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

[YoursTrue]

Two Jews three opinions. Just like you have Christians who are anti-science and don't understand literature and insist that Genesis 1 is historical, you have some Jews that do the same. And just like you have some Christians who understand that Genesis 1 is a myth, you also have Jews that understand the same. It has more to do with reading comprehension and acceptance of science, than whether one is Christian or Jew.

What I'd like to get you to see is that it doesn't really matter whether a story is historical or not. It only matters what lesson it is teaching.

Please stop telling lies about me. I am not anti-science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Two Jews three opinions. Just like you have Christians who are anti-science and don't understand literature and insist that Genesis 1 is historical, you have some Jews that do the same. And just like you have some Christians who understand that Genesis 1 is a myth, you also have Jews that understand the same. It has more to do with reading comprehension and acceptance of science, than whether one is Christian or Jew.

What I'd like to get you to see is that it doesn't really matter whether a story is historical or not. It only matters what lesson it is teaching.

So you don't believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Do you believe Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were mythical figures as well? If so -- what truth(s) is your belief about one true God based on? What, if anything, in fact, makes you believe there IS a God, in fact, one TRUE God? Please allow others to understand why someone as you describe in your answer would say there is one true God. Thank you very much.

 

[YoursTrue]

Two Jews three opinions. Just like you have Christians who are anti-science and don't understand literature and insist that Genesis 1 is historical, you have some Jews that do the same. And just like you have some Christians who understand that Genesis 1 is a myth, you also have Jews that understand the same. It has more to do with reading comprehension and acceptance of science, than whether one is Christian or Jew.

What I'd like to get you to see is that it doesn't really matter whether a story is historical or not. It only matters what lesson it is teaching.

Speaking of which about differing opinions among Jews. Not saying those called christians do not have different opinions. But you said there is one true God. From where did you get this opinion and what makes you say it?

 

[YoursTrue]

@IndigoChild5559
So you don't believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Do you believe Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were mythical figures as well? If so -- what truth(s) is your belief about one true God based on? What, if anything, in fact, makes you believe there IS a God, in fact, one TRUE God? Please allow others to understand why someone as you describe in your answer would say there is one true God. Thank you very much.
Allow me to say that you are not the only one, obviously, who believes that the Bible is a book of myths with characters that didn't exist, including David, Samuel, etc. At least the vestiges of the temple in Jerusalem is there. Otherwise -- people might say that it never really was. (right?)
Anyway, not to worry, I really just wanted to know what or how you think, thanks for letting me know. No matter you think the account about Moses is not factual, but based on myths. And the rest of the Bible, too, I suppose. So thanks again for your opinion. It's been interesting. Thanks for sharing.
But please try not to say that I am anti-science. I'm not.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Please stop telling lies about me. I am not anti-science.

If you reject major theories like evolution, you are anti-science. period.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So you don't believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Do you believe Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were mythical figures as well? If so -- what truth(s) is your belief about one true God based on? What, if anything, in fact, makes you believe there IS a God, in fact, one TRUE God? Please allow others to understand why someone as you describe in your answer would say there is one true God. Thank you very much.

I'm not going to play the game of you asking me one by one to tell you whether a hundred different people are myth or not.

My main two points have been:
1. That Genesis 1 is a creation myth
2. That myths are not lies. They are a powerful literary form in which we encode our deepest values.

 

[Brian2]

Wrong. History isn't politics. History deals with evidence. It is a fact the OT myths are very similar to older myths. The flood story is at times a word for word copy from the Epic of Gilamesh.
Modern geology has ruled out the possibility of a world flood so those stories are myth.
Do you actually think there is a "right side" with ancient myths about Gods? Do you think that Zeus might have been real? Or Atum-Ra? In politics there are several positions. In history there are zero historians who think any of these myths were actually history. That isn't a position?
In fact most modern CHristians now consider the OT stories to be myths. A pastor friend of mine called the flood story a "mythology" in his last Easter sermon.
The work of Thomas Thompson is now consensus in the field which demonstrated beyond any doubt that Moses and the Patriarchs are a fictional construct.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09QD5497J/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0



Noah - Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned I loosed a dove and let her go. She flew away, but finding no resting- place she returned.


Noah - And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;


Gimamesh - , I made a sacrifice and poured out a libation on the mountain top. Seven and again seven cauldrons I set up on their stands, I heaped up wood and cane and cedar and myrtle. When the gods smelled the sweet savour, they gathered like flies over the sacrifice.


Noah - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


Gimamesh - “Wisest of gods, hero Enlil, how could you so senselessly bring down the flood? Lay upon the sinner his sin, Lay upon the transgressor his transgression, Punish him a little when he breaks loose, Do not drive him too hard or he perishes; Would that a lion had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that a wolf had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that famine had wasted the world Rather than the flood, Would that pestilence had wasted mankind Rather than the flood


Gilamesh - ‘For six days and six nights the winds blew, torrent and tempest and flood overwhelmed the world, tempest and flood raged together like warring hosts. When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

The Noah and Gilgamesh stories have similarities and differences. Religious anthropologists use the scientific naturalistic methodology approach and presume no supernatural story is correct and use the theory that one story was copied from previous stories in all cases. This is presumption from the start and has to end up with a conclusion that denies the truth of the Bible.
The truth however is that the Bible might be true and that those who wrote Gilgamesh may have known about the same flood and so have a similar story.

 

[gnostic]

@IndigoChild5559
So you don't believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Do you believe Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were mythical figures as well? If so -- what truth(s) is your belief about one true God based on? What, if anything, in fact, makes you believe there IS a God, in fact, one TRUE God? Please allow others to understand why someone as you describe in your answer would say there is one true God. Thank you very much.
Allow me to say that you are not the only one, obviously, who believes that the Bible is a book of myths with characters that didn't exist, including David, Samuel, etc. At least the vestiges of the temple in Jerusalem is there. Otherwise -- people might say that it never really was. (right?)
Anyway, not to worry, I really just wanted to know what or how you think, thanks for letting me know. No matter you think the account about Moses is not factual, but based on myths. And the rest of the Bible, too, I suppose. So thanks again for your opinion. It's been interesting. Thanks for sharing.
But please try not to say that I am anti-science. I'm not.

You are still missing the points of what myths are used for.

Myths are written to be a science textbook or to be an accurate historical record.

The are written as teaching tools, the most obvious ones for the Old Testament, especially the Torah, they have moral messages that have significant meanings to the Hebrew society and Hebrew cultures.

For instances, with regards to Eden story, the moral message is to obey god, and to take responsibility for one’s own sins.

With Abraham, to teach how great faith and loyalty, even to the point of sacrificing his own son, come great rewards, in this case, the rewards for Abraham’s descendants - the Covenant.

With story of David and Bathsheba, it teach the sins to be avoided, adultery and the ruse in having her husband killed.

None of them were meant to be stories to be taken as historically true, because if you focused on the historicity of the myths, then you are overlooking the moral contexts of these stories, which have far more values to the Jewish people.

This is why you can be never a Jew, because you are looking at the surface level of these myths, and not the inner meanings.

Do you treat Jesus’ parables as historical literature, or as teaching morals to his followers?

 

[Brian2]

You are still missing the points of what myths are used for.

Myths are written to be a science textbook or to be an accurate historical record.

The are written as teaching tools, the most obvious ones for the Old Testament, especially the Torah, they have moral messages that have significant meanings to the Hebrew society and Hebrew cultures.

For instances, with regards to Eden story, the moral message is to obey god, and to take responsibility for one’s own sins.

With Abraham, to teach how great faith and loyalty, even to the point of sacrificing his own son, come great rewards, in this case, the rewards for Abraham’s descendants - the Covenant.

With story of David and Bathsheba, it teach the sins to be avoided, adultery and the ruse in having her husband killed.

None of them were meant to be stories to be taken as historically true, because if you focused on the historicity of the myths, then you are overlooking the moral contexts of these stories, which have far more values to the Jewish people.

This is why you can be never a Jew, because you are looking at the surface level of these myths, and not the inner meanings.

Do you treat Jesus’ parables as historical literature, or as teaching morals to his followers?

The parables of Jesus are teaching stories that Jesus used. They are therefore both historical and teaching tools.
If the stories in the OT are not history then the Bible is no more than something that came from the heads of people and has nothing to do with the truth.
We cannot show that the supernatural side of stories is true, but that is something that we believe.
Those against the truth of the Bible cannot show that the supernatural side of the stories are not true,,,,,,,,,all they can do is say the history is not true so the supernatural side is not true,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,then adding insult to injury, or treating us like fools, say that it does not really matter.
Of course it matters,,,,,,,,,,no history means no revelation from God, means worthless when it comes to being the truth.
It is amazing that people have hung on to their faith while compromising in their belief about various parts of the Bible being historical, but the truth is that what sceptics really say is that nothing in the Bible is true. No history and no truth and no faith.
Even when archaeology does find things that support the historicity of the Bible the sceptics are always there to try to debunk it or to ignore it or put a different spin on it.

 

[gnostic]

The Noah and Gilgamesh stories have similarities and differences.

Yes, true, there are similarities and differences between Noah and the Flood story of Utnapishtim (in the Epic of Gilgamesh).

But why do you insisted on talking about science in the next sentence, when you don't have to...ESPECIALLY when you don't understand how to the scientific procedure work.

Your ignorance with all sciences, but that you make incorrect claim of something you don't understand, is like you taking a stroll in the minefield.

For instance, in your next sentence, you wrote:

Religious anthropologists use the scientific naturalistic methodology approach and presume no supernatural story is correct and use the theory that one story was copied from previous stories in all cases.

Please note what I've highlighted in bold & red.

You are talking about the "scientific approach", and you had brought up "naturalistic" (eg "scientific naturalistic methodology approach"), which means - when use "scientific methodology" and "naturalistic", it means use science on NATURE, hence it would relate to Natural Sciences.

You know what "nature" mean, don't you?

Natural Sciences is about the studies of nature, like astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology (eg anatomy, physiology, genetics, evolution, etc), studying the Earth (eg climates, atmosphere, mountains, rivers, natural formation of terrains, geology, ecology, etc), and so on. Natural Sciences are anything that's not man-made.

Now if you know what anthropologists do for living, the study of anthropology, then you would know that the main focus of anthropology, is the studies of human societies, human cultures, human history (plus archaeology), human social interaction, etc, all of which involved studies that fall under the Social Sciences category.

Social Sciences are not Natural Sciences.

Anthropology might or probably delving into humanistic disciplines, like art, philology (study of languages), literature, religion. Humanistic isn't Natural Sciences.

In the non-highlighted part of your paragraph, you mentioned stories.

Stories, like Flood myths in the Epic of Gilgamesh and in Genesis story relating to Noah (Genesis 6 to 8).

As a literature, both stories fall under the Humanistic category, not the Natural Science. And it is the same with the subject matters of both stories, that are religious theme, so religions (including theology) would be Humanistic subject, not a naturalistic subject, hence have nothing to do with Natural Sciences.

The Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh, have more to do with Humanistic than with anthropology, but regardless if you want to talk about anthropology or other Social Sciences, neither of them have anything to do with "natural", hence they aren't "naturalistic".

This is presumption from the start and has to end up with a conclusion that denies the truth of the Bible.

No one is denying that the Bible, including the story about Noah and the Flood, as a work of literature and as a work of religion.

Now, we can look at it (both the epic and Genesis), from philology or literature perceptive, as to which is older.

There are no doubt, the Mesopotamian version is older. The Epic of Gilagmesh dated all the way, and scribes have copying the Babylonian and Assyrian versions, since the Old Babylonian period, which is the 2nd millennium to 1st millennium BCE, known in both Mesopotamia and Levant as the Middle Bronze Age (c 2000 - c 1590 BCE). The Epic of Gilagmesh is very popular during the Middle and Late Bronze Age, because clay tablets about Gilagmesh were found in far west as Hattusa (Hittite capital), Ugarit (now Ras Shamna), Amarna (Egypt) and even in Canaanite Megiddo, during the mid-2nd milllennium BCE.

There are also the Epic of Atrahasis, Atrahasis being another name for Utnapishtim, is dated to 17th century BCE, but even older is the Eridu Genesis, written in Sumerian, where the hero is originally name Ziusudra.

This Sumerian tablet (Eridu Genesis) is badly damaged, and only portion of the text survived, but enough to know Ziusudra predated the Old Babylonian Atrahasis and Utnapishtim. And it is dated to the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BCE (meaning somewhere between 2500 and 2000 BCE).

All version of Mesopotamian flood myth, predated the writing of Genesis, which you cannot find before 6th century BCE Exile at Babylon.

Regardless of any story, Hebrew or not, what Noah's story isn't, it isn't science.

For instance, there are physical evidence in archaeology or geological evidence (flood deposits) in any later of rocks that are widely found in one period of time, so no evidence of global flood.

If there were global flood as in the magnitude of Genesis 8, where waters covered all the high mountains, including Ararat, there should be flood deposits everywhere in the world, that would point to a single "DATE". There are none.

Yes, there have been massive flooding in the past, but none of them covering mountains, and none of them in human history ever happened on global scale.

Flood on massive scale, always leave evidence behind, not destroy evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you reject major theories like evolution, you are anti-science. period.

Period, no. You're not telling the truth about me. Thanks anyway for expressing yourself. It helps for me to have insight as to how people think.

 

[YoursTrue]

The parables of Jesus are teaching stories that Jesus used. They are therefore both historical and teaching tools.
If the stories in the OT are not history then the Bible is no more than something that came from the heads of people and has nothing to do with the truth.
We cannot show that the supernatural side of stories is true, but that is something that we believe.
Those against the truth of the Bible cannot show that the supernatural side of the stories are not true,,,,,,,,,all they can do is say the history is not true so the supernatural side is not true,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,then adding insult to injury, or treating us like fools, say that it does not really matter.
Of course it matters,,,,,,,,,,no history means no revelation from God, means worthless when it comes to being the truth.
It is amazing that people have hung on to their faith while compromising in their belief about various parts of the Bible being historical, but the truth is that what sceptics really say is that nothing in the Bible is true. No history and no truth and no faith.
Even when archaeology does find things that support the historicity of the Bible the sceptics are always there to try to debunk it or to ignore it or put a different spin on it.

@IndigoChild5559 who I hope will read and respond to this. You aptly say, "Of course it matters,,,,,,,,,,no history means no revelation from God, means worthless when it comes to being the truth."

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not going to play the game of you asking me one by one to tell you whether a hundred different people are myth or not.

My main two points have been:
1. That Genesis 1 is a creation myth
2. That myths are not lies. They are a powerful literary form in which we encode our deepest values.

Whose deepest valuies? These came about by mythical personages?
A hundred people? Please get things a bit straighter. I'm not asking if you believe the accounts of 100 people that the Torah has outlined in it. Can you mention if you believe any person spoken of in the Torah actually existed?
Last question for this post, do you believe the account of the enslavement of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Egypt and being given the Ten Commandments, is mythical?? I mean like you say there is one true God because your intuition tells you this. Not the Bible, but your intuition. (am I right in saying this about your reasoning based on your intuition?) In all fairness, before I knew and studied the Bible as truth, not myths (there's always more to learn, however, naturally), I came to think there is no God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Whose deepest valuies? These came about by mythical personages?
A hundred people? Please get things a bit straighter. I'm not asking if you believe the accounts of 100 people that the Torah has outlined in it. Can you mention if you believe any person spoken of in the Torah actually existed?
Last question for this post, do you believe the account of the enslavement of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Egypt and being given the Ten Commandments, is mythical?? I mean like you say there is one true God because your intuition tells you this. Not the Bible, but your intuition. (am I right in saying this about your reasoning based on your intuition?) In all fairness, before I knew and studied the Bible as truth, not myths (there's always more to learn, however, naturally), I came to think there is no God.

The deepest values of those who tell the story. If its a lakota myth, it is the values of the lakota. If its a zulu myth, then it would encode Zulu values. In the case of Genesis 1, it encodes deeply held values of teh jewish people.

Again, we are not going to play the game where you send a million posts to me asking "Is X a myth?" I've told you that Gen 1 is a creation myth, and I've told you that I think Moses truly existed. That's enough for you to get the general idea where I'm coming from.

 

[ppp]

The deepest values of those who tell the story. If its a lakota myth, it is the values of the lakota. If its a zulu myth, then it would encode Zulu values. In the case of Genesis 1, it encodes deeply held values of teh jewish people.

Again, we are not going to play the game where you send a million posts to me asking "Is X a myth?" I've told you that Gen 1 is a creation myth, and I've told you that I think Moses truly existed. That's enough for you to get the general idea where I'm coming from.

Right. Myths are the stories that a culture tells about itself; what it values and what it thinks it is, and what it wants to be. It doesn't really matter if Moses really existed.

 

[gnostic]

The parables of Jesus are teaching stories that Jesus used. They are therefore both historical and teaching tools.
If the stories in the OT are not history then the Bible is no more than something that came from the heads of people and has nothing to do with the truth.
We cannot show that the supernatural side of stories is true, but that is something that we believe.
Those against the truth of the Bible cannot show that the supernatural side of the stories are not true,,,,,,,,,all they can do is say the history is not true so the supernatural side is not true,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,then adding insult to injury, or treating us like fools, say that it does not really matter.

I don't need to treat of you "like fools"...you are doing just fine without my help.

Everything you have just said...well, if Jesus read what you have wrote, you would be one of those Jesus call, he "of little faith".

If you need verification from history or from science, then you are weak of faith.

You are forgetting that Jesus taught faiths are all that matters, especially if you want resurrection and eternal life.

Of course it matters,,,,,,,,,,no history means no revelation from God, means worthless when it comes to being the truth.
It is amazing that people have hung on to their faith while compromising in their belief about various parts of the Bible being historical, but the truth is that what sceptics really say is that nothing in the Bible is true. No history and no truth and no faith.
Even when archaeology does find things that support the historicity of the Bible the sceptics are always there to try to debunk it or to ignore it or put a different spin on it.

Man! You are really piece of work.

Forget about science, Brian2. You should forget about history too.

I say this, because you don't understand neither, and whenever you talk about history or science, you are only tripping on your own feet, making yourself sounding even more foolish each time you make unsubstantiated claims.

As I said earlier, I don't need to make a fool out of anyone. You are fooling yourself.

But they are not your only problems.

You don't even understand religion, especially on what "faith" mean.

Faith, in religious context, means accepting a belief being true without the needs to verify it.

If you cannot do that, then how do you expect to be resurrected?

So if you need to justify your belief through scientific or historical verification, eg evidence, then you don't need faith. If you can only accept miracles only through science (as in scientific evidence), then your belief is no longer about faith...and you will not go to heaven.

(Religious) faith is something like personal conviction, you would just accept something you believe in to be true.

You don't need evidence to believe in god. You don't need evidence to believe in Jesus. And you certainly don't need evidence to believe in miracle and in resurrection. All that's required is FAITH.

You don't even understand Jesus' teachings. You are so focused on the little things that you are ignoring his teaching about faith.

So it is apparent I don't need to make a fool out of you about religion, since you are doing a swell job without my help.

 

[YoursTrue]

The deepest values of those who tell the story. If its a lakota myth, it is the values of the lakota. If its a zulu myth, then it would encode Zulu values. In the case of Genesis 1, it encodes deeply held values of teh jewish people.

Again, we are not going to play the game where you send a million posts to me asking "Is X a myth?" I've told you that Gen 1 is a creation myth, and I've told you that I think Moses truly existed. That's enough for you to get the general idea where I'm coming from.

Oh, sorry, I did not see your post in which you said you believe Moses really existed, that he is not a mythical figure. (Oh wait, or is he, do you believe, a mythical figure but someone who was really alive in that position?) So let's go on with your reasoning here, it's helpful.
Since you say that Moses was not a mythical figure, may I ask why you say this? Or again, is it your intuition? Further and very imporantly, do you believe what is written, in that he actually communicated with God? Or was that kind of made up by the one(s) who wrote the books ascribed to Moses in the Torah as now in synagogues and quite regularly read aloud.)

 

[YoursTrue]

@IndigoChild5559 I think it's time for me to sign off, thanks for discussion.

 

[gnostic]

Right. Myths are the stories that a culture tells about itself; what it values and what it thinks it is, and what it wants to be. It doesn't really matter if Moses really existed.

No, it doesn't matter.

Both Brian2 and YoursTrue are focusing on the wrong things when they read Genesis and Exodus.

But then again, no one shouldn't be surprise, since neither of them are Jews...both of them are Christians.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not going to play the game of you asking me one by one to tell you whether a hundred different people are myth or not.

My main two points have been:
1. That Genesis 1 is a creation myth
2. That myths are not lies. They are a powerful literary form in which we encode our deepest values.

How then does the creation account encode your deepest values?
(Still winding down...