Picture of Mars vs. the earth. So how did Moses know?

[gnostic]

David and Solomon wrote things and sceptic still question their existence.
You should keep up with the findings of archaeology and you might realise that there is evidence for David and Solomon, but who cares, they wrote things and you don't think they existed.

You are confusing authorship and attribute as if they are the same, when they are not.

When people say that works, like Exodus for instance, Exodus was attributed to Moses, it doesn't mean that this Moses actually wrote the Exodus and other books.

Attributions are done all the time, past and present, where the real author give credit to another person who didn't actually write the work. And in ancient times, the attribution was given to someone famous or hero-figure.

To give you one example, there were few works that were attributed to Enoch, the patriarch in Genesis, the great-grandfather of Noah. These books were named after Enoch, and today's scholars referred to these books as 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, or simply as the Book of Enoch. And it was written in the way, like an autobiography or memoir of Enoch.

But the stories in these books weren't written by Enoch. 1 Enoch, the earliest of the 3 books, have been dated to 3rd century BCE, during the Hellenistic period, while book 2 has been dated to 2nd century BCE. Both of these 2 books were so popular, that some of concepts were adopted by early Christians, and fragments of scrolls were also found in Qumran, hence the Dead Sea Scrolls.

There are no writings in the Bronze Age, concerning Adam to Jacob in Genesis, or Moses in Exodus and Joshua in Book of Joshua. There are no scrolls, no parchments, and no clay or stone tablets that even mention anything to these narratives.

Likewise, there are no literary evidence that Psalms, Proverbs or Song of Songs, existing in the 10th century BCE, a period that supposedly marked the reigns of David and Solomon. You would only evidence of these literature in 6th century OR MUCH LATER.

So unless you can present a much older scrolls or tablets in the times of Moses or that of David and Solomon, then there are no evidence that Moses, David and Solomon were ever authors to these works.

All you are doing is basing your belief that they were authors, but the reality is that no works exist in the Late Bronze Age (eg Genesis, Exodus) or Early Iron Age (eg Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs).

 

[YoursTrue]

Make use of the information available on internet. It is not available in your book.
Leaf - Evolution

Why? It says leaves evolved to become a moon, or moons evolved to form leaves? Anyway, have a nice day.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, true. But the embryo has gone through all the stages of evolution. That of a molecule, which is what it is at the beginning when sperm enters the ovum, to a new born baby.

Molecules are quite complex in their own right, I have come to find that out. But aside from that, a few asides from that, if a human fetus is miscarried early in its development, it is still a human fetus. Hope you understand that if the term is cut short, it doesn't come out as a buffalo fetus. See?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why? It says leaves evolved to become a moon, or moons evolved to form leaves? Anyway, have a nice day.

You don't have to prove your ignorance again and again.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But aside from that, a few asides from that, if a human fetus is miscarried early in its development, it is still a human fetus. Hope you understand that if the term is cut short, it doesn't come out as a buffalo fetus. See?

That is correct. Machines fail sometimes. There are reasons for it. When pregnancy is cut short, the fetus does not always come out as a human baby.
That depends on how old the fetus was.

 

[Brian2]

You just pointed out that the original documents don't exist, so that doesn't make much sense, does it?

Yes it makes sense.

 

[Brian2]

<sound of mind slamming shut>

Does an open mind mean that we do not make up our mind about anything?

 

[Brian2]

Then don't try to invoke science to prove your religious beliefs.

I invoke science to prove that the creation accounts in the Bible are true, but minds are slammed shut on that point it seems.

 

[Brian2]

So is King Arthur. And Zeus.

I've yet to see any evidence indicating that "Moses" actually existed.

Do you mean the sort of evidence that mentions a leader of the Hebrews in Egypt named Moses who led the Hebrews out of Egypt or will things that are less definite suffice.

 

[Brian2]

What do you think Jesus wrote down?

I don't know if or what He wrote down.

 

[Brian2]

It's your claim I'm asking about. Why is it so difficult to explain without trying to deflect to somebody/something else?

It's difficult to explain because sceptics usually dismiss things that are obvious because they are supposed to be subjective.
You seem to think the universe was not designed however. Can you elaborate on that?

 

[Brian2]

The answer to the question isn't 'Goddidit' whenever we don't know something. The proper response is 'I don't know, but let's figure it out.

The answer is not Goddidit every time but when you say, "let's figure it out" you really mean, let's ignore anything except science which cannot find a God and so always comes up with naturalistic answers even if Goddidit.

 

[Brian2]

There's an entire course worth of material in there.
It can't be described in a couple of sentences. Humans didn't just spring up out of no where.
Hence the reason I suggested your taking a course in evolution.

It's nice to know something about evolution but that says nothing about the origins of man unless you presume that life comes from chemicals and chemicals just happened etc.
You are ignoring MyM's meaning and just going to evolution for the sake of ad hominem and because you don't know where man came from without presuming no supernatural interference. It is that presumption which enables you to have the faith you have in where man came from.

 

[Brian2]

"God did it" isn't an explanation.

"God did not do it" is no explanation.
"Everything just came about naturally" is no explanation, it's a presumption.

 

[Brian2]

Yeah, true. But the embryo has gone through all the stages of evolution. That of a molecule, which is what it is at the beginning when sperm enters the ovum, to a new born baby.

Whether humans have evolved or not has nothing to do with the real origin of humans.

 

[Brian2]

You are confusing authorship and attribute as if they are the same, when they are not.

When people say that works, like Exodus for instance, Exodus was attributed to Moses, it doesn't mean that this Moses actually wrote the Exodus and other books.

Attributions are done all the time, past and present, where the real author give credit to another person who didn't actually write the work. And in ancient times, the attribution was given to someone famous or hero-figure.

To give you one example, there were few works that were attributed to Enoch, the patriarch in Genesis, the great-grandfather of Noah. These books were named after Enoch, and today's scholars referred to these books as 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, or simply as the Book of Enoch. And it was written in the way, like an autobiography or memoir of Enoch.

But the stories in these books weren't written by Enoch. 1 Enoch, the earliest of the 3 books, have been dated to 3rd century BCE, during the Hellenistic period, while book 2 has been dated to 2nd century BCE. Both of these 2 books were so popular, that some of concepts were adopted by early Christians, and fragments of scrolls were also found in Qumran, hence the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Yes there are examples of pseudepigrapha.

There are writings in the Bronze Age, concerning Adam to Jacob in Genesis, or Moses in Exodus and Joshua in Book of Joshua. There are no scrolls, no parchments, and no clay or stone tablets that even mention anything to these narratives.

Likewise, there are no literary evidence that Psalms, Proverbs or Song of Songs, existing in the 10th century BCE, a period that supposedly marked the reigns of David and Solomon. You would only evidence of these literature in 6th century OR MUCH LATER.

So unless you can present a much older scrolls or tablets in the times of Moses or that of David and Solomon, then there are no evidence that Moses, David and Solomon were ever authors to these works.

All you are doing is basing your belief that they were authors, but the reality is that no works exist in the Late Bronze Age (eg Genesis, Exodus) or Early Iron Age (eg Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs).

The whole of the Bible is one big conspiracy and full of lies. That is one belief that non bible believers have. I guess it is the main belief of sceptics concerning the Bible.
Unless it is independently confirmed it is not true.
I guess the Jews could be seen as big ignorant chumps who believed whatever was presented to them about their origins in history and that these stories of Jewish origins were made up a few hundred years BC.
It's a choice to believe that way just as it is a choice to believe the stories are true.

 

[Brian2]

Hello I once asked a person this:

Do you believe that there is God? answer Yes
Do you believe that Jesus is God? answer Yes
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is part of God? Yes

how many seperate beings do you see?

I see one God and 3 beings who are not separate.

God is the father, Jesus then becomes God, then the holy spirit is part of both yet in the bible the holy spirit wasn't supposed to be there according to John14
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
John 16:7-8
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The holy spirit was or wasn't during the time of Jesus?

The Holy Spirit was there during the time of Jesus but had not been sent to live in Christians so that the Father and Son could dwell in us. (so that we could be born again of God.)
The Comforter, who is said to be the Holy Spirit was to come to those disciples of Jesus, the ones He was speaking to, and remind them of what Jesus had told them.
(John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.)

Anyways, Jesus didn't come to bring anything new... the laws were to stay the same. He brought his message to the people of Israel...so he says he is only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

We don't deny Eesa alayhi salaam (Jesus on him peace) we know he taught one God just like all the prophets and messengers taught from before. Mohammad pbuh, just finalized all that came before. .... Doesn't that sound like a comforter?

Jesus came to being the New Covenant to the Jews and then also for the Gentiles. This New Covenant does not have a different law because Jesus said that the Law was summed up with "Love your neighbour".
But Christians don't fulfil the law by following commands as the Jews do, we fulfil the law by following the lead of the Spirit, the Comforter whom Jesus sent to dwell in us,,,,,,,,,,,and the Spirit teaches us to love.
Muhammad cannot logically be the Comforter that is described in the Bible by Jesus.
Islam denies the gospel, New Covenant that Jesus brought because it denies the death of Jesus.
Jesus sacrificed Himself and took our punishment on Himself so that we could have forgiveness and a close relationship with God and peace with God through Jesus.

 

[MyM]

I see one God and 3 beings who are not separate.



The Holy Spirit was there during the time of Jesus but had not been sent to live in Christians so that the Father and Son could dwell in us. (so that we could be born again of God.)
The Comforter, who is said to be the Holy Spirit was to come to those disciples of Jesus, the ones He was speaking to, and remind them of what Jesus had told them.
(John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.)



Jesus came to being the New Covenant to the Jews and then also for the Gentiles. This New Covenant does not have a different law because Jesus said that the Law was summed up with "Love your neighbour".
But Christians don't fulfil the law by following commands as the Jews do, we fulfil the law by following the lead of the Spirit, the Comforter whom Jesus sent to dwell in us,,,,,,,,,,,and the Spirit teaches us to love.
Muhammad cannot logically be the Comforter that is described in the Bible by Jesus.
Islam denies the gospel, New Covenant that Jesus brought because it denies the death of Jesus.
Jesus sacrificed Himself and took our punishment on Himself so that we could have forgiveness and a close relationship with God and peace with God through Jesus.

Hello

That's the thing, Jesus (on him peace) did not bring any new laws or commandments or covenants. He said so himself. It was Paul that created that belief. I suggest maybe you look how he talked about the gentiles (non-jewish) believers. You will be amazed. He also will profess that he never knew you(those who profess good works in his name) he will tell them to get away from him....there is information in the Bible Jesus speaks out. Can I suggest you get a red-lettered bible like I did ...the ones in the NT in red are the words to be have spoken from Jesus. Write them down. See what he actually said compared to what the pastors, your religion that you were brought up in, the Christians etc. say always...that is what I did and you might be amazed that it isn't what they are preaching.

In the Quran, Allah states about Jesus,

And ˹remember˺ when Jesus, son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel! I am truly Allah’s messenger to you, confirming the Torah which came before me, and giving good news of a messenger after me whose name will be Aḥmad.” (same name as Mohammmad) Yet when the Prophet came to them with clear proofs, they said, “This is pure magic.”

Jesus did profess those words. Amazingly somehow it is shown in the Bible as "comforter" . Also the name is in the Greek as well but they translated it as "altogether lovely" .

anyways, we don't deny Jesus and we don't deny what he taught. :)

 

[Aupmanyav]

I guess the Jews could be seen as big ignorant chumps who believed whatever was presented to them about their origins in history and that these stories of Jewish origins were made up a few hundred years BC.

Why blame just the jews in BCE. Even today most of the world believes in false stories in various religions. Religions will not exist without these false stories.

 

[gnostic]

The whole of the Bible is one big conspiracy and full of lies. That is one belief that non bible believers have. I guess it is the main belief of sceptics concerning the Bible.
Unless it is independently confirmed it is not true.
I guess the Jews could be seen as big ignorant chumps who believed whatever was presented to them about their origins in history and that these stories of Jewish origins were made up a few hundred years BC.
It's a choice to believe that way just as it is a choice to believe the stories are true.

Conspiracy theories...no. Propaganda...yes.

The Bible, like some (if not all) religions from other cultures or other civilizations, have the needs to present origins of their people through traditions and through stories, what are called the origin myths and the national myths: the ancient Sumerian and succeeding kingdoms (Assyria and Babylonia) have ones, as do in Egypt, in the Hittite kingdom and in Greece and Rome, the Vedic and Hindu India, in China and Japan.

All of them (those who are literates and left behind writings), are based on their perspectives of the world, so ones should understand the contexts of their stories from their perspectives, and not that of our own, by trying to assume their literature are historical records or scientific theories...mistakes that some theists (especially creationists) make.

There are some history in the Old Testament, but they are only history in some parts of kings, where either Egyptian or Assyrian sources have verified rulers of Israel and Judah, such as in trades, wars or alliance with these foreign kingdoms.

So yes, there needs to be verifications for parts of the Bible to be considered history.

Not only that Genesis and Exodus don’t exist in the Bronze Age, there are no ways to confirm them being true in their stories.

For instance, these two books (Genesis & Exodus) say that the Hebrew-speaking people have spent periods of times in Egypt, and neither Abraham, nor Jacob and Joseph, nor Moses, could mention a single Egyptian kings by names during sojourns in Egypt.

If Moses did exist and did live in Egypt, then he should have been able to names kings that ruled in Egypt, who were supposed to be Moses’ contemporaries.

If Moses leaving Rameses with his people in 1447 BCE (Exodus 12:37), then Moses should have known about Thutmose III (1479 - 1425 BCE). He should have also known about the king at the time of his birth in 1527 BCE (Exodus 1), Ahmose I (1550 - 1525 BCE).

And yet no names were ever given to Egyptian kings who lived during the period of his life.

Even the pharaoh’s daughter, in Exodus 2, a princess who adopted Moses, is nameless. Wouldn’t Moses know the name of the woman who raised him?

And it is same with Genesis, when Abraham and Joseph were in Egypt. Abraham met the king who was his host who remained nameless. Joseph was supposedly the governor of Egypt during the time of famine, and the king is unnamed.

Why would all the kings of Egypt be nameless in Genesis & in Exodus?

The only logical reasons why Genesis and Exodus don’t have any names for Egypt’s kings, because whoever wrote these 2 books have no knowledge of history of 2nd millennium Egypt during the Late Bronze Age...and, Genesis & Exodus never existed in this period.

More likely, the books attributed to Moses, were really written by some people centuries later, eg 6th century BCE, who have no real knowledge of Egypt’s Bronze Age history.

In the books of Kings, it does name some kings of Assyria who were contemporaries to kings of Judah or to the kings of Israel, for example Tiglath-pileser III was a 8th century contemporary to Ahaz (2 Kings 16) and Pekah (2 Kings 15), and Assyrian annals on Tiglath-pileser does confirm his army attacked Israel and demanding tributes from Ahaz.

There are Assyrian sources that confirm their kings encountered with Israel and Judah.

However, not everything in Kings have been verified as being “historical”, eg Solomon and the story of Elijah and Elisha.

No, the Old Testament are not all lies. Much of it are just theological stories, not history.

I just don’t think you understand the Old Testament as well as you believe you do.