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

[joelr]

There is a guy, Tim Mahoney, who started hearing that scholars think the Exodus did not happen etc etc and was concerned and so went searching for answers to real archaeologists and Egyptologists etc. He started making videos of his findings.

I know Mahoney? His ideas completely go against all mainstream opinions - "Patterns of Evidence is a film series directed by Tim Mahoney and part of the independent Christian film industry. The films advocate for Mahoney's views on biblical chronology, which he contrasts with mainstream scholarly opinion."

I'm amazed that you do not know what he discovered and other things that have been discovered concerning Biblical archaeology.

Nope, he based his work on the New Chronology which I have a paper from a Harvard professor who completely debunks the entire thing. No scholar finds any of the evidence compelling. There are endless blog posts by scholars debunking everything.

"Fomenko's historical ideas have been universally rejected by mainstream scholars, who brand them as pseudoscience," " has not been accepted in academic Egyptology, "

NOt only is it not accepted in Egyptology it holds zero impact on Biblical archaeology.

This DVD collection is pandering to people who desperately want their beliefs to have some validation and will eagerly buy his products. This is not a new enterprise. Fake archaeologists have been "finding" Noah's Ark and the tomb of Jesus and so on for decades. A fool and their money is easily parted. None of this passed peer-review and is considered crank.

It's no different that me sourcing Joseph Atwells "Ceasars Messiah" which is an investigation that "proves" Jesus was a creation of 3rd century Rome. That also didn't pass peer-review, is considered crank. There is a reason academia has standards.
I can point to all sorts of amateur books on Jesus mythicism that "prove" Jesus is the same as Horus or whatever. But standards of evidence is important. If a work cannot pass peer-review it's probably crank. This one is actually a conspiracy theory.

I'm amazed that you don't know that the Biblical account of the conquest of Canaan has been confirmed by the archaeology of Canaan for the time that the Bible says it happened (about 1400BC).

Oh, are you amazed. Cool, let's check in with a real biblical archaeologist - William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years and authored almost as many books on the subject. .

"
The origins of Israel
What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?
The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today."


The crank DVD series doesn't change actual evidence from archaeology?

I'm amazed that you know only one side of the story and think that the other side is from amateur archaeologists.

Uh, again the New Chronology is actually called pseudoscience. No Biblical archeologist backs it. What the consensus on that matter is -

"
Is there mention of the Israelites anywhere in ancient Egyptian records?
No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt."
"
Tell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?
It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.

So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlands—a loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you will—called "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription."

However I am not amazed you bought into crank. Your standards for evidence is clearly very low if you think ancient myths are reliable history.

 

[joelr]

Once I saw your comment about history isn't politics and deals with evidence, I knew we're not on the same page. Bye for now. Anyone who thinks or believes that all history books are not political is on a different branch of thought. Again bye for now...

History books are not political. They look at historical facts. Richard Carrier started his Jesus historicity project fully intending to back up the consensus opinion that Jesus was a historical man teaching Judaism. The evidence does not support that idea however so his conclusion is mythicism is slightly more probable.
Bart Ehrman was a fundamentalist Christian when he was getting his degrees in religion. After studying the history he realized they are just religious myths. Evidence is what is important.

Politics are in historical works. Each gospel is promoting a particular political/religious view. Matthew wanted members to return to Judaism first and his work reflects that. Biblical historicity is about evidence, not an agenda. Only apologetics writes with a believers bias. They start with the assumption that their religion is true and go from there.

If a good historian is presented with good evidence for something they didn't believe they will change their position. Bart Ehrman changed his position on the Jesus story being influenced by Greek myths, he didn't think it was true but was shown the latest scholarship on the subject. In his book How Jesus Became God he recognizes this information.

 

[joelr]

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.

I'm curious if you just made that up whole cloth or there is some apologetics that tell you this. It's completely wrong in a huge way anyways. That is what historians NEVER do or they would be wrong all the time.
What they do is look for stories that have obvious connections. They don't use backwards apologetics like "uh maybe the Noah story from 1200BC (earliest) influenced the Epic of Gilamesh from 2100BC?"
That is a nonsense apologetic designed to fool you into thinking that your religion isn't just a copy of older myths.
The Israelites were not a nation before 1200. They were Canaanites and they used Canaanite religion.
It's known in history that Genesis was written late and was only concerned with theology, not history. It used available myths and re-wrote them as their own because they needed a religion for the new culture.
At that time Yahweh was invented but he was paired with the Goddess Ashera.

When you find verbatim lines like I provided in a story that is 10 centuries older then it's evidence that it was using that as a source. Sorry, the OT is a reworking of older myths.

Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel.

KL Sparks, PhD Hebrew Bible, Baptist Pastor,

As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible’s account of early Israel’s history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israels origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel’s history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)

Religion, Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel

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

Gilamesh is 1000 years older. The conclusion is what it is. The Bible is a religious myth. It isn't actually true. All of the myths are reworked myths.

The Book of Genesis (from Greek Γένεσις Génesis; Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית, Bərēʾšīṯ, "In [the] beginning") is the first book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.[Tradition credits [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses']Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars, especially from the 19th century onward, see them as being written hundreds of years after Moses is supposed to have lived, in the 6th and 5th centuries BC.[3][4] Based on scientific interpretation of archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence, most scholars consider Genesis to be primarily Judeo-Christian mythology rather than historical.[/URL]

It expounds themes parallel to those in Mesopotamian mythology,
Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian myth
Still, Genesis 1 bears similarities to the Baal Cycle of Israel's neighbor, Ugarit.[23]

The Mesopotamian Enuma Elish has also left traces on Genesis 2.
Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11,

 

[joelr]

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.

Right and their Noah just happened to do all the same things. Release a dove and it returned. Perform a sacrifice and the Lord smelled a "sweet savior". The stories are re-workings and often verbatim.
A world flood did not happen. These are myths.

Modern flood geology has completely ruled out any chance of a world flood. How can people care about truth so little?

-Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.[5][6][7][8][9] Modern geology relies on a number of established principles, one of the most important of which is Charles Lyell's principle of uniformitarianism. In relation to geological forces it states that the shaping of the Earth has occurred by means of mostly slow-acting forces that can be seen in operation today. By applying these principles, geologists have determined that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. They study the lithosphere of the Earth to gain information on the history of the planet. Geologists divide Earth's history into eons, eras, periods, epochs, and faunal stages characterized by well-defined breaks in the fossil record (see Geologic time scale).[110][111] In general, there is a lack of any evidence for any of the above effects proposed by flood geologists and their claims of fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists.[112]


Erosion


The global flood cannot explain geological formations such as angular unconformities, where sedimentary rocks have been tilted and eroded then more sedimentary layers deposited on top, needing long periods of time for these processes. There is also the time needed for the erosion of valleys in sedimentary rock mountains. In another example, the flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly.[112]



Geochronology[edit]


This Jurassic carbonate hardground shows generations of oysters and extensive bioerosion, features incompatible with the conditions and timing postulated for the Flood.[7]The alternation of calcite and aragonite seas through geologic time.[113]





Geochronology is the science of determining the absolute age of rocks, fossils, and sediments by a variety of techniques. These methods indicate that the Earth as a whole is about 4.54 billion years old, and that the strata that, according to flood geology, were laid down during the Flood some 6,000 years ago, were actually deposited gradually over many millions of years.



Paleontology[edit]

If the flood were responsible for fossilization, then all the animals now fossilized must have been living together on the Earth just before the flood. Based on estimates of the number of remains buried in the Karoo fossil formation in Africa, this would correspond to an abnormally high density of vertebrates worldwide, close to 2100 per acre.[84] Creationists argue that evidence for the geological column is fragmentary, and all the complex layers of chalk occurred in the approach to the 150th day of Noah's flood.[114][115] However, the entire geologic column is found in several places, and shows multiple features, including evidence of erosion and burrowing through older layers, which are inexplicable on a short timescale. Carbonate hardgrounds and the fossils associated with them show that the so-called flood sediments include evidence of long hiatuses in deposition that are not consistent with flood dynamics or timing.[7]



Geochemistry[edit]

Proponents of Flood Geology are also unable to account for the alternation between calcite seas and aragonite seas through the Phanerozoic. The cyclical pattern of carbonate hardgrounds, calcitic and aragonitic ooids, and calcite-shelled fauna has apparently been controlled by seafloor spreading rates and the flushing of seawater through hydrothermal vents which changes its Mg/Ca ratio.[116]



Sedimentary rock features[edit]

Phil Senter's 2011 article, "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology", in the journal Reports of the National Center for Science Education, discusses "sedimentologic and other geologic features that Flood geologists have identified as evidence that particular strata cannot have been deposited during a time when the entire planet was under water ... and distribution of strata that predate the existence of the Ararat mountain chain." These include continental basalts, terrestrial tracks of animals, and marine communities preserving multiple in-situ generations included in the rocks of most or all Phanerozoic periods, and the basalt even in the younger Precambrian rocks. Others, occurring in rocks of several geologic periods, include lake deposits and eolian (wind) deposits. Using their own words, Flood geologists find evidence in every Paleozoic and Mesozoic period, and in every epoch of the Cenozoic period, indicating that a global flood could not have occurred during that interval.[117] A single flood could also not account for such features as unconformities, in which lower rock layers are tilted while higher rock layers were laid down horizontally on top.[118]

 

[joelr]

The parables of Jesus are teaching stories that Jesus used. They are therefore both historical and teaching tools.

No they are sayings that the Greek writers knew. These writers were highly trained in the Greek style of religious fiction. They used all the common mythic literary devices and inserted popular Jewish parables. Mark is literally telling you his story IS A PARABLE by explaining the main character uses parables.
One of the Dead Sea Scrolls was found unfinished and hidden quickly in a cave. It was taking sayings from another known teacher and making a Gospel of Jesus. It wasn't finished and appears to have been hidden away quickly. There are many fake Epistles and about 36 other gospels that were not used. Religious writers are known to make stories up, this was a common practice.

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.

They are known to be not history?
"Scholars do not consider Genesis to be historically accurate."
"The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a] of both Judaism and Christianity.[1]"
Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia

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..

The literalism movement started in the 2nd century. Bishops began saying "our stories are literally true". This is what happens when you take metaphors literal. They are stories about how to live a good life. Not literal truths. Every culture has revelations from their national God, similar laws, commandments..Then after Hellenism influenced all of them they all had a supreme God, a savior, the word made flesh , a soul that after being fallen can be redeemed through personal salvation and go to an afterlife and so on. This all started in Hellenism. The Greeks occupied Judea before Christianity.

"
Hellenistic thought is evident in the narratives which make up the books of the Bible as the Hebrew Scriptures were revised and canonized during the Second Temple Period (c.515 BCE-70 CE), the latter part of which was during the Hellenic Period of the region. The gospels and epistles of the Christian New Testament were written in Greek and draw on Greek philosophy and religion as, for example, in the first chapter of the Gospel of John in which the word becomes flesh, a Platonic concept."

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.

archaeology does not support the historicity. Here is the leading Biblical archaeologist summing up the field:

William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

Yet many people want to know whether the events of the Bible are real, historic events.
We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.


Archaeologist Carol Meyers talks about Exodus, Moses and why these stories exist:
NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Moses and the Exodus | PBS

 

[YoursTrue]

History books are not political. They look at historical facts. Richard Carrier started his Jesus historicity project fully intending to back up the consensus opinion that Jesus was a historical man teaching Judaism. The evidence does not support that idea however so his conclusion is mythicism is slightly more probable.
Bart Ehrman was a fundamentalist Christian when he was getting his degrees in religion. After studying the history he realized they are just religious myths. Evidence is what is important.

Politics are in historical works. Each gospel is promoting a particular political/religious view. Matthew wanted members to return to Judaism first and his work reflects that. Biblical historicity is about evidence, not an agenda. Only apologetics writes with a believers bias. They start with the assumption that their religion is true and go from there.

If a good historian is presented with good evidence for something they didn't believe they will change their position. Bart Ehrman changed his position on the Jesus story being influenced by Greek myths, he didn't think it was true but was shown the latest scholarship on the subject. In his book How Jesus Became God he recognizes this information.

Certainly historical works can be politically oriented, no doubt, just like news reporters today can be inclined one way or another in telling the truth one way or another.

 

[YoursTrue]

No they are sayings that the Greek writers knew. These writers were highly trained in the Greek style of religious fiction. They used all the common mythic literary devices and inserted popular Jewish parables. Mark is literally telling you his story IS A PARABLE by explaining the main character uses parables.
One of the Dead Sea Scrolls was found unfinished and hidden quickly in a cave. It was taking sayings from another known teacher and making a Gospel of Jesus. It wasn't finished and appears to have been hidden away quickly. There are many fake Epistles and about 36 other gospels that were not used. Religious writers are known to make stories up, this was a common practice.






They are known to be not history?
"Scholars do not consider Genesis to be historically accurate."
"The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a] of both Judaism and Christianity.[1]"
Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia





The literalism movement started in the 2nd century. Bishops began saying "our stories are literally true". This is what happens when you take metaphors literal. They are stories about how to live a good life. Not literal truths. Every culture has revelations from their national God, similar laws, commandments..Then after Hellenism influenced all of them they all had a supreme God, a savior, the word made flesh , a soul that after being fallen can be redeemed through personal salvation and go to an afterlife and so on. This all started in Hellenism. The Greeks occupied Judea before Christianity.

"
Hellenistic thought is evident in the narratives which make up the books of the Bible as the Hebrew Scriptures were revised and canonized during the Second Temple Period (c.515 BCE-70 CE), the latter part of which was during the Hellenic Period of the region. The gospels and epistles of the Christian New Testament were written in Greek and draw on Greek philosophy and religion as, for example, in the first chapter of the Gospel of John in which the word becomes flesh, a Platonic concept."






archaeology does not support the historicity. Here is the leading Biblical archaeologist summing up the field:

William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

Yet many people want to know whether the events of the Bible are real, historic events.
We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.


Archaeologist Carol Meyers talks about Exodus, Moses and why these stories exist:
NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Moses and the Exodus | PBS

Either God created the universe and enabled the life within it, or...he did not. It really is an either/or situation. This does not mean that He created a person born with no legs. Maybe another time we can discuss that. So either God is the creator, or ..he is not. Anyway, hope you have a good night.

 

[YoursTrue]

I know Mahoney? His ideas completely go against all mainstream opinions - "Patterns of Evidence is a film series directed by Tim Mahoney and part of the independent Christian film industry. The films advocate for Mahoney's views on biblical chronology, which he contrasts with mainstream scholarly opinion."





Nope, he based his work on the New Chronology which I have a paper from a Harvard professor who completely debunks the entire thing. No scholar finds any of the evidence compelling. There are endless blog posts by scholars debunking everything.

"Fomenko's historical ideas have been universally rejected by mainstream scholars, who brand them as pseudoscience," " has not been accepted in academic Egyptology, "

NOt only is it not accepted in Egyptology it holds zero impact on Biblical archaeology.

This DVD collection is pandering to people who desperately want their beliefs to have some validation and will eagerly buy his products. This is not a new enterprise. Fake archaeologists have been "finding" Noah's Ark and the tomb of Jesus and so on for decades. A fool and their money is easily parted. None of this passed peer-review and is considered crank.

It's no different that me sourcing Joseph Atwells "Ceasars Messiah" which is an investigation that "proves" Jesus was a creation of 3rd century Rome. That also didn't pass peer-review, is considered crank. There is a reason academia has standards.
I can point to all sorts of amateur books on Jesus mythicism that "prove" Jesus is the same as Horus or whatever. But standards of evidence is important. If a work cannot pass peer-review it's probably crank. This one is actually a conspiracy theory.




Oh, are you amazed. Cool, let's check in with a real biblical archaeologist - William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years and authored almost as many books on the subject. .

"
The origins of Israel
What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?
The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today."


The crank DVD series doesn't change actual evidence from archaeology?



Uh, again the New Chronology is actually called pseudoscience. No Biblical archeologist backs it. What the consensus on that matter is -

"
Is there mention of the Israelites anywhere in ancient Egyptian records?
No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt."
"
Tell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?
It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.

So the Egyptians, a little before 1200 B.C.E., know of a group of people somewhere in the central highlands—a loosely affiliated tribal confederation, if you will—called "Israelites." These are our Israelites. So this is a priceless inscription."

However I am not amazed you bought into crank. Your standards for evidence is clearly very low if you think ancient myths are reliable history.

Let's say for the discussion that you are right. What does it mean for those who take it as religious myth that more or less defines them as Jews? I mean, what lessons can be or should be learned from that information which people base their affiliation with, since at least one person here says it speaks for the deep aspects. (What does that mean?) What deep values can these mythical stories reveal since it centers around...the Jews and relationship with the God spoken of there, if you understand the question. (have people been misled -- ok wont use the words 'lied to' but instead mislead by the myths or metaphors therein? Again, it pertains in large part to one group of people.

 

[rational experiences]

The origin earth attacked by sun water entered stone is not refuted. As it happened to the whole earths body. Stone gained biology water.

Earth facing sun as heavens is alight.

Earth one mass in space as is its gas heavens. The same.

So a reaction changed its origins.

Bible said earths origin gases changed.

As water was present.
Space deep was present.
Spirit of God not burning gases spirit moving on great deep present.

Set alight.

Earth frozen had crystalline facure was very cold. So crystal owned the presence ice. Non burning gas status origin.

Pyramid used crystal mass atop of it no longer kept cooled by a non burning atmosphere. Ice as ice age present yet gases were burning.

Origin space pressure law crystal with ice not burning.

Science learnt as science was only a man's lesson by his choice he attacked self with science. How he learnt he was wrong.

As held by thoughts his owned control ground constant. Falsely held it burnt out transmitters burnt burst crystal mass also.

To get electricity he was burning out crystal mass as energy gets consumed ignored.

As machines first never owned power.

He had to invent a natural means of supplying energy to work his machines. It blew up.....his lesson energy is not for free.

Cost is life's destruction.

Learnt it after life returned. Was told. Ignored totally as men of science are liars.

Did it again Moses event attacked life.

Did it again Jesus event attacked life.

After ice saviour is two times by code constant man held machine action fake constant.

Next attack yet to occur.

If he removes all ice he theories return to dinosaur dead life snap frozen in ice no ice.

As it was dead before it was snap frozen.

Reason ice is present now. It can snap freeze human who can thaw out.

When dinosaurs died ice wasnt present first.

How earth gets a new nuclear snap freeze all life dead.

Just so scientists pretending they are a God can invent a Cold ground gas state so his new machine won't overheat.

As the cold he wants he said is channelled direct into machine out of atmosphere.

 

[gnostic]

ok wont use the words 'lied to' but instead mislead by the myths or metaphors therein? Again, it pertains in large part to one group of people.

The purposes of metaphors, allegory, parables and myths are not lies as long as people can understand the meanings they are tried to convey.

The only problems that arise in these situations, is when people tried to interpret these as literal, or as historical or as scientific. Here, is when people are misled by their own misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the story.

That’s your problem, as it with some theists (not necessarily by Christians, it can be anyone of any religions), where they chose to misrepresent or misinterpret symbolic writings as literals. That’s when lying comes into play.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

It was fun. Be well, my friend.

 

[Brian2]

Nope, he based his work on the New Chronology which I have a paper from a Harvard professor who completely debunks the entire thing. No scholar finds any of the evidence compelling. There are endless blog posts by scholars debunking everything.

"Fomenko's historical ideas have been universally rejected by mainstream scholars, who brand them as pseudoscience," " has not been accepted in academic Egyptology, "

NOt only is it not accepted in Egyptology it holds zero impact on Biblical archaeology.

I don't think Mahoney says anything about Fomenco. I could be wrong but the new chronology, (which is not really new) seems to come from David Rohl.

Oh, are you amazed. Cool, let's check in with a real biblical archaeologist - William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years and authored almost as many books on the subject. .

There are many biblical archaeologists and some are minimalists (liberalists who say the Bible is mostly not historical) and many are maximalists, more conservative who see the Bible as more correct.

Is there mention of the Israelites anywhere in ancient Egyptian records?

No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt."

The Pharaoh actually said they could go in the end and at that time they probably were not known as Israel.

Tell us more about the Merneptah inscription. Why is it so famous?

It's the earliest reference we have to the Israelites. The victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, the son of Ramesses II, mentions a list of peoples and city-states in Canaan, and among them are the Israelites. And it's interesting that the other entities, the other ethnic groups, are described as nascent states, but the Israelites are described as "a people." They have not yet reached a level of state organization.

That is probably in the period of the judges (approx 1350 -1050 BC) when there were no kings in Israel.

 

[Brian2]

I'm curious if you just made that up whole cloth or there is some apologetics that tell you this. It's completely wrong in a huge way anyways. That is what historians NEVER do or they would be wrong all the time.
What they do is look for stories that have obvious connections. They don't use backwards apologetics like "uh maybe the Noah story from 1200BC (earliest) influenced the Epic of Gilamesh from 2100BC?"
That is a nonsense apologetic designed to fool you into thinking that your religion isn't just a copy of older myths.
The Israelites were not a nation before 1200. They were Canaanites and they used Canaanite religion.
It's known in history that Genesis was written late and was only concerned with theology, not history. It used available myths and re-wrote them as their own because they needed a religion for the new culture.
At that time Yahweh was invented but he was paired with the Goddess Ashera.

When you find verbatim lines like I provided in a story that is 10 centuries older then it's evidence that it was using that as a source. Sorry, the OT is a reworking of older myths.

Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel.

KL Sparks, PhD Hebrew Bible, Baptist Pastor,

As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible’s account of early Israel’s history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israels origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel’s history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)

Religion, Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel

https://www.academia.edu/1059820/Re...?auto=download&email_work_card=download-paper

If you cannot see the presumption that the supernatural is wrong in what you wrote what can I say.

Gilamesh is 1000 years older. The conclusion is what it is. The Bible is a religious myth. It isn't actually true. All of the myths are reworked myths.

The Book of Genesis (from Greek Γένεσις Génesis; Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית, Bərēʾšīṯ, "In [the] beginning") is the first book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament.[Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars, especially from the 19th century onward, see them as being written hundreds of years after Moses is supposed to have lived, in the 6th and 5th centuries BC.[3][4] Based on scientific interpretation of archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence, most scholars consider Genesis to be primarily Judeo-Christian mythology rather than historical.

It expounds themes parallel to those in Mesopotamian mythology,
Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian myth
Still, Genesis 1 bears similarities to the Baal Cycle of Israel's neighbor, Ugarit.[23]

The Mesopotamian Enuma Elish has also left traces on Genesis 2.
Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11,

Abraham was actually born about 2000 BC and possibly knew the stories around in the religions of the day.
As I said, if the flood happened then you might expect those religions to know of it and write of it.
Similarly the story of the creation could have been known in that area since it is close to where Adam was created.
From the 19th century there has been, especially from German Theological Universities, the documentary hypothesis which worked it's way into Theology with the documentary hypothesis. This started because of lack of evidence of the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan, but since then there is plenty of evidence, but the hypothesis still persists and the evidence seems to get pushed aside.

 

[Brian2]

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:

​

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".

Are you saying that anthropology does not use the same naturalistic methodology as other sciences?
Do you know what I mean by 'naturalistic methodology'? You seem to have misunderstood what I meant.

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.

The flood does not have to have been a one world wide flood. The Genesis story can be translated as a large local flood.
The people in that area would have known about it and written about it. They may also have had knowledge of the creation of Adam.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Since I'm the one who accepts the Bible without verification and you are the one who says the parts that are not verified are untrue, I think you are mistaken when you say that I require verification before I will believe.

 

[Brian2]

Right and their Noah just happened to do all the same things. Release a dove and it returned. Perform a sacrifice and the Lord smelled a "sweet savior". The stories are re-workings and often verbatim.
A world flood did not happen. These are myths.

Modern flood geology has completely ruled out any chance of a world flood. How can people care about truth so little?

I think it was a large local flood and that there could have been other large local floods in various parts of the world at the same time.
And yes in the region where the Noah flood happened, others in that area would know about it and what happened.

 

[Brian2]

No they are sayings that the Greek writers knew. These writers were highly trained in the Greek style of religious fiction. They used all the common mythic literary devices and inserted popular Jewish parables. Mark is literally telling you his story IS A PARABLE by explaining the main character uses parables.
One of the Dead Sea Scrolls was found unfinished and hidden quickly in a cave. It was taking sayings from another known teacher and making a Gospel of Jesus. It wasn't finished and appears to have been hidden away quickly. There are many fake Epistles and about 36 other gospels that were not used. Religious writers are known to make stories up, this was a common practice.






They are known to be not history?
"Scholars do not consider Genesis to be historically accurate."
"The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a] of both Judaism and Christianity.[1]"
Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia





The literalism movement started in the 2nd century. Bishops began saying "our stories are literally true". This is what happens when you take metaphors literal. They are stories about how to live a good life. Not literal truths. Every culture has revelations from their national God, similar laws, commandments..Then after Hellenism influenced all of them they all had a supreme God, a savior, the word made flesh , a soul that after being fallen can be redeemed through personal salvation and go to an afterlife and so on. This all started in Hellenism. The Greeks occupied Judea before Christianity.

"
Hellenistic thought is evident in the narratives which make up the books of the Bible as the Hebrew Scriptures were revised and canonized during the Second Temple Period (c.515 BCE-70 CE), the latter part of which was during the Hellenic Period of the region. The gospels and epistles of the Christian New Testament were written in Greek and draw on Greek philosophy and religion as, for example, in the first chapter of the Gospel of John in which the word becomes flesh, a Platonic concept."






archaeology does not support the historicity. Here is the leading Biblical archaeologist summing up the field:

William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

Yet many people want to know whether the events of the Bible are real, historic events.
We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.


Archaeologist Carol Meyers talks about Exodus, Moses and why these stories exist:
NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Moses and the Exodus | PBS

Wow you've swallowed the whole bait, hook, line and sinker and are kindly telling me about my mistake to believe the historicity of the Bible. And it seems that what I said is true, sceptics just keep going and end up saying the whole Bible is BS.
I don't know where to start to answer what you have written so I won't.

 

[gnostic]

The flood does not have to have been a one world wide flood. The Genesis story can be translated as a large local flood.
The people in that area would have known about it and written about it. They may also have had knowledge of the creation of Adam.

You are not thinking at all logically.

Have you ever being in flood-affected areas, before?

Only creationists would think that local flood would solve your problems.

No large local flood could put the ark on top of either two peak of Ararat.

First. The Greater Ararat has elevation of 5100 metres, and Lesser Ararat of nearly 3900 metres.

Second. There are no way for Ark to float upstream...gravity, do you remember? Also the Ark, has no propulsion (eg no sails, no oars, no motor engines), so if the Ark was in a large local flood, any slope in the terrains would have caused the Ark to float downwards, towards the Persian Gulf, and it will eventually end up in the Indian Ocean.

The Ark wouldn’t head towards the eastern Anatolian highland or Armenian highlands. And it definitely wouldn’t have ended up Ararat.

Even if there were tsunami, where water push the sea inlands, but the waves will lose their strength, the further the water go inlands, especially up the sloping terrains. Then waters will recede, draining back to the sea, and this mean everything will float towards the shoreline. Plus, tsunamis won’t flood areas for very long, certainly not for half-a-year, as Genesis 8 claimed.

You certainly don’t understand the cases of flooding. And you basing on a book written around 6th century BCE, in which the myth defied reality and science.

All you can do is make apologetic excuses that have no substance and no logic.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you cannot see the presumption that the supernatural is wrong in what you wrote what can I say.



Abraham was actually born about 2000 BC and possibly knew the stories around in the religions of the day.
As I said, if the flood happened then you might expect those religions to know of it and write of it.
Similarly the story of the creation could have been known in that area since it is close to where Adam was created.
From the 19th century there has been, especially from German Theological Universities, the documentary hypothesis which worked it's way into Theology with the documentary hypothesis. This started because of lack of evidence of the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan, but since then there is plenty of evidence, but the hypothesis still persists and the evidence seems to get pushed aside.

It is likely that God's representatives (faithful angels) spoke with Adam, explaining things any reasonable man would want to or need to know. Not technically, Adam didn't need to know that at that point.. Such as how he got here, what the order of events were.

 

[rational experiences]

You are not thinking at all logically.

Have you ever being in flood-affected areas, before?

Only creationists would think that local flood would solve your problems.

No large local flood could put the ark on top of either two peak of Ararat.

First. The Greater Ararat has elevation of 5100 metres, and Lesser Ararat of nearly 3900 metres.

Second. There are no way for Ark to float upstream...gravity, do you remember? Also the Ark, has no propulsion (eg no sails, no oars, no motor engines), so if the Ark was in a large local flood, any slope in the terrains would have caused the Ark to float downwards, towards the Persian Gulf, and it will eventually end up in the Indian Ocean.

The Ark wouldn’t head towards the eastern Anatolian highland or Armenian highlands. And it definitely wouldn’t have ended up Ararat.

Even if there were tsunami, where water push the sea inlands, but the waves will lose their strength, the further the water go inlands, especially up the sloping terrains. Then waters will recede, draining back to the sea, and this mean everything will float towards the shoreline. Plus, tsunamis won’t flood areas for very long, certainly not for half-a-year, as Genesis 8 claimed.

You certainly don’t understand the cases of flooding. And you basing on a book written around 6th century BCE, in which the myth defied reality and science.

All you can do is make apologetic excuses that have no substance and no logic.

If you tell a story correctly by O earths status.

As a human who gained life sacrifice human biology genesis. Animal genesis. Garden bush genesis.

O earth owned volcanoes ∆ o tops blown off as heavens gases beginnings in space around earth. Theme UFO ark o. Comparing stories natural history to scientific causes.

I think Scientologists Snickered that the UFO had a story relating to volcanos.

Infinity nothingness filled in just around earth. Hot spirit first.

O earth then owned ∆ mountains cooled. No science as earths law.

Cold fusion fused. ∆ intact mountains O God planet owned.

No humans. No lying satanist human scientist theist.

Beginnings hot as theists Satanists. In science on earth.

A cold gas is evolution hence evolutionists claim you can't change a gas. As cold is evolved.

Basic.

So dim wits built temples on the mount ain. Temples were transmitting stations. On top of mountains. Built as it's colder. ∆ pyramid transmitter a crystal tip. Reason why temples built in cold.

Ain he says in Hebrew is zero.

Means I don't want a mountain to own it's peak ∆ pyramid thesis. I will time transport the mountain. Being the exact teaching back in time to a volcanos gas heavens beginning.

So the UFO O RA radiation cause ark once was naturally taken out by a voiding vacuum hits mount Ararat instead. As it burnt then fell. Melts the mountains face as ark. Square signal radiating cut stone into ballast evidence.

Time shifting I lied...I never shifted the mountain said science of man.

Cloud mass so dense it veiled the mountain they named it as Moses.

The event however happening was not named Moses. Why Satanists today can't work it out. It was titled Moses as a summation only. Stories.

On the ground seen the mountain above life scorched and its face disappears burnt. Veiled.

Flooding rain came. Cooling as burning mountain was disintegrating at its Gods seat feet.

Gods throne a mountain. Seat of gods existence earth is rock stone to a human standing on it.

End of life happening above as fallout gases burning fell onto ground life victims sacrificed on stones altar..... ground living with life witnessing the event knew life was then being saved by flooding rain over the mountain.

The ark was hence above the flood. Where it hit. Why life lived on after the attack flood.

Lots of mountains were attacked. If you had a good look there is probably more than one ark hit. Same type of RA eye Ark melt impression.

Flooding in lots of countries in the same event as lots of countries owned telling of the same story. Yet their mountains were said to be where it landed.

Always argued what mountain it landed on.