in a respectable journal.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am aware of and I acknowledge the evidences that you mentioned for Exodus from Egypt. But we must distinguish between the direct evidence, such as that of- a river going dry, leading to the plagues, the separation of water and the appearance of a volcano, a place named Paran, which are all found in the exodus from Indus Valley. On the other hand, the evidences you say you are invoking are circumstantial and hence these evidences could equally be found in the Indus Valley. So, the problem has to be solved by looking at the direct evidences of the factors I have enumerated above.
I think we have to give some respect to the Bible being an inspired text, although it may have been composed at 600 BCE, that is not evidence that it is false. What we have to see is that the oral traditions carried from 1500 to 1600 BCE and written down under inspiration may yet contain truths which have to be examined on their own setting rather than just denied because they were composed at 600 BCE.

I easily disagree, because the journey in the Sinai accurately fits the trade routes specifically as with other evidence demonstrating the Exodus story fits Egypt.. It is not circumstantial. Your attempt at a thorough study is only a circular argument to justify your cultural view of the mythology of Genesis, Noah's flood and Exodus

You failed to describe how the geography fits Indus Valley. Your examples of mud volcanoes and rivers is not remotely convincing. There is absolutely not evidence of Canaanite/Hebrew slaves being held in the Indus Valley or military conflicts that involved taking slaves, or migrations of Canaanite/Hebrews into or Exodus from the Indus Valley.

Your article extensively appeals to an interpretation of legend, myth, and scripture which is not evidence for your argument. Your argument i mor circumstantial, mine is based on historical and specific geographic evidence. Vague word associations are not convincing, and can be easily explained as coincidental. Your argument has an extreme cultural bias.

The Creation story in Genesis is Creation mythology traced to Babylonian and Sumerian texts, and a catastrophic flood event in the Tigris Euphrates Valley with the timing based on geologic evidence. How literal do you consider the Creation story of Genesis is? How does your argument fit with the scientific history of our physical existence, and the evolution of life and humanity?

 

[GoodAttention]

No, my friend, it does not work. I have done a thorough study of the location of the Garden of Eden, which is not negated by invoking the location of Cain or Matthew 16:28 or any other verse. You have to meet the challenge of showing why my paper is not tenable. Please note it is published in a respectable journal.

Some feedback for you.

(1) You didn't determine the meaning of Eden, except that it translates to plentiful. Is Eden a city, region, or a geographic area?
(2) You connect Eden with being on a mountain, quoting Ezekiel 28, but this is your interpretation, and unsupported.
(3) I suggest Gihon, which means bursting forth, refers to the spring fed (Lion's mouth) river that is the Indus
(4) Pishon is the Nile. The land of Havilah is Wadi Hammamat, which translates to Gateway to India/Havilah. The Nile encircles/borders this land
(5) You don't explore a potential Mesopotamian location such as the Persian Gulf where a garden could have existed and then disappeared

 

[ChieftheCef]

No, it's really not. For one thing, even if someone is a scholar who has devoted their entire life to the study of religion, they cannot possibly learn about each and every one of the thousands of religions still around in the world.

Why that's absurdly false: you can still get a good spread, duh

If a person studies a variety of different kinds of religions (usually the main ones, plus a sampling of smaller ones) they can learn how the same issues are dealt with, and what themes keep coming up.

 

[ChieftheCef]

No, my friend, it does not work. I have done a thorough study of the location of the Garden of Eden, which is not negated by invoking the location of Cain or Matthew 16:28 or any other verse. You have to meet the challenge of showing why my paper is not tenable. Please note it is published in a respectable journal.

I did. You didn't listen.

Eden was a place south east of The Euphrates and Tigris., now under water due to fires cumulatively changing the geology gradually over time.

Besides this Eden is a mythical place. The story is hogwash, snakes don't talk.

 

[shunyadragon]

How do you know if you haven't looked? If you have looked it wasn't very far.

I have spent over fifty year research, and college courses on religions and specifically the history of the Middle East as related to the archeological and historical evidence of the history as described in the different scriptures and texts available,

There is no archeological, historical and geologic evidence for the Genesis Creation, Noah's flood and Exodus as described in the Pentateuch.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why that's absurdly false: you can still get a good spread, duh

I did. You didn't listen.

Eden was a place south east of The Euphrates and Tigris., now under water due to fires cumulatively changing the geology gradually over time.

Besides this Eden is a mythical place. The story is hogwash, snakes don't talk.

There is no such place bold as you described based on objective evidence. A mystical(?) place puts it where it belongs mythology.