Is the Bible Really True?

[maggie2]

That's the tough job. I don't have the qualifications to be a scholar. You could wiki "historical method" for more details. Biblical history falls in its own category since text is often the only evidence, this time period is difficult due to the poor evidence we possess.

Historical methods are often different from periods like the civil war, ect ect.

Generally based upon cultural and social anthropology, and text, one can try and recreate why the authors wrote what they did. This gives us a glimpse of what might have happened.

Add to that there are ranges of which different scholars accept certain evidence. Most scholars do not engage in conspiracy minded madness, but you get these types on the end of the spectrum. Spectrum being the key word.

One thing I did learn, history is gone forever, and we cannot fully create the past, those moments are gone forever. Hence the term glimpse.

Wow! We agree on something! Overall I agree pretty much with what you have said about history. Particularly that we can't re-create the past and history is gone forever and we only get a glimpse. I also think that the farther back you go the more difficult it is to get information that is solidly accurate.

I took a university history course years ago and the first book I had to read was one that discussed how history was written. We then had to read parts of two different histories of the same period, one written by the victors and one by the losers in a war. It was like reading two different histories. It's amazing how much bias there is, depending on the author's point of reference. I'm actually just reading a book now about How Jesus Became Christian, written by a person who was Episcopal but has converted to Judaism. It's amazing how much different the whole Jesus story sounds from that perspective. Provides much food for thought. It's almost like reading two different histories, reading this book compared to others written from either a Christian or a mystical Christ perspective.

 

[outhouse]

It was like reading two different histories. It's amazing how much bias there is

Its exactly how Josephus has to be read.

 

[outhouse]

It's amazing how much different the whole Jesus story sounds from that perspective

So true.

The historical Jesus is very very different from the biblical Jesus.

These were Hellenist who were competing against the Emperor for Proselytes. They wrote in rhetorical prose to make Jesus competitive to steal people away from the Emperor.

So things like the Sermon in the mount, are said to be literary creations to build importance as if he was speaking to large crowds. When in fact, if we look at the possible Galilean parables, you don't ramble them off in a long series. You read one at a time, and then it takes time to understand and digest them. Reality was around a dinner table in a peasants house with a very personal crowd.

 

[Sireal]

Meaning you haven't read it? Which would explain your insipid response.

Garbage link, and book.

 

[outhouse]

Meaning you haven't read it? Which would explain your insipid response.

When you understand the real evolution of Israelites, come back so we can debate this. To date there is no Egyptian connection to Israelites.

No I wont read bad work.

 

[Sireal]

I'm certain the professor of Egyptology at Heidelberg University is nothing short of an excellent researcher and writer. Willed Ignorance is True evil. There are plenty of academic papers (peer reviewed) written on the evolution of the Israelite's and I've read a number of them, you seem to have a simple subjective opinion and an uneducated one at that. Unless of course you would mind backing up your statement that none of this academic research actually exists with actual references to someone with credibility or perhaps you have a Ph.D in Egyptology or Ancient Near Eastern Studies and could enlighten us from your own extensive studies-Outhouse?
Moses is an Egyptian name, he was an Egyptian and a Sem Priest, privy to the inner workings of all Egyptian Religion. Christianity/Islam and Judaism are modeled entirely after AE religion and Moses knew exactly how and what to do to make that happen. The Abrahamic religions are fictions created from far older texts and belief systems. Which doesn't make them any less powerful, just good fiction that a lot of folks buy into without educating themselves, in effect they are a sophistry that feeds on the fear and ignorance of others and when that is not effective they simply attempt to destroy the past and/or kill people to validate their existence.

 

[Sireal]

Another link that doesn't involve the "History Channel" on how the bible is cobbled together from older works. The Epic of Gilgamesh.
Michael Sugrue received his undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago. He completed his postgraduate degree from Columbia University, where he received his doctorate in history. He served for two years as the Mellon Postdoctoral Fellowship at Johns Hopkins University and now teaches at Princeton University.

 

[Sireal]

then there's this: Testament: The Bible and History: John Romer: 9781568524894: Amazon.com: Books

 

[outhouse]

on how the bible is cobbled together from older works. The Epic of Gilgamesh.

No one really doubts the influence of pre existing traditions.

But it factually was not cobbled together from older works. Most of the Bible is newer then these more ancient text.

 

[outhouse]

you seem to have a simple subjective opinion and an uneducated one at that.

I give lectures on this topic at Sacramento City College.


My opinion is backed and substantiated. The Canaanite origins of Israelites is not up for debate, nor has it been for a long time.


History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period

The Israelite ethnic identity had been created, not from the Exodus and a subsequent conquest, but from a transformation of the existing Canaanite-Philistine cultures

 

[outhouse]

then there's this: Testament: The Bible and History: John Romer: 9781568524894: Amazon.com: Books

Maybe before laughably attacking someone else education, you could take a class on the topic?


From your OWN link, which follows what im trying to tell you to a T.

Romer claims that slavery on the scale described in the Book of Exodus simply did not exist there.


Biblical scribes grafted the theme of national liberation--distilled from the Jews' subjugation in Babylon and Roman Judaea--onto this earlier epoch, he argues

 

[outhouse]

Moses is an Egyptian name, he was an Egyptian and a Sem Priest,

It was a literary creation, and Moses historicity remains unsubstantiated.

Not only that the name Moses can be Egyptian OR Hebrew, so you are incorrect again.

Moses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This name may be either Egyptian or Hebrew


the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated


William Dever agrees with the Canaanite origin of the Israelites



However, Finkelstein states in the same book that at the earlier time proposed by most scientists for the Exodus, based upon the Biblical chronology 400 years prior to the reign of King David, Egypt was at the peak of its glory, with a series of fortresses guarding the borders and checkpoints watching the roads to Canaan. That means an exodus of the scale of over 600,000 soldiers described in the Torah would have been impossible

 

[Sireal]

You may give lectures on the topic but you quote wikipedia. What's up with that, give me some hard, peer reviewed evidence for dismissing the professor of Egyptology of Heidelberg University out of hand. Anyone can get a job at a college, it certainly doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.

 

[outhouse]

You may give lectures on the topic but you quote wikipedia.

Yes because it shows you where the current state of study lies. I also cannot quote my multiple professors either can I?

I quoted Dever and many other specialist in doing so. Wiki has sourced the knowledge.



Dever and Finkelstein are the ones on the top of the hill in this study right now, your opinion is not. You have nothing to refute their work.

I could care less what you think about mine.

 

[outhouse]

Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism: Jan Assmann: 9780674587380: Books - Amazon.ca

Amazon.ca: Ahamd Hosni's review of Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in...

the authors who traced Moses religion, not his historical identity, back it's roots in the egyptian religion. He did not come up with anything new

Jan Assmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His book The Price of Monotheism received some criticism for his notion of The Mosaic Distinction.

 

[Ouroboros]

When you understand the real evolution of Israelites, come back so we can debate this. To date there is no Egyptian connection to Israelites.

I could be wrong, but I think I remember reading in a history book once that the first pharaohs were semites, and also that the semites introduced the iron chariots to the Egyptians.

 

[outhouse]

I could be wrong, but I think I remember reading in a history book once that the first pharaohs were semites, and also that the semites introduced the iron chariots to the Egyptians.

Semitic does not mean Jewish or Israelites though. In that context it is language only.

There are possibilities with Hyksos, which can also imply a Canaanite background.

 

[Ouroboros]

Semitic does not mean Jewish or Israelites though. In that context it is language only.

There are possibilities with Hyksos, which can also imply a Canaanite background.

Oh. I see. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Brandywine]

FF Bruce wrote that over 70 years ago, so I would take a look at more more modern accounts, as Biblical Skeptics have gained quite a bit of ground since then. Not to mention, I believe Bruce is a Christian, so it might be beneficial to look at some secular skeptics as well.

Skeptics have been losing ground for a long time, practically since the higher criticism began. All their predictions regarding texts have been shown to be false. Earlier NT texts do not differ from later ones. Earlier ones do not lack the supernatural accounts of later ones. Archaeology has confirmed many things that the early skeptics mocked like the Hittite empire, the details of the city construction in the Iron Age (Hatzor and Megiddo espeically), historicity of David and Solomon, and so on.

 

[outhouse]

Skeptics have been losing ground for a long time, practically since the higher criticism began..

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Do you think there was a global flood, 6 day earth, no evolution, and other mistakes from a literal interpretation?