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

[gnostic]

Because, even with its errors, it is still the book which tells Jews how to be Jews.

I think that creationists (as well as other Christians) tends to overlook that their "Old Testament" are Hebrew scriptures (eg Torah) that were written for Jews, and were never meant for Christians.

The Torah, as I understand it, is part of their identity, that would include their codes (laws) and the covenant(s).

A question:

Is the "Covenant" or the plural "Covenants"?​

When I read it, I tends to see it as multiple covenants. As I am not a Jew, I don't know how Jews view it, hence my question.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you have no interest in what is actually true. Just what you want to be true. Whatever works for you.

As I said, I don't go to church. That particularly works for me, i.e., that I don't go to church and part of that is because I don't agree with most "church" teachings. Hope that helps. For instance, if a church teaches that the earth came about by some type of accident, in other words, evolution, I would no longer believe/attend or join that church. Take care.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think that creationists (as well as other Christians) tends to overlook that their "Old Testament" are Hebrew scriptures (eg Torah) that were written for Jews, and were never meant for Christians.

The Torah, as I understand it, is part of their identity, that would include their codes (laws) and the covenant(s).

A question:

Is the "Covenant" or the plural "Covenants"?​

When I read it, I tends to see it as multiple covenants. As I am not a Jew, I don't know how Jews view it, hence my question.

I tend to think of it as one covenant, but different installments

 

[joelr]

The book of Kings actually stands apart in its willingness to reveal the dark side of the various persons. It doesn't come across like an exaggeration or whitewashing.

No one said whitewashing. The exaggerations are saying a kingdom was much larger than it actually was. Most books of the Bible contain some sort of myth or folk tale as well.


"Kings is "history-like" rather than history in the modern sense, mixing legends, folktales, miracle stories and "fictional constructions" in with the annals, and its primary explanation for all that happens is God's offended sense of what is right; it is therefore more fruitful to read it as theological literature in the form of history."

 

[joelr]

As I said, I don't go to church. That particularly works for me, i.e., that I don't go to church and part of that is because I don't agree with most "church" teachings. Hope that helps. For instance, if a church teaches that the earth came about by some type of accident, in other words, evolution, I would no longer believe/attend or join that church. Take care.

A church does not teach evolution. That is a branch of science. Science demonstrates evolution is true through evidence. So then that answers the questions, you have zero interest in what is actually true.

 

[gnostic]

For instance, if a church teaches that the earth came about by some type of accident, in other words, evolution, I would no longer believe/attend or join that church.

That just more examples of you being utterly clueless as to what Evolution is all about.

For one, Evolution is all about biodiversity of organisms - “changes” in the populations over times, and these all occur through natural processes, not by accident.

The changes may occur - due to changes in the environment where these life inhabited - climate changes or atmospheric changes, physical changes to the terrain, the scarcity of food sources (perhaps caused by drought and/or famine, which may result in changes in their diet. Species of life need to adapt to survive the changes to the environment, which may impact on what species survive and what species may become extinct.

Hence, this is about Natural Selection.

But there may be other ways for changes to occur, such as populations of different species may interbreed that could result in new generations that are different enough to be different from the 2 parent species...hence Gene Flow.

Another mechanism for changes may occur due to mutations...so mutations in genes, get passed on to descendants...hence, Mutations.

And still another mechanism, like Genetic Drift, which involved changes to frequency of alleles in population.

Every single mechanisms require life ALREADY EXISTING!

Hence Evolution isn’t a study about how life “first came to be” on Earth. Currently, the study on the origin of first life (on Earth) is a working hypothesis, called Abiogenesis.

Your continuing confusion over Evolution, confusing Evolution with study of origin of life (Abiogenesis), only demonstrate that you are unwilling to clear up your confusion and you are incapable to learn from your mistakes.

Until you understand the differences between Evolution and Abiogenesis, you will never understand Evolution. Willful ignorance and stubborn biases are not intellectual traits to be proud of.

.

 

[YoursTrue]

First of all, Moses didn't write Genesis. Second of all, Gen 1 is a creation myth, not a science text.

Never said it was a science text but it is consistent with how it happened physically. Furthermore I believe that Moses did write Genesis. You and others can say it a million+ times that he did not but, like the theory of evolution, doesn't make it true.

 

[YoursTrue]

A church does not teach evolution. That is a branch of science. Science demonstrates evolution is true through evidence. So then that answers the questions, you have zero interest in what is actually true.

You mentioned church therefore I añnswered you. I don't go to church. Science in no way demonstrates that evolution is true. It's conjectural opinion.

 

[YoursTrue]

What does that even mean? There are no historical scholars who say what you think this means.
Some current thoughts from modern historians:

"Van Seter and Thompson's works were a paradigm shift in biblical scholarship and archaeology, which gradually led scholars to no longer consider the patriarchal narratives as historical."
Some conservative scholars attempted to defend the patriarchal narratives in the following years,[46][47] but this position has not found acceptance among scholars.[48][6]

Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[49] William Dever stated in 1993 that

[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum. ...The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer "secular" archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not "Biblical archaeology".


"Mainstream scholarship no longer accepts the biblical Exodus account as history for a number of reasons. Most scholars agree that the Exodus stories reached the current form centuries after the apparent setting of the stories."

"Many scholars believe that the Deuteronomistic history preserved elements of ancient texts and oral tradition, including geo-political and socio-economic realities and certain information about historical figures and events. However, large portions of it are legendary and it contains many anachronisms."

"The Books of Samuel are considered to be based on both historical and legendary sources, primarily serving to fill the gap in Israelite history after the events described in Deuteronomy. The battles involving the destruction of the Canaanites are not supported by archaeological record, and it is now widely believed that the Israelites themselves originated as a sub-group of Canaanites.[78][79][80] The Books of Samuel exhibit too many anachronisms to have been compiled in the 11th century BCE.["


"
Much of the focus of modern criticism has been the historicity of the United Monarchy of Israel, which according to the Hebrew Bible ruled over both Judea and Samaria around the 10th century BCE. Thomas L. Thompson, a leading minimalist scholar for example, has written:

There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine's tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough."

Historicity of the Bible - Wikipedia





What scholars? Historians are attempting to find some history, some glimpses of what early Israel was actually like. The supernatural stories are not considered history at all. The creation and flood tales are re-writes of Mesopotamian myths. Moses getting laws on stone is a common Egyptian manner of getting laws carved in stone from a deity. Nothing new there.

Again, your opinion may align with others but like politics, doesn't mean you're on the right side. That there were accounts of a devastating flood only adds to the veracity of the flood happening.

 

[YoursTrue]

What does that even mean? There are no historical scholars who say what you think this means.
Some current thoughts from modern historians:

"Van Seter and Thompson's works were a paradigm shift in biblical scholarship and archaeology, which gradually led scholars to no longer consider the patriarchal narratives as historical."
Some conservative scholars attempted to defend the patriarchal narratives in the following years,[46][47] but this position has not found acceptance among scholars.[48][6]

Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.[49] William Dever stated in 1993 that

[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum. ...The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer "secular" archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not "Biblical archaeology".


"Mainstream scholarship no longer accepts the biblical Exodus account as history for a number of reasons. Most scholars agree that the Exodus stories reached the current form centuries after the apparent setting of the stories."

"Many scholars believe that the Deuteronomistic history preserved elements of ancient texts and oral tradition, including geo-political and socio-economic realities and certain information about historical figures and events. However, large portions of it are legendary and it contains many anachronisms."

"The Books of Samuel are considered to be based on both historical and legendary sources, primarily serving to fill the gap in Israelite history after the events described in Deuteronomy. The battles involving the destruction of the Canaanites are not supported by archaeological record, and it is now widely believed that the Israelites themselves originated as a sub-group of Canaanites.[78][79][80] The Books of Samuel exhibit too many anachronisms to have been compiled in the 11th century BCE.["


"
Much of the focus of modern criticism has been the historicity of the United Monarchy of Israel, which according to the Hebrew Bible ruled over both Judea and Samaria around the 10th century BCE. Thomas L. Thompson, a leading minimalist scholar for example, has written:

There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine's tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough."

Historicity of the Bible - Wikipedia





What scholars? Historians are attempting to find some history, some glimpses of what early Israel was actually like. The supernatural stories are not considered history at all. The creation and flood tales are re-writes of Mesopotamian myths. Moses getting laws on stone is a common Egyptian manner of getting laws carved in stone from a deity. Nothing new there.

Again what I find interesting is that there is no proof, only conjectural opinion. Doesn't matter how well schooled a person is...the future is the future. Things are often not discovered from the past. But doesn't mean nothing happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

Uh, I just gave you some quotes by some expert scholars. scholars who understand that there is real evidence that Moses did not exist. Because you sitting around at home and at church don't see this shouldn't be a reason to say that?
What have you read on the subject? Do you even try to educate yourself? To say "I see no real evidence...:" sounds like you have been studying the Archaeology field and historicity.
Because personally I see no real evidence of many things scholarship and science says. But that has no bearing on what is true? I'm not actually looking for a Higgs Boson and have seen no evidence. But I'm pretty sure science has good reason to declare they found it.

So you believe what you believe and I do not share your opinion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

=For instance, if a church teaches that the earth came about by some type of accident, in other words, evolution, I would no longer believe/attend or join that church. Take care.

Natural selection is not an accident.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Never said it was a science text but it is consistent with how it happened physically. Furthermore I believe that Moses did write Genesis. You and others can say it a million+ times that he did not but, like the theory of evolution, doesn't make it true.

No, sir. Genesis 1 is not historical. You can say a million+ times that it is, but it won't make it so.

 

[YoursTrue]

Natural selection is not an accident.

how about mutations?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, sir. Genesis 1 is not historical. You can say a million+ times that it is, but it won't make it so.

I don't have to say it a million times. You can say a million times that it's not historical, still won't make it not historical. Anyway, have a nice day, and we can go back and forth ad infinitum but I think I'll bow out.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, sir. Genesis 1 is not historical. You can say a million+ times that it is, but it won't make it so.

You also might want to read what some leaders of Judaism say about this:
17 Facts About Moses Every Jew Should Know - Jewish History (chabad.org)
Anyway, have a good day and please excuse if I don't keep it up with you, enjoy whatever there is to enjoy. I believe what the Bible says.

 

[gnostic]

Furthermore I believe that Moses did write Genesis. You and others can say it a million+ times that he did not but, like the theory of evolution, doesn't make it true.

You still cannot grasp that there are no evidence to support that Moses wrote the Genesis or other books that have been attributed to Moses.

Where are stone or clay tablets, or manuscripts or scrolls that are made of parchment or scrolls that are dated to the 15th century BCE?

So unless you can present Late Bronze Age PHYSICAL manuscripts, scrolls or tablets contain whole or partial section of Genesis, then all you are doing is expressing personal opinion on your personal beliefs about Moses writing Genesis.

There are no “original” Genesis in Late Bronze Age or 15th century BCE. The Hebrew alphabet didn’t exist until the 11th or 10th century BCE.

So if Israelites existed in the 15th century BCE, then the choice would have been Canaanite cuneiform, or Egyptian hieroglyphs. But there are no version of Genesis in cuneiform or in hieroglyphs.

The only times, you would find Genesis is in the 6th century BCE and later (“later” as in LXX Septuagint Bible or badly damaged scrolls from Qumran (I’m referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls).

6th century BCE would mean either the Exile at Babylon or afterwards during the construction of the new temple, after Jews were allowed to return home.

Plus, nothing in Genesis and Exodus showed they know the history of Egypt that were contemporary to the late 16th century BCE or the 17th century BCE.

For instance, in Exodus 1, it named the 2 midwives who save Hebrew baby boys, but cannot even name Moses’ adopted mother, the pharaoh’s daughter or the name of pharaoh himself.

If Moses was brought up in Egyptian palace, then he should have at least named the pharaoh or pharaoh’s daughter in the Exodus.

And when Moses demanded the release of Israelites from slavery, the Exodus should have included the pharaoh’s name, especially if allegedly wrote the Exodus.

Since neither Exodus, nor Genesis could a single name of Egyptian kings, tell me that whoever wrote Genesis and Exodus didn’t know Egyptian history that at all. Most likely the Exodus and Genesis were written in the 6th century BCE, not 15th century BCE.

Edit

It should be noted that Egyptians kept records of their rulers, especially those who reigned in the 18th dynasty, during the mid-16th century BCE (eg Ahmose I, founder of this dynasty) and the 15th century BCE (eg Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, Amenhotep II).

Writings exist contemporary to each of rulers, especially on stelae, that commemorated their lives, who their children were, and their achievements.

If Moses truly wrote Exodus, then he should have been able to name at least Ahmose and Thutmose, since Ahmose was the father of 2 daughters, and Thutmose’ reign would be the one whom Moses would have petitioned to.

But the author didn’t know any of them by names.

 

[rational experiences]

In human reality one human exists.

The man theist says by father mother human sex I am one human owning two the same status for my sister.

One human equal as two humans.

Hence we are equals as babies.

Natural.

Natural sex owns no scientific human thesis ever.

Is the first realisation geez.....
science human theist you are a true liar only.

Word coercer ...yes sophist liar is real a cunning human contrivance. Dictionary stated meant word and words meaning a world brothers agreed statement. By word use.

Just humans as just men think. Then build science by human terms

As no man is God.
Your thoughts as a human never created creation and egotists you think only.

As humans.

Religious brain entrainment as medical healers did a human assessment of human behaviour. Lying was on top of the hierarchy as mind problems.

A man is a man as a man. Who applied a man study thesis what did old temple pyramid science cause.

Named it old. As he wasn't involved he was assessing.

I will write a thesis belief that human men who built science technology had nearly destroyed all life on earth.

They were talking about rebuilding it again. Old monuments pyramids still existed as proof.

Stories of death destruction verbal only.

Moses a man's story about life in Egypt where human family slavery of Egyptian family as tribal communities were over lawed by royal family self entitled I am a God. Humans. Human forced behaviour.

Liars.

The theme slaves were once Egyptian land rights tribal heritage. And no such status a human god. Same family said the storyteller same rights.

If they believe they are royalty then a slave will claim the same royalty as a human entitlement as we are equals.

Just a story about human equal rights.

Ignored as the basis of why introduced God royalty by the science priests then king's had lied.

If you don't read equal human rights as the basis of the story then you ignore the theme why the story was taught in the first place.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

how about mutations?

Interesting question. In the science section I placed a thread about an article stating that mutations were not random. It is actually the second research project that I've read about that made this claim. I'm still waiting to see if this information goes mainstream.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You also might want to read what some leaders of Judaism say about this:
17 Facts About Moses Every Jew Should Know - Jewish History (chabad.org)
Anyway, have a good day and please excuse if I don't keep it up with you, enjoy whatever there is to enjoy. I believe what the Bible says.

Two Jews, three opinions.