How does the Epic of Gilgamesh discredit the story of Noah’s flood?

[joelr]

Why do Thompson and Ehrman fight each other?

Because Ehrman thinks the Jesus myths were based on a real Rabbi and Thompson doesn't think there was even a man who the legends were based on. Neither believes the religion is true.

 

[joelr]

There is no consensus that "Moses is a myth".

Denial it is.
"Generally seen as a legendary figure" means seen as a myth. Legends and myths are the same thing.

 

[joelr]

But Dr. Ehrman never will ever say that "it is scholarly consensus that Jesus is a myth because the stories in the NT are myths".

That type of logic is not used by the majority of scholars when it comes to Bible studies.

And, wrong again. PhD Carrier says this CONSTANTLY. He explains that the consensus now is Jesus was a man but it's moving slowly to the mythicist position. Carrier has directly said the consensus on Moses is myth. I will eventually find it but your level of denial shows you are not interested in facts but denial and protecting your beliefs. So I'm not going to scour his videos to find it. He's talking about historians and he is correct.

Oh wait, I already posted a quote from Carrier about Jesus, he says the same about Moses. Yeah, your denial is on full tilt.

 

[joelr]

There is no consensus that "Moses is a myth".

Let's let William Denver, the leading Biblical archeologist say it too, he will use the actual words - "scholarly consensus"


"For instance, according to William G. Dever, the modern scholarly consensus is that the biblical person of Moses is largely mythical while also holding that "a Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C." and that "archeology can do nothing" to prove or "

 

[firedragon]

It does if one can reason logically.

Nope.

 

[firedragon]

And, wrong again. PhD Carrier says this CONSTANTLY.

Lol. I said "Ehrman".

 

[joelr]

There is no consensus among scholars that Moses was a myth.

It's also known most of the story is taken from older myths.

Offline Illumination
The legend of Moses, rather than being that of a historical Hebrew character, is found from the Mediterranean to India, with the character having different names and races, depending on the locale: "Manou" is the Indian legislator. "Nemo the lawgiver," who brought down the tablets from the Mountain of God, hails from Babylon. "Mises" is found in Syria, where he was pulled out of a basket floating in a river. Mises also had tablets of stone upon which laws were written and a rod with which he did miracles, including parting waters and leading his army across the sea. In addition, "Manes the lawgiver" took the stage in Egypt, and "Minos" was the Cretan reformer.

Jacolliot traces the original Moses to the Indian Manou: "This name of Manou, or Manes . . . is not a substantive, applying to an individual man; its Sanscrit signification is the man, par excellence, the legislator. It is a title aspired to by all the leaders of men in antiquity."

Like Moses, Krishna was placed by his mother in a reed boat and set adrift in a river to be discovered by another woman. The Akkadian Sargon also was placed in a reed basket and set adrift to save his life. In fact, "The name Moses is Egyptian and comes from mo, the Egyptian word for water, and uses, meaning saved from water, in this case, primordial." Thus, this title Moses could be applied to any of these various heroes saved from the water.

Walker elaborates on the Moses myth:

"The Moses tale was originally that of an Egyptian hero, Ra-Harakhti, the reborn sun god of Canopus, whose life story was copied by biblical scholars. The same story was told of the sun hero fathered by Apollo on the virgin Creusa; of Sargon, king of Akkad in 2242 B.C.; and of the mythological twin founders of Rome, among many other baby heroes set adrift in rush baskets. It was a common theme."

Furthermore, Moses's rod is a magical, astrology stick used by a number of other mythical characters. Of Moses's miraculous exploits, Walker also relates:

"Moses's flowering rod, river of blood, and tablets of the law were all symbols of the ancient Goddess. His miracle of drawing water from a rock was first performed by Mother Rhea after she gave birth to Zeus, and by Atalanta with the help of Artemis. His miracle of drying up the waters to travel dry-shod was earlier performed by Isis, or Hathor, on her way to Byblos."

And Higgins states:

"In Bacchus we evidently have Moses. Herodotus says [Bacchus] was an Egyptian . . . The Orphic verses relate that he was preserved from the waters, in a little box or chest, that he was called Misem in commemoration of the event; that he was instructed in all the secrets of the Gods; and that he had a rod, which he changed into a serpent at his pleasure; that he passed through the Red Sea dry-shod, as Hercules subsequently did . . . and that when he went to India, he and his army enjoyed the light of the Sun during the night: moreover, it is said, that he touched with his magic rod the waters of the great rivers Orontes and Hydaspes; upon which those waters flowed back and left him a free passage. It is even said that he arrested the course of the sun and moon. He wrote his laws on two tablets of stone. He was anciently represented with horns or rays on his head."


Potter sums up the mythicist argument regarding Moses:

"The reasons for doubting his existence include, among others, (1) the parallels between the Moses stories and older ones like that of Sargon, (2) the absence of any Egyptian account of such a great event as the Pentateuch asserts the Exodus to have been, (3) the attributing to Moses of so many laws that are known to have originated much later, (4) the correlative fact that great codes never suddenly appear full-born but are slowly evolved, (5) the difficulties of fitting the slavery, the Exodus, and the conquest of Canaan into the known chronology of Egypt and Palestine, and (6) the extreme probability that some of the twelve tribes were never in Egypt at all."

Moreover, the famed Ten Commandments are simply a repetition of the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi and the Hindu Vedas, among others. As Churchward says:

"The 'Law of Moses' were the old Egyptian Laws . . . ; this the stele or 'Code of Hammurabi' conclusively proves. Moses lived 1,000 years after this stone was engraved."

Walker relates that the "stone tablets of law supposedly given to Moses were copied from the Canaanite god Baal-Berith, 'God of the Covenant.' Their Ten Commandments were similar to the commandments of the Buddhist Decalogue. In the ancient world, laws generally came from a deity on a mountaintop. Zoroaster received the tablets of law from Ahura Mazda on a mountaintop."

Doane sums it up when he says, "Almost all the acts of Moses correspond to those of the Sun-gods." However, the Moses story is also reflective of the stellar cult, once again demonstrating the dual natured "twin" Horus-Set myth and the battle for supremacy between the day and night skies, as well as among the solar, stellar and lunar cults.
As has been demonstrated, the Moses fable is an ancient mythological motif found in numerous cultures. It therefore has nothing to do with any particular ethnic group, and the character Moses is not the founder of the Jewish ideology. Like so many others, this story as presented represents racist rubbish and cultural bigotry.

Furthermore, rabbis and other authorities have known the mythological nature of this and other major biblical tales, yet they say nothing. Indeed, they go along with it, much to their own benefit. Naturally, the person who discovers this ruse and hoax may rightfully become annoyed, to say the least, at the deliberate deception, and ask "What's up with that?"

Acharya S
Archaeologist, Historian, Linguist, Mythologist
Member, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece
Associate Director, Institute for Historical Accuracy

 

[firedragon]

Let's let William Denver, the leading Biblical archeologist say it too, he will use the actual words - "scholarly consensus"


"For instance, according to William G. Dever, the modern scholarly consensus is that the biblical person of Moses is largely mythical while also holding that "a Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C." and that "archeology can do nothing" to prove or "

Archeology can do nothing to prove Moses was a myth.

And now you should engage with Ehrman vs Dever. Why do they disagree? You put all of them in the same soup.

 

[firedragon]

It's also known most of the story is taken from older myths.

Offline Illumination
The legend of Moses, rather than being that of a historical Hebrew character, is found from the Mediterranean to India, with the character having different names and races, depending on the locale: "Manou" is the Indian legislator. "Nemo the lawgiver," who brought down the tablets from the Mountain of God, hails from Babylon. "Mises" is found in Syria, where he was pulled out of a basket floating in a river. Mises also had tablets of stone upon which laws were written and a rod with which he did miracles, including parting waters and leading his army across the sea. In addition, "Manes the lawgiver" took the stage in Egypt, and "Minos" was the Cretan reformer.

Jacolliot traces the original Moses to the Indian Manou: "This name of Manou, or Manes . . . is not a substantive, applying to an individual man; its Sanscrit signification is the man, par excellence, the legislator. It is a title aspired to by all the leaders of men in antiquity."

Like Moses, Krishna was placed by his mother in a reed boat and set adrift in a river to be discovered by another woman. The Akkadian Sargon also was placed in a reed basket and set adrift to save his life. In fact, "The name Moses is Egyptian and comes from mo, the Egyptian word for water, and uses, meaning saved from water, in this case, primordial." Thus, this title Moses could be applied to any of these various heroes saved from the water.

Walker elaborates on the Moses myth:

"The Moses tale was originally that of an Egyptian hero, Ra-Harakhti, the reborn sun god of Canopus, whose life story was copied by biblical scholars. The same story was told of the sun hero fathered by Apollo on the virgin Creusa; of Sargon, king of Akkad in 2242 B.C.; and of the mythological twin founders of Rome, among many other baby heroes set adrift in rush baskets. It was a common theme."

Furthermore, Moses's rod is a magical, astrology stick used by a number of other mythical characters. Of Moses's miraculous exploits, Walker also relates:

"Moses's flowering rod, river of blood, and tablets of the law were all symbols of the ancient Goddess. His miracle of drawing water from a rock was first performed by Mother Rhea after she gave birth to Zeus, and by Atalanta with the help of Artemis. His miracle of drying up the waters to travel dry-shod was earlier performed by Isis, or Hathor, on her way to Byblos."

And Higgins states:

"In Bacchus we evidently have Moses. Herodotus says [Bacchus] was an Egyptian . . . The Orphic verses relate that he was preserved from the waters, in a little box or chest, that he was called Misem in commemoration of the event; that he was instructed in all the secrets of the Gods; and that he had a rod, which he changed into a serpent at his pleasure; that he passed through the Red Sea dry-shod, as Hercules subsequently did . . . and that when he went to India, he and his army enjoyed the light of the Sun during the night: moreover, it is said, that he touched with his magic rod the waters of the great rivers Orontes and Hydaspes; upon which those waters flowed back and left him a free passage. It is even said that he arrested the course of the sun and moon. He wrote his laws on two tablets of stone. He was anciently represented with horns or rays on his head."


Potter sums up the mythicist argument regarding Moses:

"The reasons for doubting his existence include, among others, (1) the parallels between the Moses stories and older ones like that of Sargon, (2) the absence of any Egyptian account of such a great event as the Pentateuch asserts the Exodus to have been, (3) the attributing to Moses of so many laws that are known to have originated much later, (4) the correlative fact that great codes never suddenly appear full-born but are slowly evolved, (5) the difficulties of fitting the slavery, the Exodus, and the conquest of Canaan into the known chronology of Egypt and Palestine, and (6) the extreme probability that some of the twelve tribes were never in Egypt at all."

Moreover, the famed Ten Commandments are simply a repetition of the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi and the Hindu Vedas, among others. As Churchward says:

"The 'Law of Moses' were the old Egyptian Laws . . . ; this the stele or 'Code of Hammurabi' conclusively proves. Moses lived 1,000 years after this stone was engraved."

Walker relates that the "stone tablets of law supposedly given to Moses were copied from the Canaanite god Baal-Berith, 'God of the Covenant.' Their Ten Commandments were similar to the commandments of the Buddhist Decalogue. In the ancient world, laws generally came from a deity on a mountaintop. Zoroaster received the tablets of law from Ahura Mazda on a mountaintop."

Doane sums it up when he says, "Almost all the acts of Moses correspond to those of the Sun-gods." However, the Moses story is also reflective of the stellar cult, once again demonstrating the dual natured "twin" Horus-Set myth and the battle for supremacy between the day and night skies, as well as among the solar, stellar and lunar cults.
As has been demonstrated, the Moses fable is an ancient mythological motif found in numerous cultures. It therefore has nothing to do with any particular ethnic group, and the character Moses is not the founder of the Jewish ideology. Like so many others, this story as presented represents racist rubbish and cultural bigotry.

Furthermore, rabbis and other authorities have known the mythological nature of this and other major biblical tales, yet they say nothing. Indeed, they go along with it, much to their own benefit. Naturally, the person who discovers this ruse and hoax may rightfully become annoyed, to say the least, at the deliberate deception, and ask "What's up with that?"

Acharya S
Archaeologist, Historian, Linguist, Mythologist
Member, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece
Associate Director, Institute for Historical Accuracy

Scholarly consensus that Moses was a myth does not exist. No matter how hard you try.

 

[firedragon]

It's also known most of the story is taken from older myths.

That does not prove scholarly consensus is that Moses was a myth.

 

[joelr]

Lol. I said "Ehrman".

Ehrman won't say that because he believes there was a person named Jesus who was used in the myths. But he will say Moses is largely considered mythical.

 

[joelr]

Archeology can do nothing to prove Moses was a myth.

And now you should engage with Ehrman vs Dever. Why do they disagree? You put all of them in the same soup.

Denver feels Israel's real history can be learned by reading the myths. It doesn't matter. They both know the stories of Gods are made up.

 

[joelr]

That does not prove scholarly consensus is that Moses was a myth.

The leading Biblical Archeologist saying it means I have put forth reasonable evidence to back my claim and you are likely wrong with all your arguments.

I have made my case, now provide some evidence. Or continue rambling like a parrot (a parrot who is a sore loser), but I don't need to reply to that.



"For instance, according to William G. Dever, the modern scholarly consensus is that the biblical person of Moses is largely mythical while also holding that "a Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C." and that "archeology can do nothing" to prove or "


Moses | Encyclopedia.com

"The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend.

The story contains generic elements that are discounted by historians. The infant castaway who grows up to be a hero is considered a legendary motif; it appears, for example, in the birth stories of Sargon of Akkad "

all the mythic and supernatural elements are considered myth by historians. Yet another source saying the same thing.

 

[firedragon]

The leading Biblical Archeologist saying it means I have put forth reasonable evidence to back my claim and you are likely wrong with all your arguments.

I didnt make any arguments Joel. I understand that you have to keep saying that. I didnt make any arguments. I just asked for your evidence to your statement that "scholarly consensus is that Moses is a myth".

I have told you many things about there being no evidence archeologically about Moses. But of course there is no point in repeating any of that. None of that makes a foundation to your claim that "scholarly consensus is that Moses is a myth".

Scholarly consensus does not work that way and it is obvious you dont know this. But you won't engage with scholarly consensus or anything of the sort because you dont intend to. Mind you, even a fringe scholar maybe correct in his assessment. But your claim was not that "in my opinion based on scholars Moses is a myth", your claim was that "scholarly consensus is that Moses is a myth".

There is no point typing so much because you are definitely going to cut and paste another strawman argument. Strawman is that "some scholars believe Moses was a myth". That is a strawman because your claim was "scholarly consensus".

Ehrman won't say that because he believes there was a person named Jesus

Exactly. So dont put them in the same soup.

Ehrman also does not say, though you think you quoted him, that "scholarly consensus is that Moses was a myth" because scholars like him seriously consider consensus. Ehrman mostly quotes scholarly consensus. I have even given you examples but of course you won't engage with it because it doesnt interest you.

If you want to understand scholarly consensus just read Ehrmans books.

This discussion has run its mile. Have a great day. There is no scholarly consensus like you claim. Thats the whole point.

Cheers.

 

[joelr]

I didnt make any arguments Joel. I understand that you have to keep saying that. I didnt make any arguments. I just asked for your evidence to your statement that "scholarly consensus is that Moses is a myth".

Of course you made an argument. You claimed that it isn't true that consensus is that Moses is a myth. Yet I have herd several scholars say this very thing.

I have told you many things about there being no evidence archeologically about Moses. But of course there is no point in repeating any of that. None of that makes a foundation to your claim that "scholarly consensus is that Moses is a myth".

No the thing that makes a foundation is a scholar saying that the consensus on Moses is a myth. I have never seen such obvious denial and dishonesty in a debate?

Scholarly consensus does not work that way and it is obvious you dont know this. But you won't engage with scholarly consensus or anything of the sort because you dont intend to. Mind you, even a fringe scholar maybe correct in his assessment. But your claim was not that "in my opinion based on scholars Moses is a myth", your claim was that "scholarly consensus is that Moses is a myth".

There is no point typing so much because you are definitely going to cut and paste another strawman argument. Strawman is that "some scholars believe Moses was a myth". That is a strawman because your claim was "scholarly consensus".

You criticize my posts? Yet provide ZERO evidence except claims and parroting the same statement without evidence? Your form gets worse every post?

Clearly and demonstrably incorrect. I have William Denver saying the exact thing you claim that is not said. The www.encyclopedia.com author saying historians consider Moses a legend as well as several other sources? They are not saying "I think Moses is a myth" they are all saying "CONSENSUS IS MOSES IS A MYTH"? The evidence has been given, you lose.

Carrier makes the exact statement you claim historians won't say. Yet there he is saying it?

Exactly. So dont put them in the same soup.

Uh, no they are in the same soup. Just because one thinks some historical facts may lie in the myths has no bearing on this topic. It has already been said Moses may have been a real leader? It's the Biblical stories that are myth. I know you understand this but are playing some tapdance to protect your religious beliefs I imagine.

They both believe the stories are not real. That means myth. Same boat.

Ehrman also does not say, though you think you quoted him, that "scholarly consensus is that Moses was a myth" because scholars like him seriously consider consensus. Ehrman mostly quotes scholarly consensus. I have even given you examples but of course you won't engage with it because it doesnt interest you.

You have given no evidence to anything whatsoever. I GAVE THE EXAMPLES? Carrier seriously considers consensus. And he says the consensus is historians do not believe the Gospel stories. Everything you claim I have proven wrong. This is an example of how not to act when you lose.

If you want to understand scholarly consensus just read Ehrmans books.

This discussion has run its mile. Have a great day. There is no scholarly consensus like you claim. Thats the whole point.

Cheers.

No it was like I claimed. But then I demonstrated William Denver also claims it. As do the other historians I sourced. Ehrman would absolutely explain that the vast majority of historians would consider the Moses tales to be myth? Why would he not say that? He believes the gospels are completely made up fiction and he also says this is the majority opinion in the historicity field.
So you are plain wrong.
And I have read Ehrman.
Further to the point I have read Carrier and he is constantly talking about consensus opinions in History. So it IS IN FACT something discussed. It is likely that you are the one in need of reading history.


“The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable contradictions. Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) - Ehrman

No matter how you try to desperately twist this the majority of historians do not believe the stories in scripture are true. You are attempting to make like it's my argument, but Denver says it as well. As does Carrier.
The majority of historians believing the tales are myth means the consensus is that they are myth.


I have been reading historians saying this is the consensus over and over for years. You simply do not understand the field. Or there is some religious attachment going on where you cannot admit this.

"
“Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we’ve broken the news very gently,” said William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and one of America’s preeminent archeologists."

"Virtually no scholar, for instance, accepts the biblical figure of 600,000 men fleeing Egypt, which would have meant there were a few million people, including women and children."

"The scholarly consensus seems to be that the story is a brilliant mix of myth, cultural memories and kernels of historical truth. Perhaps, muses Hendel, a small group of Semites who escaped from Egypt became the “intellectual vanguard of a new nation that called itself Israel,” stressing social justice and freedom."

 

[firedragon]

Of course you made an argument. You claimed that it isn't true that consensus is that Moses is a myth. Yet I have herd several scholars say this very thing.





No the thing that makes a foundation is a scholar saying that the consensus on Moses is a myth. I have never seen such obvious denial and dishonesty in a debate?



You criticize my posts? Yet provide ZERO evidence except claims and parroting the same statement without evidence? Your form gets worse every post?

Clearly and demonstrably incorrect. I have William Denver saying the exact thing you claim that is not said. The www.encyclopedia.com author saying historians consider Moses a legend as well as several other sources? They are not saying "I think Moses is a myth" they are all saying "CONSENSUS IS MOSES IS A MYTH"? The evidence has been given, you lose.

Carrier makes the exact statement you claim historians won't say. Yet there he is saying it?

Uh, no they are in the same soup. Just because one thinks some historical facts may lie in the myths has no bearing on this topic. It has already been said Moses may have been a real leader? It's the Biblical stories that are myth. I know you understand this but are playing some tapdance to protect your religious beliefs I imagine.

They both believe the stories are not real. That means myth. Same boat.



You have given no evidence to anything whatsoever. I GAVE THE EXAMPLES? Carrier seriously considers consensus. And he says the consensus is historians do not believe the Gospel stories. Everything you claim I have proven wrong. This is an example of how not to act when you lose.


No it was like I claimed. But then I demonstrated William Denver also claims it. As do the other historians I sourced. Ehrman would absolutely explain that the vast majority of historians would consider the Moses tales to be myth? Why would he not say that? He believes the gospels are completely made up fiction and he also says this is the majority opinion in the historicity field.
So you are plain wrong.
And I have read Ehrman.
Further to the point I have read Carrier and he is constantly talking about consensus opinions in History. So it IS IN FACT something discussed. It is likely that you are the one in need of reading history.


“The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable contradictions. Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) - Ehrman

No matter how you try to desperately twist this the majority of historians do not believe the stories in scripture are true. You are attempting to make like it's my argument, but Denver says it as well. As does Carrier.
The majority of historians believing the tales are myth means the consensus is that they are myth.


I have been reading historians saying this is the consensus over and over for years. You simply do not understand the field. Or there is some religious attachment going on where you cannot admit this.

"
“Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we’ve broken the news very gently,” said William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and one of America’s preeminent archeologists."

"Virtually no scholar, for instance, accepts the biblical figure of 600,000 men fleeing Egypt, which would have meant there were a few million people, including women and children."

"The scholarly consensus seems to be that the story is a brilliant mix of myth, cultural memories and kernels of historical truth. Perhaps, muses Hendel, a small group of Semites who escaped from Egypt became the “intellectual vanguard of a new nation that called itself Israel,” stressing social justice and freedom."

There is no consensus amongst scholars that Moses was a myth.

 

[Brian2]

What? It appears that you do not wish to know what is real or not. There is no reliable evidence for the flood myth. But if you think that you have some please do tell.us what it is.

Some people do want to know what happened in the past. Some people may prefer to live in the land of fantasy.

It is nice to know what happened in the past but it is fantasy to think that one does know exactly what happened. There are possible flood scenarios for a large local flood for Noah, and that could have also included other areas of the earth that flooded at the same time. Someone of faith sees that are realises that the flood of Noah has not been shown to be false if it is taken as a large local flood. People who just want the Bible to be false just seem to deny the possibilities and pretend that they know what happened in the past.

Lastly you appear to be mischaracterizing what is said. Evolution does not appear to need a God at all and theists cannot seem to find a need for God either.

I find a need for God to provide the material that could be formed into whatever and to provide life so that the material could live. I find a need for God to invent a system that allowed for evolution and the storing of data in molecules and the use of that data by other chemicals.

 

[metis]

And really, what mainstream scientists want to offer their support to a claim they are against?

That argument isn’t realistic.

That's not how we work in the arena of science, as any attempt to manipulate the evidence could pretty much discredit a scientist for life.

 

[Brian2]

No reason? Except that academia has been in consensus about Exodus and Moses since the 1970's? THomas Thompsons work in the 70's was more than enough peer-reviewed evidence to demonstrate Moses and the Patriarchs were mythical figures.
For Exodus there is no evidence and Biblical archeologists now know that Israel emerged from Canaanite society, without armed conflict. SO those stories are a myth. In fact they are considered a national foundation myth to unite the new culture.
Archeologist Carol Mayers explains Moses and Exodus here:
NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Moses and the Exodus | PBS

Notice she's talking about Canaanites because that is who the Israelites were.

Genesis is not a historical text. It's a collection of myths rewritten for a new society.

As this Pastor/PhD Hebrew Bible explains:

Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel

K.L. Sparks (ordained Baptist Pastor, PhD in Hebrew Bible/Ancient Near East)


As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel's history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It's primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all), who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from all sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories); he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn "what actually happened" (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002, pp 37-71; Maidman 2003).

As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are better understood as windows into Israelite history than as portraits of Israel's early history. Almost as problematic as an historical source is the book of Exodus. This book tells the story of Israel's long enslavement in Egypt and of it's eventual emancipation; it also narrates the first stages of Israel's migration from Egypt toward Palestine. The trouble with this story, historically speaking, is that the Egyptians seem to have known nothing of these great events in which thousands of Israelite slaves were released from Egypt because of a series of natural (or supernatural( catastrophes - supposedly including the death of every firstborn Egyptian man and beast.

There are other scholars who say say the stories are true and I go along with them.

It's about what science is saying. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and is not in question. scientists do not take aspects of nature they do not yet fully understand and say "maybe God did this part"? No God has been demonstrated ever and until it is it doesn't get to be part of a theory.
The progress on evidence and understanding about self-replicating chemicals into pre-cursors to RNA is constantly growing. It is likely we will eventually have a complete model.
Young people should hear different opinions and they should also be encouraged to seek out the available evidence and also learn what confirmation bias and brainwashing are and how they happen with religious ideas. Anyone who evaluates the available evidence without bias will clearly see there simply is no evidence for any God.
Evolution is understood. The actual creation of life still has gaps. But to suggest there need be some God in this gap is clearly bias towards some myth.

I'll stick with a designer and creator and life giver. That is what the evidence points to for me even if the evidence point to chance for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is nice to know what happened in the past but it is fantasy to think that one does know exactly what happened. There are possible flood scenarios for a large local flood for Noah, and that could have also included other areas of the earth that flooded at the same time. Someone of faith sees that are realises that the flood of Noah has not been shown to be false if it is taken as a large local flood. People who just want the Bible to be false just seem to deny the possibilities and pretend that they know what happened in the past.



I find a need for God to provide the material that could be formed into whatever and to provide life so that the material could live. I find a need for God to invent a system that allowed for evolution and the storing of data in molecules and the use of that data by other chemicals.

Oh there are some possible large local floods, And a person on a barge or boat could have been caught up in it. But the Noah story is ridiculous. He had a hundred years to build his boat. In reality any flood could have been walked away from before it started if one knew of it. There was never a near extinction event for human begins. One would have to change the story so much that it would be unrecognizable.

And no, it has nothing to do with "people wanting the Bible to be false". That is a false claim that you cannot justify. People merely want to know what really happened. The story as told in the Bible is an obvious fairy tale. Now it might work as a tale like on of Aesop's fables. As a fable or other story with a message it still fits 2 Timothy 3 16-17. That verse does not say that the Bible is literally true. Only that it needs to be useful in education etc.