• 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!

Many many Chariot wheels found at bottom of Red sea.

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
servant1 said:
God reveals himself to those that draw close to him. They then have 100% faith.
Click to expand...
No, that appears to only be confirmation bias. It appears that all that you have is a rather irrational belief. You keep yourself ignorant of the sciences because if you understood the sciences that you use every day you would realize that Genesis cannot be read literally unless one wants to claim that God is a liar. That is why I asked you if God can lie. You said no. That means that Genesis cannot be read literally. It still works as morality tales, fables, and other types of educational stories. That would still go along with the verse from Peter that you referred to.
 
oldbadger

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Jayhawker Soule said:
Which they were not, but read into it what you wish.

Again quoting Wright ...

The habits, laws, and religious behaviors of the Elephantine community differ starkly from biblical teachings. In fact, some of their most common practices are precisely those that many biblical books proscribe most fervently: they work on the Sabbath; the priests are engaged in intermarriage with outsiders; there is a temple to Yhwh (or "Yahu"); the community makes regular contributions to this deity in addition to a number of other deities (Anat-Bethel and Ashim-Bethel); and Yhwh/Yahu appears to have a wife (her name is Anat-Yahu).​
​
What makes these facts even more shocking is that the Jews of Elephantine maintained close relations with the homeland. When their leaders had questions about cultic practices, or when the needed support for their communal affairs, they wrote to the priestly and lay authorities in both Jerusalem and Samaria. From what we can piece together, the responses from these authorities surprisingly never condemned the community's worship of Anat-Yahu or their labors on the Sabbath. This is therefore not a case of a diasporic community backsliding from "orthodoxy" and embracing a syncretistic form of "paganism," as some scholars claim.​
​
Literacy is also not the issue. Many at Elephantine could read and write, reflecting a wider trend throughout the Persian Empire. The cosmopolitan literature they read included the widely transmitted Proverbs of Ahiqar and the famous Behistun Inscription io King Darius. However, all their texts are in Aramaic, not Hebrew. And closely connected to this fact is a more obvious, yet all the more astounding, one: the biblical writings were not available on this island in the Nile. In fact, no one there seems even to know of their existence, nor do the leaders in Israel ever refer to them!​
Click to expand...
I have read about the invasion of all Egypt by Northern people (Hyksos?) as far South as Elephantine Island, and although they copied some of the religious practices of the Semitic peoples they were not Israelites.
Two or three hundred years after this time the (returning?) Egyptian people destroyed all of those temples.
The most significant point in your post (for me) is that there is evidence of communication at that time with the Jews and Samaritans in Jerusalem-Samaria.

How does that help me? ... So the passover and booths feasts which celebrated the exodus and travelling community of the Israelites was indeed being celebrated at that time...in Jerusalem-Samaria.
Whyever would you pay so much attention to a bunch of Northern invaders part-copying these celebrations? They probably reversed in to ANY religious activities as their own. Just like Christianity would do thousands of years later.

So any Exodus and travelling Temple was being celebrated at that time, so I can safely assume that it all happened a long long time before then.
Doesn't the bible (Torah) identify the Pharaoh in power when this happened? Yes..... Ramesses circa 1259 BC....way before that bunch of invaders and their adaptations.
 
Last edited:
Mock Turtle

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
oldbadger said:
This tradition was being celebrated 2000 years ago and long before, I expect that you would acknowledge that, yes?

And that celebration was seeking to keep a distant memory alive back then.

If people want to snub it all as myth then the only reason that I can perceive for their attitude is some extreme level of skepticism.
Click to expand...
It's not really about extreme forms of skepticism. It applies to all such things where there isn't sufficient evidence, other than beliefs passed down, to justify having an opinion - apart from preferring to believe. This so with religious beliefs especially, when they rely on so many items encapsulated within any particular religious text, given that even when evidence is found it often cannot definitely prove whatever event was described accurately. Such is history. And of course religions have an agenda to keep their beliefs alive so truth and honesty are things hoped for rather than definitely occurring.
 
oldbadger

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
@Jayhawker Soule .....
Hmmm......I got that wrong, then. :(

The Hyksos had previously invaded a long time before Ramasses and were thought to have been Canaanites (maybe Semitic) with god's like Baal.

Which pushes any Exodus back before their time, maybe? Reports of Ramses being pharaoh during the exodus could be wrong, maybe.?
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
oldbadger said:
Which pushes any Exodus back before their time, maybe?
Click to expand...

Maybe the Exodus was a founders tale that served to weave a narrative of peoplehood for a post-exilic heterogenous population that was expected to constitute a vassal state of Persia. Note:

As part of the Persian Empire, the former Kingdom of Judah became the province of Judah (Yehud Medinata[27]) with different borders, covering a smaller territory.[26] The population of the province was greatly reduced from that of the kingdom; archaeological surveys suggesting a population of around 30,000 people in the 5th to 4th centuries BCE. ...​
​
Most Jews who returned were poor Jews and either saw the exile as "spiritual regeneration" or "divine punishment for sins". One reason why wealthy Jews stayed includes economic opportunities, which were relatively uncommon in Judah. [source]​
 
oldbadger

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Jayhawker Soule said:
Maybe the Exodus was a founders tale that served to weave a narrative of peoplehood for a post-exilic heterogenous population that was expected to constitute a vassal state of Persia. Note:

As part of the Persian Empire, the former Kingdom of Judah became the province of Judah (Yehud Medinata[27]) with different borders, covering a smaller territory.[26] The population of the province was greatly reduced from that of the kingdom; archaeological surveys suggesting a population of around 30,000 people in the 5th to 4th centuries BCE. ...​
​
Most Jews who returned were poor Jews and either saw the exile as "spiritual regeneration" or "divine punishment for sins". One reason why wealthy Jews stayed includes economic opportunities, which were relatively uncommon in Judah. [source]​
Click to expand...
Having read your post I searched for evidence of the first Great Temple circa 900 BC, only to find that there is none at this time.
Let me get this right, do you think that the emergence of the Jewish people, religion and all developed during the Great Persian Empire?

Is the early history of the Israelites and the twelve tribes without foundations?
 
oldbadger

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Mock Turtle said:
It's not really about extreme forms of skepticism. It applies to all such things where there isn't sufficient evidence, other than beliefs passed down, to justify having an opinion - apart from preferring to believe. This so with religious beliefs especially, when they rely on so many items encapsulated within any particular religious text, given that even when evidence is found it often cannot definitely prove whatever event was described accurately. Such is history. And of course religions have an agenda to keep their beliefs alive so truth and honesty are things hoped for rather than definitely occurring.
Click to expand...
Have you been following Jayhawker's posts?
I am hoping that this conversation may develop further.
 
servant1

servant1

Active Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, that appears to only be confirmation bias. It appears that all that you have is a rather irrational belief. You keep yourself ignorant of the sciences because if you understood the sciences that you use every day you would realize that Genesis cannot be read literally unless one wants to claim that God is a liar. That is why I asked you if God can lie. You said no. That means that Genesis cannot be read literally. It still works as morality tales, fables, and other types of educational stories. That would still go along with the verse from Peter that you referred to.
Click to expand...
God didn't lie. Mans use of science lies. Just like many scientists claim evolution caused creation. Calling God a liar-Gen 1:1--So its you believing lies over God. You know the God who gave you life for free.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
servant1 said:
God didn't lie. Mans use of science lies. Just like many scientists claim evolution caused creation. Calling God a liar-Gen 1:1--So its you believing lies over God. You know the God who gave you life for free.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but if you insist that Genesis is literally true you are also claiming that God is a liar. You need to remember that lying is about the biggest sin that there is in the sciences. Where creationists embrace lying.

And remember, I am not calling God a liar. You are.
 
servant1

servant1

Active Member
Subduction Zone said:
Sorry, but if you insist that Genesis is literally true you are also claiming that God is a liar. You need to remember that lying is about the biggest sin that there is in the sciences. Where creationists embrace lying.

And remember, I am not calling God a liar. You are.
Click to expand...
I would never call God a liar. Its you claiming God lied. Show us the lie you claim God did.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
servant1 said:
I would never call God a liar. Its you claiming God lied. Show us the lie you claim God did.
Click to expand...
You do not know that you are doing that, but that is what you are doing. It appears that even you know that you are doing that. Why else would you refuse to learn the basics of science?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top