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

[joelr]

So you are guessing that the flood "myths" were not true and that the creation story is not what God told Moses.

In the same way one would be "guessing" that Zeus wasn't real and didn't really have a son Heracles. We have evidence that these myths were taken from older Mesopotamian myths. So it isn't a guess.
Moses is definitely considered a myth and the legends about a God telling him anything are just stories. Moses is a compilation of Egyptian myths.


Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia
-It expounds themes parallel to those in Mesopotamian mythology, emphasizing the Israelite people's belief in one God.
-Scholars do not consider Genesis to be historically accurate.
-Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[17][18] but adapted them to their belief in one God,
-Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths.
-The Enuma Elish has also left traces on Genesis 2. B
-Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11

You seem to be guessing about the motives of the writers who compiled one flowing story from many documents.
Do you just agree with modern historians because they are modern or do you think they know something that the earlier historians did not know.

The story doesn't flow, The 2 creation accounts are completely different, Noah is a reworking of Gilamesh and Genesis was written around the 5-6th century using older legends.

Do I think modern historians know more than earlier historians? Are you kidding me?????? They didn't have books? After the age of enlightenment and academia was formed on evidence it eventually became available to read the myths from many different cultures. First they sometimes had to be re-discovered and interpreted from clay tablets. So now we can see where the stories actually came from.
Since the 19th century scholarship has been realizing all religions use religious syncretism to absorb myths from previous cultures. They have been "slowly letting the public down" as William Dever says (Biblical archaeologist)

 

[joelr]

I wasn't there, of course. However, the history as given by Moses makes a lot of sense to me.

Makes sense? Than you haven't bothered to fact check to see if it's probably a legend.

Moses and the Patriarchs are comprised of Egyptian myths. Thomas Thompson demonstrated none of these characters were actual people. His work was peer-reviewed and this has become the standard position.
I just pointed out some clear indications that the creation story is re-writing both Mesopotamian creation myths as well as using the Epic of Gilamesh (often verbatim) to craft their flood story.

Then, none of the science or cosmology makes sense, a primal cosmic sea is found in older creation myths like the Hindu version as well. So the material is copied and has nothing to do with the actual science of the creation of the universe?

and you say it makes sense to you?

"Generally, Moses is seen as a legendary figure, whilst retaining the possibility that Moses or a Moses-like figure existed in the 13th century BCE
Van Seters concluded, 'The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend.' ... "None of this means that there is not a historical Moses and that the tales do not include historical information. But in the Pentateuch, history has become memorial. Memorial revises history, reifies memory, and makes myth out of history."

 

[Brian2]

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. :)

By denying the death of Jesus on the cross Islam denies the good news (gospel) that Jesus brought.

 

[Brian2]

How?

You seem to think that without any original documents that God has not preserved His Word. That does not make sense.

 

[Brian2]

No human being should accept things for which there is no good evidence. Skeptic, or not.

You don't just get to claim something is "obvious" without explaining yourself, because clearly it isn't obvious to everyone, is it? I just told you I don't see design in the universe and explained why. You completely ignored it for some reason.

Can you please answer the questions, just for once, without trying to deflect?

It is obvious to me if not to you. It is a subjective thing.
I presume you are saying that you don't see good evidence for design.
To me spiders that can build webs and bees that have a dance to tell the other bees the direction and distance of food and the billions of atoms in our DNA that control our growth and development etc and atoms that are the building blocks for all things dead matter which has become alive and conscious etc are all good evidence for design and a designer.

 

[Brian2]

No, I mean, let's observe, measure, test and repeat, to see what is going on here. Science is a methodology. And it's the best one we've got since it's given us all knowledge we currently hold about the world around us. If your way is better, then please demonstrate that.

And as I explained earlier, our scientific explanations of the universe seem to work just fine without the need to insert God(s) into them. If you think God(s) are required, then you'd need to demonstrate that. I really wish you could grasp this.

Science is fine up to a point and then it starts conflicting with the evidence that it, as science, ignores. Science cannot accept the words in an old book as evidence and when science with the naturalistic methodology steps in to analyse the Bible, the presumption of no supernatural influence only tends to bring science to the conclusion that the old book must be wrong. Circular reasoning of course but people don't walk away from for example anthropological books on the Bible with the message of "circular reasoning", they walk away with a scientific view that the Bible is not true as shown by science.
My way is my way and I cannot show it is better, especially if people don't even want to see circular reasoning in the science of the Bible.
How many sceptics are going to be willing to think that the writer of Genesis did not plagiarise information from earlier religions? How many are going to say, "Well it could be that the earlier religions and Genesis both knew the same original stories of the flood and creation"?

 

[Brian2]

Life is composed of chemicals. Your entire body is teeming with chemical reactions at any given moment.

That does not mean that life is just chemicals.

Sorry but it doesn't appear that you know what an ad hominem is.

(S)he asked where humans beings come from, and I provided scientific answers. No faith required, as it is demonstrable. But I always find it very interesting when religious people try to drag science down to their level by claiming that people who follow the scientific method are doing it on faith. No, they aren't. Rather, they're following the demonstrable evidence where it leads.

Why do you feel the need to insert unverifiable supernatural explanations into scientific explanations that work just fine without such things?

You say you are just following the evidence with science but really you are following the naturalistic methodology and believing it as fact that there was no supernatural involvement.
Science cannot say one way or the other concerning God so why do people want to use science as if it can say one way or the other?
Why do sceptics ignore the caveat on science when it suites and forget that the reason science might say things like "Evidence shows that life and consciousness are chemically based" is because of the naturalistic methodology and not because all the evidence points there. It is that the evidence science can use points there.

 

[YoursTrue]

In the same way one would be "guessing" that Zeus wasn't real and didn't really have a son Heracles. We have evidence that these myths were taken from older Mesopotamian myths. So it isn't a guess.
Moses is definitely considered a myth and the legends about a God telling him anything are just stories. Moses is a compilation of Egyptian myths.


Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia
-It expounds themes parallel to those in Mesopotamian mythology, emphasizing the Israelite people's belief in one God.
-Scholars do not consider Genesis to be historically accurate.
-Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[17][18] but adapted them to their belief in one God,
-Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths.
-The Enuma Elish has also left traces on Genesis 2. B
-Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11




The story doesn't flow, The 2 creation accounts are completely different, Noah is a reworking of Gilamesh and Genesis was written around the 5-6th century using older legends.

Do I think modern historians know more than earlier historians? Are you kidding me?????? They didn't have books? After the age of enlightenment and academia was formed on evidence it eventually became available to read the myths from many different cultures. First they sometimes had to be re-discovered and interpreted from clay tablets. So now we can see where the stories actually came from.
Since the 19th century scholarship has been realizing all religions use religious syncretism to absorb myths from previous cultures. They have been "slowly letting the public down" as William Dever says (Biblical archaeologist)

I'd like to say something here. It's kind of similar to Einstein's theories. Based on "evidence." Of light and motion and distance. So there is much proven about the Bible's relevance and truthfulness. I might also mention that not all who profess to represent the Bible have represented God in a truthful manner,

 

[YoursTrue]

You seem to think that without any original documents that God has not preserved His Word. That does not make sense.

Hello again. Not sure who you are directing your above post to, I'd like to mention though that the fact the Bible has survived throughout the centuries is proof to me of "supernatural" care by the God who inspired the men to write it and preserve it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Makes sense? Than you haven't bothered to fact check to see if it's probably a legend.

Moses and the Patriarchs are comprised of Egyptian myths. Thomas Thompson demonstrated none of these characters were actual people. His work was peer-reviewed and this has become the standard position.
I just pointed out some clear indications that the creation story is re-writing both Mesopotamian creation myths as well as using the Epic of Gilamesh (often verbatim) to craft their flood story.

Then, none of the science or cosmology makes sense, a primal cosmic sea is found in older creation myths like the Hindu version as well. So the material is copied and has nothing to do with the actual science of the creation of the universe?

and you say it makes sense to you?

"Generally, Moses is seen as a legendary figure, whilst retaining the possibility that Moses or a Moses-like figure existed in the 13th century BCE
Van Seters concluded, 'The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend.' ... "None of this means that there is not a historical Moses and that the tales do not include historical information. But in the Pentateuch, history has become memorial. Memorial revises history, reifies memory, and makes myth out of history."

There are many things that happened in time (history) that either have been obliterated by men or circumstances or not recorded. Thus the idea that there is no record particularly other than the detailed account in the Bible of the incident in Egypt of Pharaoh and Moses is not convincing to me that it did not happen as recorded. God has preserved the writings of the prophets throughout the ages for the benefit of mankind and those taking advantage of learning about it and believing in Him. Take care.
“All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—2 Tim. 3:16, 17

 

[MyM]

Why just the four? You are not the only one's who have books. Bahais have their own book - 'Kitab-e-Aqdas'. Other religions have their own books too. And what proves that what is written in these books is true? What proof do you have for Allah and his 'one-ness'?

The Quran speaks for itself.

 

[MyM]

You say the Bible is wrong and people should listen to Muhammad and not what is written in the Bible.

Ok let me ask you this, if you had a choice between the two. Which one would you choose?
1. A book where there are contradictions, plagiarism, words of man, unknown authors, deletions, additions and many faults attributed to your God who doesn't have faults and doesn't even endorse that book.
2. A book where God himself is taking ownership and over 1400 years now, still the same, no faults, not from mankind, who God himself poses a challenge to come up with a book like unto it.

Which sounds more appealing to believe in?

I am not talking what you were raised up in, I'm talkin which one on a basic thinking, which one sounds like a better deal?

I am not saying you should do anything. That choice is yours. I chose.

 

[MyM]

There are many things that happened in time (history) that either have been obliterated by men or circumstances or not recorded. Thus the idea that there is no record particularly other than the detailed account in the Bible of the incident in Egypt of Pharaoh and Moses is not convincing to me that it did not happen as recorded. God has preserved the writings of the prophets throughout the ages for the benefit of mankind and those taking advantage of learning about it and believing in Him. Take care.
“All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—2 Tim. 3:16, 17

God didn't endorse the Bible. Man did .

 

[MyM]

Are Muslims still supporting the quack Zakir Naik and his pseudoscience “Scientific Miracles”?

So instead of listening to all the miracles, you decide to degrade the lecturer. He is a hafith....that is one who knows the entire Quran by memory, pages and verses and he isn't even Arab. He is an Arabic Scholar. He is extremely more knowledgeable than you will ever be. You are a nothing compared to him. So to put him on your level would be an insult to him.

If you want to learn, learn. Stop with the bashing to make yourself feel better.

 

[MyM]

Great non-sequitur.

Can you explain what that means in relation to my post?

The ancient Egyptians and Sumerians wrote 3800 years before the Qur’an.

And even the whole human made out of clay and water (Adam), in the Qur’an, is also not an original.

Again, the Egyptians thought of that in the Khnum myth, where Khnum created humans on the potter’s wheel, while the sun god created humans from tears that have fallen on the ground.

And there are number of different myths, where sometimes the water god Enki creating humans all by himself, sometimes together with goddesses like Nammu, Ninmah or Ninhursag.

The Qur’an is nothing more than a rip-off, with Muhammad lacking imagination. But regardless of Muhammad stealing/borrowing concepts from others, humans are not made out of clay. There is no science in the Qur’an, where clay can transform into living human being.

That’s the sort of stupidity that exist in Muhammad’s mind.

You can say whatever you wish to make up for your lack of knowing, doesn't harm me in the least.

 

[MyM]

By denying the death of Jesus on the cross Islam denies the good news (gospel) that Jesus brought.

In Islam, we praise Jesus as one of the mightiest messengers of God. We know why he was sent. Why he was to go away and why and what he will do when he returns. We don't put him on the same level as our Creator-afterall, he created Jesus. All prophets and messengers of God taught monotheism. It wasn't until after Jesus' leaving that it was changed by the hands of men. We don't believe he died either God took him up and he is awaiting his second coming. According to the Bible, Jesus was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not to mankind.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Quran speaks for itself.

The Quran speaks for itself only.

 

[night912]

It is obvious to me if not to you. It is a subjective thing.
I presume you are saying that you don't see good evidence for design.
To me spiders that can build webs and bees that have a dance to tell the other bees the direction and distance of food and the billions of atoms in our DNA that control our growth and development etc and atoms that are the building blocks for all things dead matter which has become alive and conscious etc are all good evidence for design and a designer.

So evidence of design is design. Got it.

 

[MyM]

The Quran speaks for itself only.

Yes, it does speak for itself...so many miracles, the arabic, the poetry, the stories, the grammar, the authenticity, the warnings, the glad tidings of heaven, the darkness of hell, the day of judgement, death, prophets and so much more. Allah does say it is for the understanding.

 

[Aupmanyav]

True. Other people have different views. 'To you your religion, to me mine". Quran does not speak to me.