Interesting discussion about religion and evolution

[Sargonski]

The Armana letters show that Egypt was not there in Canaan fighting to enemies of the Canaanite states Egypt had conquered. I guess the forts and mansions etc were still there but the presence of the helping army of Egypt was not there while Joshua was conquering around 1400 BC.

This is just not true .. from 1400 BC to 1200BC Hittites of Anatolia and Egypt .. fought to a stale mate and everything in between was Vassal states.. by "everything" however .. we don't mean "Everything" .. it is not like today where you have nations .. you have individual city states ..each controlling the surrounding lands .. in between these city states you have murading bandits .. .various tribespeople .. Goat herders.

The area around Jerusalem was a large trading route .. the city states did well .. paying tribute to one or the other .. and going about business .. the occasional skirmish here and there. One of the biggest things that was traded was Humans .. Slaves. it is a slave economy and one of the good places to get fresh slave meat .. are these tribal people living in the margins .. often there is talk of raids of the country side from these tribal people from the hills .. often gaining power over city states .. and even nations .. such as Babylon which was run by the Kassites for 300 years. One of these Tribal bandit groups were the Hapiru .. in all likeli-hood these or similar groups coalesced and became powerful during the Bronze age collapse .. happening round 1200 BC

So your story is like this Lads .. sure there were lots of Semetic Slaves in Egypt .. perhaps some left over from the Hyksos rule round 1500BC .. short period where semetic Kings ruled egypt .. alowing migration of semetic peoples .. who were then either booted out or left willingly as when the Egyptians took back the Throne the Semetic folks were not treated well. and/or -- there were alot of slaves in Egypt from these tribal people in the margins.

When they left egypt ? .. well .. they never were all in egypt to begin with but certainly any migrations of tribal people out of Egypt would have coalesced with the existing. Tribal people .. warring and battling amongst themselves as much as with the bigger powers.

Then come the Bronze Age Collapse -- within a very short time the Hittite Empire disappears from the face of the map .. Assyria and Babylonia recede - as does Egypt .. under seige from the Sea Peoples .. weakened due to some massive climate event .. which hit the entire known world.

All of a sudden you had a distopian world of anarchy .. no established powers directing the show .. These tribal folks -- perhaps the folks best suited for survival of this apocalypse .. rise to prominance for a short period of time .. David Takes Jerusalem around 1000 BC .. a Tribal War Lord who managed to unite 12 tribes for a short period of time .. the fun lasted for a few hundred .. the Old powers recovering former Glory Assyria comes knocking for trubute round 750 .. 10 of the 12 Tribes are wiped out and dispersed to the far reaches of the Assyrian Empire by 720.

Read your reference again you either cannot read or you are lying. It covers a range of historical conquests. The conquest of Canaan was between ~1500- 1200 BCE. as previously referenced citing evidence which confirms what is on the Stele.

 

[Brian2]

I would assume they would have to at least know which God is giving them a chance. I'm open to hearing why my assumption could be wrong.

When Jesus judges everyone who is not in Christ, they will be judged on how they have lived their lives imo. See Matthew 25:31-46.
But nobody is sinless and everyone who gets eternal life will need to be forgiven.

 

[Brian2]

This is just not true .. from 1400 BC to 1200BC Hittites of Anatolia and Egypt .. fought to a stale mate and everything in between was Vassal states.. by "everything" however .. we don't mean "Everything" .. it is not like today where you have nations .. you have individual city states ..each controlling the surrounding lands .. in between these city states you have murading bandits .. .various tribespeople .. Goat herders.

The area around Jerusalem was a large trading route .. the city states did well .. paying tribute to one or the other .. and going about business .. the occasional skirmish here and there. One of the biggest things that was traded was Humans .. Slaves. it is a slave economy and one of the good places to get fresh slave meat .. are these tribal people living in the margins .. often there is talk of raids of the country side from these tribal people from the hills .. often gaining power over city states .. and even nations .. such as Babylon which was run by the Kassites for 300 years. One of these Tribal bandit groups were the Hapiru .. in all likeli-hood these or similar groups coalesced and became powerful during the Bronze age collapse .. happening round 1200 BC

So your story is like this Lads .. sure there were lots of Semetic Slaves in Egypt .. perhaps some left over from the Hyksos rule round 1500BC .. short period where semetic Kings ruled egypt .. alowing migration of semetic peoples .. who were then either booted out or left willingly as when the Egyptians took back the Throne the Semetic folks were not treated well. and/or -- there were alot of slaves in Egypt from these tribal people in the margins.

When they left egypt ? .. well .. they never were all in egypt to begin with but certainly any migrations of tribal people out of Egypt would have coalesced with the existing. Tribal people .. warring and battling amongst themselves as much as with the bigger powers.

Then come the Bronze Age Collapse -- within a very short time the Hittite Empire disappears from the face of the map .. Assyria and Babylonia recede - as does Egypt .. under seige from the Sea Peoples .. weakened due to some massive climate event .. which hit the entire known world.

All of a sudden you had a distopian world of anarchy .. no established powers directing the show .. These tribal folks -- perhaps the folks best suited for survival of this apocalypse .. rise to prominance for a short period of time .. David Takes Jerusalem around 1000 BC .. a Tribal War Lord who managed to unite 12 tribes for a short period of time .. the fun lasted for a few hundred .. the Old powers recovering former Glory Assyria comes knocking for trubute round 750 .. 10 of the 12 Tribes are wiped out and dispersed to the far reaches of the Assyrian Empire by 720.

The Amarna Letters span from about 1360 to 1330 I am told and in them the states of Canaan complain that Egypt, their overlord, was not helping with the military troubles they were having at that time.
The conquest by Joshua may have been from 1400 to 1393 approx and Israel would have been a nuisance militarily even after that time as it continued to try to defeat parts of the Canaanite territory that they had not defeated with the Joshua conquest.
The Amarna complaints may have been about Israel, whom they mistook as Hapiru, or may have been about other groups that were trying to conquer and/or settle in Canaan.
You no doubt have chosen your theory of how Israel got into Canaan or rose to power there. But it is one of many.
My competing "theory" it seems is what the Bible story actually tells us instead of something made up to fit what is seen as the data and a later settlement of Israel than the Biblical 1400 conquest tells us.

 

[Kenny]

We went over this. There are experts in the various fields.

Which doesn’t change what I said. Experts have a variety of positions and you selected, with every right, those that scratch your itchy ears. )

I try to keep an open mind.

LOL… really? You fooled me!

And there you go showing that you do not even understand the concept of evidence.

And so, we are back to the reality that evidence can be interpreted differently. I call it the medical term of “second opinion"

And there goes the strawman argument again. If you have to use strawman arguments you are probably wrong.

And there you go again, when all else fails, call it a strawman.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To better understand your definition of "legitimate translation," please provide the source of your preferred translation of Genesis 7:21-23, as well as an informed justification of this translation.

Gen 7:21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the land was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the land. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
24 The waters flooded the land for a hundred and fifty days.

How can you be expected to understand, and intelligently address, ancient text written in Biblical Hebrew when you fail so miserably to understand and imntelligently address a simple request written in English. Just what was there about "please provide the source of your preferred translation of Genesis 7:21-23, as well as an informed justification of this translation" that you found challenging?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And so, we are back to the reality that evidence can be interpreted differently.

That can certainly be true. Were I to claim that there is an elephant in my bathroom and you found none, you might consider a number of explanations, e.g.

1. the elephant is microscopically small or otherwise invisible, or
2. "elephant" is the product name of my shower curtain, or
3. { ... fill in the blank ... }, or
4. the claim is false.

Hopefully, an honest evaluation of peer reviews will allow us to provisionally settle upon a best explanation while being open to new evidence. The challenge, of course, is that of selection bias, and it is a challenge for most of us.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God gives people a chance

But you believe he has perfect foreknowledge.
So it's just a false chance and a show-off.

It makes no sense.

They then cannot say that they did not know or had not heard about it.

Which wouldn't have been any different if Noah just warned them and then migrated away.

You're in a hole that you can't get out of, no matter how many excuses you invent on the spot.

 

[Sargonski]

The Amarna Letters span from about 1360 to 1330 I am told and in them the states of Canaan complain that Egypt, their overlord, was not helping with the military troubles they were having at that time.
The conquest by Joshua may have been from 1400 to 1393 approx and Israel would have been a nuisance militarily even after that time as it continued to try to defeat parts of the Canaanite territory that they had not defeated with the Joshua conquest.
The Amarna complaints may have been about Israel, whom they mistook as Hapiru, or may have been about other groups that were trying to conquer and/or settle in Canaan.
You no doubt have chosen your theory of how Israel got into Canaan or rose to power there. But it is one of many.
My competing "theory" it seems is what the Bible story actually tells us instead of something made up to fit what is seen as the data and a later settlement of Israel than the Biblical 1400 conquest tells us.

Yes .. such letters were common .. you should hear the letters begging for help when the Sea Peoples come .. but in this period as stated .. Egypt and the Hittites shared vassalship over the various major cities. The time period for the Conquest of Joshua doesn't seem to be as early as 1400 .. as that would make 400 years from Joshua to David taking Jerusalem ~1000BC ... Joshua is said to have taken Jerusalem .. which clearly didn't happen ..nor kick the Canaanites out .. it is after the Bronze age collapse round 1200 BC that the local tribes start gain prominance .. city after city falls .. is sacked or abandoned . People just leave or die... What ever happened .. it was MAJOR .. beyond your current understanding. The Hittite Empire just disappears .. Poof .. in Greece go from City States to Rural .. from homogeneous language to .. no more - Trade - which used to be as far away as India during the Bronze Age .. we do not see again for 300 years .. a major dark age .. "Apocalypse" .. over the entire region and beyond .. and was out of this that the Tribal warrior chiefs arose. .. and the new God Yahu of the Shasu - Warrior God of these people rose to power. Many battles were fought over 200 years .. and how many generations .. until finally they took not just Jerusalem .. a relatively minor prize in terms of Cities taken .. but the Northern Kingdom which was in effect "Israel" comprising of the 10 Tribes .. 90% of the population .. Jerusalem and the goat herder Tribe of Judah and the Benjaminites to the South .. Jerusalem more of a religious town at the time .. a high place to put a Temple .. with quite a low population .. but well defended of course .. like Meggido .. good natural defenses.

These Tribal groups come out of Elam in the South .. this is where Yaho of the Shasu originates but in any case - of course I have my theory .. and there are many .. some however make better sense than others. What is nonsense however, is your claim that your 1400BC theory better fits the Bible Story. The Bible story is remarkably accurate - In Some Instances ?!? remarkably inaccurate -- to the point of anachronisms -- in others .. thanks to the redactors round the time of Persia. .. We know that - if the house of David existed - it would have existed around 1000 BC as I have been saying --- We have one of the Battles of King Ahaz .. and the House of Omri is well attested - one of the actual battles we have recorded on the Moabite Stone - 840 BC .. when YHWH loses to Chemosh.

I never said there was not some great Tribal leader come out of Egypt with an Exodus in 1450 BC - crosses into Canaan leaving Moses behind in 1400 BC .. it is just that this leader did not conquor the major cities that are attributed to him during this time period say 1400 down to 1350. It simply did not go down that way .. If we move the timeline of Joshua's conquest to around 1200BC .. it makes far more sense with the Bible Narrative.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe it is how I express myself, and that is why you cannot seem to understand me.
I agree with what the highlighted part above says. In the Armana letters there are a lot of complaints from the vassal states of Syro-Palestine that Egypt is not being a good ruling overlord empire and coming to help deal with the problems those states were having with military problems.
IOW Canaan was having military trouble in the 14th century which Egypt was not dealing with. Was this the invasion by Israel or something else. It seems to be about the Happiru and so Israel could have been mistaken for them.

Canaan government could not has military problems, because as your source documents Canaan (Syro-Palestine) was occupied and colonized by Egypt, and yes it is normal for the Egyptian military to complain about their problems. The Egyptian government buildings, forts, and mansions were all Canaan and no there is no evidence nor room for the supposed Hebrew invasion of Canaan between 1500 and 1200 BCE.

It is your sources and other references provided by me that document including the references cited including a carving of Canaan prisoners bond dated 1400 BC

The full scale conquest only lasted 6 or 7 years and then the land conquered was big enough for Israel to settle in peacefully for some time, and it seems that Egypt was too busy with other issues to worry much about it's vassal states in Canaan.
But the presence of Egyptian buildings shows that Egypt was important in Canaan yes, but that does not mean that they hindered the conquest.

There was no Hebrew conquest of Canaan. It was occupied by Egypt.

No the Mernepthah Stele is about the conquests of Mernepthah during his reign (1213-1203 BC)
From this site: Merneptah Stele - Wikipedia
"The text is largely an account of Merneptah's victory over the ancient Libyans and their allies, but the last three of the 28 lines deal with a separate campaign in Canaan, then part of Egypt's imperial possessions."



Not true. The Armana letters show that Canaan was having trouble with other army/ies during the 14th century BC and that Egypt was not dealing with it.

No, the Arman letters are clear and specific that the {Syro-Palestine) region was occupied by Egypt, and forts, temples, and mansions all over the region supported this including th either writings and carvings showing bound Canaan slaves in 1400 BCE.

You need a lesson in English if you make the conclusions above or you are outright in denial and lying

The artwork above is from around 1400BC (before the Israelite conquest) and shows defeated Canaanites from around 1458 or earlier when Egypt captured Canaan by conquering Megiddo. This was even before the Exodus.
In the book of Exodus the Pharaoh realised that the population of the Israelites was too big and that they could join forces with the other Canaanites and overcome the Egyptians, so the Israelites were made slaves, just as the other defeated Canaanites were slaves. Then in the Exodus it seems a lot of the slaves exited with Israel.

OK, Egypt conquered and occupied as a vasil state for over 300 years as the evidence demonstrates.

No, not as many Hebrew slaves existed as the Bible states.

 

[Nimos]

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/09/15/440501945/a-question-for-you-about-evolution-god-and-death

Changing ideas...? Maybe.

Question For You About Evolution, God And Death​

His first question:
First, to our religious readers: Would your belief in God be any different if there was no promise of immortal life? If God created a world where death was just the end of consciousness, would that change anything for you?

Despite not being religious I think the answer is probably no. The promise of immortal life on its own can be a motivator for believing. Personally, I would think the fear of eternal punishment is far more effective.

Second question:
And to our atheist and agnostic readers, I ask an inverted form of the same question: Would it be possible to believe in a God who had set the universe running through processes such as evolution — including the reality that death was just the end of consciousness?

To this, the answer would be yes. I'm not really sure what he means by "including the reality that death was just the end of consciousness?" because essentially that is what all atheists already believe. But despite the answer to his question being yes, my guess is that the majority of atheists don't really care whether a God created everything through some specific process or not, it is not particularly relevant to us. It is much more relevant whether such God even exists, to begin with, but more importantly, if he/she is an intervening one. If God exists but is non-intervening, then I don't think any atheists care anyway, except it would be fun to know.

For atheists, nothing changes in regard to the question asked whether one answers yes/no, nothing is "gained" from either answer and nothing changes in regards to how we believe things to be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which doesn’t change what I said. Experts have a variety of positions and you selected, with every right, those that scratch your itchy ears. )

When there are almost no experts that agree with you and those that do only have weak arguments they are not well respected scholars because the allow personal beliefs to affect their judgment. Just as you are doing now. Frankly to me the fact that Luke and Matthew disagree with each other was never a big issue in realizing that Christianity was wrong. I didn't learn of that until some time afterwards. You on the other hand cannot deal with the fact that aspects of the Bible are wrong. That shows a weak faith, not a strong one.

So let's go over Quirinius and some of the history that tell us that he only had the one census (and that is a hoot of an argument that some Liars For Jesus, oops, I mean apologists make). Do you realize that when he took over Judea in 6 CE that was well recorded? Rome documented many things. There were Roman historians very early in the realm. One of the events that tell us that there was no prior census is because the one in 6 CE caused uprisings by the fundies in their undies of that time. From the Wikipedia article on the Census of Quirinius:

"The Census of Quirinius was a census of the Roman province of Judaea taken in 6 CE, upon its formation, by the governor of Roman Syria, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. The census triggered a revolt of Jewish extremists (called Zealots) led by Judas of Galilee."

Please note, that was not the Judas of the Bible. He was an interesting character that had his own history:

Judas of Galilee - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

LOL… really? You fooled me!

That is only because yours is incredibly sealed shut. You have to deny anything that shows that parts of the Bible are mythical. And again, that is a sign of a weak faith.

And so, we are back to the reality that evidence can be interpreted differently. I call it the medical term of “second opinion"

No, it really cannot be. That is just a comforting tale that those of weak faith tell themselves to try to justify their obviously irrational beliefs.

And there you go again, when all else fails, call it a strawman.

No, I called it that because you misrepresented my beliefs. You could almost say lied about them, but since you may even really believe that falsehood that you posted I guess we could call it an error caused by strong prejudice and ignorance. It is sort of sad that to justify your beliefs about others that you had to make false claims about their beliefs.

 

[YoursTrue]

His first question:
First, to our religious readers: Would your belief in God be any different if there was no promise of immortal life? If God created a world where death was just the end of consciousness, would that change anything for you?

Despite not being religious I think the answer is probably no. The promise of immortal life on its own can be a motivator for believing. Personally, I would think the fear of eternal punishment is far more effective.

Second question:
And to our atheist and agnostic readers, I ask an inverted form of the same question: Would it be possible to believe in a God who had set the universe running through processes such as evolution — including the reality that death was just the end of consciousness?

To this, the answer would be yes. I'm not really sure what he means by "including the reality that death was just the end of consciousness?" because essentially that is what all atheists already believe. But despite the answer to his question being yes, my guess is that the majority of atheists don't really care whether a God created everything through some specific process or not, it is not particularly relevant to us. It is much more relevant whether such God even exists, to begin with, but more importantly, if he/she is an intervening one. If God exists but is non-intervening, then I don't think any atheists care anyway, except it would be fun to know.

For atheists, nothing changes in regard to the question asked whether one answers yes/no, nothing is "gained" from either answer and nothing changes in regards to how we believe things to be.

In his case as a scientist faced with the choices, he chose to agree there is a God despite arguments against that. And I agree with that choice. It's almost like the account in the book of Job where is was under tremendous strain. He could have chucked it all, but he did not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In his case as a scientist faced with the choices, he chose to agree there is a God despite arguments against that. And I agree with that choice. It's almost like the account in the book of Job where is was under tremendous strain. He could have chucked it all, but he did not.

You seem to be saying that to believe in a god one also has to be willing to believe that he is a liar. Most Christians would disagree with you on that..

 

[Kenny]

When there are almost no experts that agree with you and those that do only have weak arguments they are not well respected scholars because the allow personal beliefs to affect their judgment. Just as you are doing now. Frankly to me the fact that Luke and Matthew disagree with each other was never a big issue in realizing that Christianity was wrong. I didn't learn of that until some time afterwards. You on the other hand cannot deal with the fact that aspects of the Bible are wrong. That shows a weak faith, not a strong one.

So let's go over Quirinius and some of the history that tell us that he only had the one census (and that is a hoot of an argument that some Liars For Jesus, oops, I mean apologists make). Do you realize that when he took over Judea in 6 CE that was well recorded? Rome documented many things. There were Roman historians very early in the realm. One of the events that tell us that there was no prior census is because the one in 6 CE caused uprisings by the fundies in their undies of that time. From the Wikipedia article on the Census of Quirinius:

"The Census of Quirinius was a census of the Roman province of Judaea taken in 6 CE, upon its formation, by the governor of Roman Syria, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. The census triggered a revolt of Jewish extremists (called Zealots) led by Judas of Galilee."

Please note, that was not the Judas of the Bible. He was an interesting character that had his own history:

Judas of Galilee - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is only because yours is incredibly sealed shut. You have to deny anything that shows that parts of the Bible are mythical. And again, that is a sign of a weak faith.

No, it really cannot be. That is just a comforting tale that those of weak faith tell themselves to try to justify their obviously irrational beliefs.

No, I called it that because you misrepresented my beliefs. You could almost say lied about them, but since you may even really believe that falsehood that you posted I guess we could call it an error caused by strong prejudice and ignorance. It is sort of sad that to justify your beliefs about others that you had to make false claims about their beliefs.

IMV, your biosphere is so very small.

But it is your life… live it to the edges of it.

 

[John53]

When Jesus judges everyone who is not in Christ, they will be judged on how they have lived their lives imo. See Matthew 25:31-46.
But nobody is sinless and everyone who gets eternal life will need to be forgiven.

Ok I understand what you're saying but there are other rules in the bible that exclude them. The commandment, Thou shalt have no other gods before me. The Aboriginals worshipped a whole host of other gods. Are you saying they are forgiven of this because they didn't know?

 

[Kenny]

That can certainly be true. Were I to claim that there is an elephant in my bathroom and you found none, you might consider a number of explanations, e.g.

1. the elephant is microscopically small or otherwise invisible, or
2. "elephant" is the product name of my shower curtain, or
3. { ... fill in the blank ... }, or
4. the claim is false.

Hopefully, an honest evaluation of peer reviews will allow us to provisionally settle upon a best explanation while being open to new evidence. The challenge, of course, is that of selection bias, and it is a challenge for most of us.

Thank you - great statements.

Of course, what also complicates things is when the authors of the approved peer reviewed papers have been found out to have manipulated data and sometimes even lied. And we don’t even know which ones did it (yet). And then one wonders if others used it as a basis for thier peer reviewed papers.

https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-papers-are-alarmingly-common

 

[Subduction Zone]

IMV, your biosphere is so very small.

But it is your life… live it to the edges of it.

Wrong as usual. I just don't ask my car mechanic how I should build a birdhouse. Experts are well respected because they study and understand specific areas. They can expand your world. You should l try to learn how to use them properly.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank you - great statements.

Of course, what also complicates things is when the authors of the approved peer reviewed papers have been found out to have manipulated data and sometimes even lied. And we don’t even know which ones did it (yet). And then one wonders if others used it as a basis for thier peer reviewed papers.

https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-papers-are-alarmingly-common

I've known this for a while, and from my perspective, having worked for publishing houses, I can see that partiality plays a big role in selection.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Of course, what also complicates things is when the authors of the approved peer reviewed papers have been found out to have manipulated data and sometimes even lied.

<yawn>

----> ignore-list​

</yawn>

 

[YoursTrue]

"Much as I love truth in the abstract, my hope of immortality still more; and if the final outcome of all the boasted discoveries of modern science is to disclose to men that they are more evanescent than the shadow of the swallow's wing up on the lake give... me then, I pray, no more science. Let me live on, in my simple ignorance, as my fathers lived before me, and when I shall at length be summoned to my final repose, let me still be able to fold the drapery of my couch about me, and lie down to pleasant, even if they be deceitful, dreams."

I could never choose self delusion over the persuit of truth - even if the truth I uncovered was unpleasant. Honestly, growing so attached to the ego feels unhealthy to me. We all gotta die some time - savor the moment

It's not self delusion. It's a choice based on more than one or two statements, but rather the compendium of the rationality of what is stated, even if not completely understood. Expecting, like scientists do, to eventually be revealed if desired by the Originator.