Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Yes, but all religions and their texts are myths.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the Bible Just a Myth?
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
So the religions that are not "god inspired" are myth? The theistic religions all are god inspired.
Ummm... I don't think. There are a few things that aren't taken into account:
1) It says, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (before the seven days). If I am to take it literally, then both existed before the seven days
2) God is light and therefore was created in the in the time-line of light. Time comes to a standstill in light and therefore you must take into account time in context of light
3) Sin had not entered.
The message is important. I love Genesis Chapter 3.
Great application... I have read one such Midrash.
GREAT application.
Yes... I love that historical moment.
I think we have much to agree on.
But your position is true?
Or, it's a shame that mankind hasn't changed in its unbelief and still stuck in stinking thinking.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Religion was meant to be myth, which the texts show a higher truth from the stories. They are not literal fact, but they are still an important way to learn about gods.
gnostic
The Lost One
I didn't comment on Gettysburg battle, because I can't comment on it, because (A) I don't know much about this battle, because (B) I don't know much about the American Civil War (ACW), (C) and I am not an American, so you cannot expect me to know much about ACW.
And unless, it is 19th century art and architecture, I don't know much of modern history, especially on the US.
My forte is that of ancient history, especially that of Greece and Rome, followed by Mesopotamia, Egypt, Levant (Canaan/Israel and Syria), Persia.
Then there is medieval history, particularly on Scandinavia, England, France and Germany; I am lot more confident with these areas of history than that of eastern Europe and the Middle East.
Though, I know some of China and Japan history, I don't feel as confidence, as the above that I have mentioned.
So getting back to you and your point on Gettysburg battle. To be brutally honest, I don't want to and I can't comment or give you my opinion on something that I don't know anything about, Ken.
But if I have to hazard a guess on your point. If there are archaeological evidences of battle in Gettysburg, you think that I wouldn't believe that there was any battle there.
Well...That's strawman you are attacking. I think archaeology give us a more objective view of history than history that are written down. But I don't have an opinion on Gettysburg, you are putting ideas and words that I didn't say or write about.
If there are evidences of battle, then I would not dismiss it at all. But I also don't know the history (the written history) behind and around this battle. I don't know if history has been distorted in anyway. Are there propaganda in it historical accounts?
But you and I are not talking about the same thing.
I have been trying to show you that religious accounts (like scriptures and traditions) don't always line up with history...or with archeology.
I am telling you that the bible contained a lot of inaccuracies and lot of distortions when it come to history. It is not reliable source. And claiming that the bible referred to some real historical geological sites, don't validate THE STORIES being told.
To give you an example where the the bible don't line up with history and archaeology, let me show you this in my next post, seeing that his post is getting to big.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Agreed.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
The only stinking thinking I can think of is backward thinking, that has had its time, and quite frankly has become rotten.Or, it's a shame that mankind hasn't changed in its unbelief and still stuck in stinking thinking.
gnostic
The Lost One
According to Genesis 10, it say that Egypt and some of the major cities WEREN'T around BEFORE THE FLOOD.
Now, it isn't perfect, but judging by the years and generations and reigns that can be counted to get a rough timeline of what happen when, and which sources you used (eg sources, like the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate Bible or the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc).
Since most of English translations of the bible come from the Masoretic Text (KJV, NIV, NRSV, NJPS), the time of creation can be dated to nearly 6000 years, or to be more precise, starting with known historical period - the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE - then counting backward, the creation happened in 3996 BCE and the Flood started 2340 BCE.
Now if the Flood occurred 2340 BCE (or 1656 AM; AM meaning Anno Mundi, from the time of creation), then according to Genesis 10, Egypt and the city of Uruk (which is Erech in the KJV translation) didn't exist before the Flood.
But Egypt did exist before 2340 BCE. According to Genesis, Egypt was the son of Ham, the survivor of the Flood.
If there were global flood, then it would have killed everyone living in this land, and that would have stopped culture. But the Egypt after the Flood is exactly the same as the one before 2340 BCE; they were still using the same writings - hieroglyphs and hieratic, hence there language is the same - before and after; there arts (styles) were unchanged - before and after 2340 BCE; and they were still building pyramids as the age before the Flood did.
The date 2340 BCE would put the Flood occurring in the reign of Teti (2344 – 2333 BCE), the founder of the 6th dynasty (2344 – 2181 BCE) in the period known as the Old Kingdom. Teti succeeded the last king of 5th dynasty - Unas (2375 – 2345 BCE) - and Teti was succeeded by first Userkare (2333 - 2331) and then his son Pepi I (2331 – 2287 BCE). Userekare' reign were to short to have his own pyramid, but Teti and Pepi definitely have their own pyramids built in the necropolis Saqqara.
Teti and Pepi's pyramids were remarkable, not by their huge size and shape - compared to the pyramids of the 4th dynasty, they were tiny. No they were remarkable like that of the insignificant pyramid of Unas is the walls of their interior tombs were filled with hieroglyphs. The half-dozen pyramids with hieroglyphs were known as the Pyramid Text, which were meant to aid the decease rulers in the afterlife.
If there were a global flood, not only would have killed everyone living in Egypt, but it should have changed the culture there, because different people moving into the land would have brought different culture. So there were no evidences to support the global flood of Genesis.
Now I have mentioned Uruk (Erech) as well.
According to Genesis 10, Uruk was one of many cities built by Nimrod, the son of Cush and grandson of Ham. So Uruk didn't exist before the Flood.
But historically and archaeologically, the Sumerian city Uruk existed before 2340 BCE. It reached its peak 28th to 27th centuries BCE where a ruler named Gilgamesh was king of Uruk. Gilgamesh was a real historical figure that have been replaced with legend and myths during the 3rd dynasty of Ur (Ur is the name of a city that supposedly Abram or Abraham was born in).
.
But Uruk is much older than that. The site was a settlement first built in 5000 BCE, making Uruk the oldest city in Mesopotamia, but during the 4th millennium BCE, Uruk became a major city before the Sumerian civilisation (3100 - 1900 BCE), the largest city in the world at that time. By mid-4th century (3600 BCE), a number of temples were built for the sky goddess Inana (Akkadian and Babylonian Ishtar) and An (Akkadian & Babylonian Anu).
And before the Sumerian writings, cuneiform, existed in 3100 BCE, some older cuneiform were found in Uruk, dating to 3400 BCE, which scholars called Proto-Sumerian cuneiform.
The reasons for this history lesson is to show that both the history and archaeological evidences of both Egypt and Uruk demonstrate how little the author of Genesis know of history during the Neolithic period and early Bronze Age. Genesis 10 got its history wrong.
Now, it isn't perfect, but judging by the years and generations and reigns that can be counted to get a rough timeline of what happen when, and which sources you used (eg sources, like the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate Bible or the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc).
Since most of English translations of the bible come from the Masoretic Text (KJV, NIV, NRSV, NJPS), the time of creation can be dated to nearly 6000 years, or to be more precise, starting with known historical period - the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE - then counting backward, the creation happened in 3996 BCE and the Flood started 2340 BCE.
Now if the Flood occurred 2340 BCE (or 1656 AM; AM meaning Anno Mundi, from the time of creation), then according to Genesis 10, Egypt and the city of Uruk (which is Erech in the KJV translation) didn't exist before the Flood.
But Egypt did exist before 2340 BCE. According to Genesis, Egypt was the son of Ham, the survivor of the Flood.
If there were global flood, then it would have killed everyone living in this land, and that would have stopped culture. But the Egypt after the Flood is exactly the same as the one before 2340 BCE; they were still using the same writings - hieroglyphs and hieratic, hence there language is the same - before and after; there arts (styles) were unchanged - before and after 2340 BCE; and they were still building pyramids as the age before the Flood did.
The date 2340 BCE would put the Flood occurring in the reign of Teti (2344 – 2333 BCE), the founder of the 6th dynasty (2344 – 2181 BCE) in the period known as the Old Kingdom. Teti succeeded the last king of 5th dynasty - Unas (2375 – 2345 BCE) - and Teti was succeeded by first Userkare (2333 - 2331) and then his son Pepi I (2331 – 2287 BCE). Userekare' reign were to short to have his own pyramid, but Teti and Pepi definitely have their own pyramids built in the necropolis Saqqara.
Teti and Pepi's pyramids were remarkable, not by their huge size and shape - compared to the pyramids of the 4th dynasty, they were tiny. No they were remarkable like that of the insignificant pyramid of Unas is the walls of their interior tombs were filled with hieroglyphs. The half-dozen pyramids with hieroglyphs were known as the Pyramid Text, which were meant to aid the decease rulers in the afterlife.
If there were a global flood, not only would have killed everyone living in Egypt, but it should have changed the culture there, because different people moving into the land would have brought different culture. So there were no evidences to support the global flood of Genesis.
Now I have mentioned Uruk (Erech) as well.
According to Genesis 10, Uruk was one of many cities built by Nimrod, the son of Cush and grandson of Ham. So Uruk didn't exist before the Flood.
But historically and archaeologically, the Sumerian city Uruk existed before 2340 BCE. It reached its peak 28th to 27th centuries BCE where a ruler named Gilgamesh was king of Uruk. Gilgamesh was a real historical figure that have been replaced with legend and myths during the 3rd dynasty of Ur (Ur is the name of a city that supposedly Abram or Abraham was born in).
.
But Uruk is much older than that. The site was a settlement first built in 5000 BCE, making Uruk the oldest city in Mesopotamia, but during the 4th millennium BCE, Uruk became a major city before the Sumerian civilisation (3100 - 1900 BCE), the largest city in the world at that time. By mid-4th century (3600 BCE), a number of temples were built for the sky goddess Inana (Akkadian and Babylonian Ishtar) and An (Akkadian & Babylonian Anu).
And before the Sumerian writings, cuneiform, existed in 3100 BCE, some older cuneiform were found in Uruk, dating to 3400 BCE, which scholars called Proto-Sumerian cuneiform.
The reasons for this history lesson is to show that both the history and archaeological evidences of both Egypt and Uruk demonstrate how little the author of Genesis know of history during the Neolithic period and early Bronze Age. Genesis 10 got its history wrong.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Validating history in the Bible doesn't validate any of its supernatural elements. OK, say it can be shown that Jesus lived (which he almost certainly did), that says nothing about his resurrection or divinity.
Shad
Veteran Member
Do you only count the hits and ignore the misses? Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan are major misses.
roger1440
I do stuff
Lets say I read a story about a troll under a bridge that was written hundreds of years ago. I then find out archaeologists recently discovered the bridge. Would it be reasonable to conclude the story is true?
Coder
Active Member
Case in point: We say "Columbus discovered America"! Wow! There were already people here for centuries/millennia, and we say "Columbus discovered it"??!! I think that attitude to some extent may have been handed down from Roman Empirical mentality.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Fair enough.....
We could call it the Human mentality, really.
We all tend to perceive everything through our own cultures only...
We English call the narrow sea between us and Europe 'the English Channel'. The French will not have this at all! They call it 'La Manche'!
And so it goes on.....................
Ok... I just don't agree in the case of the Bible. Reason for that is that it continues to be supported by archaeological discoveries. However, you could hold on to the position that the "miracle" portions were meant to be myths.
This is a great post and I have held off so as to not have a cursory answer.
True... that ultimately will be a point of trust and personal experience remembering that since there were multiple eye-witnesses, there still may be truth about what was written (according to the letters)
No... I don't think that there are misses. There are some possibilities of Hebrews in Egypt... just not irrefutable evidence. Archaeology is painstakingly slow.
Certainly, in times past, they have said things like King David never existed and Solomon's reign wasn't as large as it is depicted in the Bible, however, both points have now been adjusted because of new evidence.
Creating one's own analogy to then tear it apart is quite easy. Let me create mine...
Let's say I read a story 250 years ago about a so called revolution. Then I found a "Declaration of Independence" document that was in the story. Do I reasonably conclude that it is just another troll story? When does truth become fiction?