• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Believabliltiy of Evolution

rrobs

Well-Known Member
There were no books (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus) written in the mid to late Bronze Age, by a man named Moses.

According to 1 Kings 6:1, it stated that Moses left Rameses, Egypt, with his people, 480 years before Solomon started building temple, on the 4th year of his reign.



If my date of Solomon’s reign - c 970 - c 931 BCE - is correct, then when the start of temple construction would be 967 BCE.

This would mean Moses leaving Egypt would date to around 1447 BCE. This date would mean -
  1. Moses was born about 1527 BCE
  2. and Moses died about 1407 BCE.

Moses supposedly started his departure from Rameses:



Rameses the city (along with another city Pithom) was supposedly being built around the time of Moses’ birth about 80 years earlier.



The problem is that the Exodus have left no names to any Egyptian kings in the time of his birth (c 1527 BCE) and in the time of departure from Egypt (c 1447 BCE), so there are no ways to determine and verify what Exodus is saying to be true.

Unlike the Exodus, Egyptian records about the dynasty in that period (New Kingdom period, c 1549 - c 1077 BCE) were more through, from the annals, the king lists and other inscriptions were more plentiful.

1527 BCE would put this date to Ahmose I (reign c 1549 - 1524 BCE), the 1st king of the 18th dynasty (c 1549 - 1292 BCE). Ahmose was responsible for driving the Hyksos out of Egypt.

1447 BCE would put this date to Thutmose III (reign 1479 - 1425 BCE), and 1407 BCE (Moses’ death) would put the date to in the reign of Thutmose’s son and successor - Amenhotep II (reign 1427 - 1401 BCE).

Now, here are some of the problems with Moses being attributed as author.

(A)

There are no written Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus and Genesis that be physically dated to this period.

First, there are no writings Hebrew alphabets dated in the 15th century BCE. There are no parchments, no scrolls made of papyri, no clay tablets, no stone tablets, no inscriptions on bronze, that exist with any book, chapter or verse from these 4 books date to the late Bronze Age.

So there are zero evidence that the books of Exodus or Genesis existing in the 15th century BCE. Not even fragments can be found and dated this time.

The oldest evidence of OT writing are tiny fragments of Numbers 6, contains passage of the Priestly Blessings, written on silver sheeting. Archaeologists named them the Silver Scrolls, and now kept in Israel Museum.

These objects were found in the cave at Ketef Hinnom, that served as burial chambers, and has been dated to between 540 and 590 BCE.

So the artefacts found at Ketef Hinnom cave could be as early as the reign of King Josiah of Judah or as late as near the time when Neo-Babylonian army razed Jerusalem as well as the temple.

To date, there are no earlier writing then these scrolls.

(B)

Ahmose I has never had Rameses built.

There was a city called Pi-Ramesses, which mean the “House Of Ramesses”, because it was named after the 3rd king of the 19th dynasty (1292 - 1187 BCE) - Ramesses II (reign 1279 - 1213 BCE).

Ramesses’ grandfather, Ramesses I, who had started the 19th dynasty, didn’t rule Egypt long, lasting only 2 to 3 years, certainly could not have built Pi-Ramesses.

As you can see, there are discrepancies in trying to match Exodus Rameses with historical Pi-Ramesses. Pi-Ramesses do exist, but not in the reign of Ahmose I.

(C)

There is another date, that doesn’t match up.

According to Joshua, after Moses’ death (supposedly after 1407 BCE), they crossed the Jordan (Joshua 3), attacked Jericho (Joshua 6), and left the city abandoned.

But according to archaeologists, like Kathleen Kenyon in the 1950s, have dated the city has been abandoned as early as 1550 BCE, and even more recent dating, put this layer (Jericho IV) was dated to 1573 BCE.

This date 1573 means that the destruction of Jericho was actually dated before Moses’ birth, not after his death, as (Book of) Joshua say.

Just as Moses didn’t write Exodus, Joshua didn’t write the book that was named after him. And nothing in Genesis, Exodus and Joshua are considered “history”.
Very informative. It did get me thinking. Even though I don't base my doctrine on archeologists, it nonetheless made my realize that there is nowhere in the scriptures themselves that say Moses wrote anything. At least I don't know of any verse that says such a thing.

In the future I think I'll just say, as per 2 Peter 1:21, " holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Spirit." After 40 years of scripture research there is still much to learn! Thanks for the heads up.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
That's irrelevant to the point I made.

Which was: if the story is to be understood literally, then the story is demonstrably false.



That doesn't matter to the point either.
Which, again, is: if these stories are meant literally, then they are demonstrably false.



In science, a theory is as close to truth as it gets.

It's the highest level any idea in science can achieve.
It's basically a confirmed and well tested hypothesis that graduates into "theory".

In science, theory is the most important thing there is.
It means "explanation".
I'll just skip the stuff that is not to the point and try to address your post head on.

I think the thing that stuck out most is when you said, and correctly so, that science is as close to the truth as it gets. That's very true and it's fine for those who are satisfied with less than the truth. I'm just not in that group. Doesn't make me any better. It's simply my choice to search for that which is guaranteed to last.

All that is my belief and I understand probably not yours. Isn't choice a wonderful thing?
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
The difference is that science is based on solid verifiable evidence while scripture isn't.
You can argue the evidence of reality all you want, but at the end of the day, it won't make the evidence go away.
Can't argue there, although the solid verifiable evidence does have a way of changing. So I'm not sure how that enters into the equation, but it does seem to make things somewhat less than tidy.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
So how do you explain that billions of christians read the exact same text as you do, but somehow they walk away misunderstanding it, but not glorious you, who has the One True Interpretation?

What knowledge are you privy to that they aren't aware of?
How do you know that YOU are correct and that YOU aren't one of those that "misunderstood" it?
Because I assure you, those billions that don't agree with you - they are just as convinced of their beliefs being the One True Belief as you are about yours.
Well, maybe you could tell me why they don't believe:

Isa 38:18,

For the grave cannot praise thee, death can [not] celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.​

Ps 6:5,

For in death [there is] no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?
Eccl 9:10,

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for [there is] no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
There are others, but these should suffice for now. Again, where's the need to "interpret" these verses. Why not just take it for what it says? Then again, how can you discount the 100% opposite statements of God and the devil?

Gen 2:17,

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen 3:4,

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
I just can't help but see the churches are more aligned with the devil. I don't understand it, but there it is.

One day Jesus told the religious leaders that they were making the scriptures of no effect by their tradition. Read Matthew 5 if you want the whole story. I think a very salient point in this story is the fact that Jesus was talking to the religious leaders. It was those leaders who taught the next generation of leaders who taught the next generation, all the way to our modern days.

No. I don't have any special knowledge. All I do is read what's written and not what's preached from the pulpits. I guess I'm just lucky that I can get past the traditions and see the simplicity of the scriptures. Any accolades go to God, not me.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
They also have verses that would propel us back into the dark ages and worse.
I'll also add that there is NO message in those scriptures that would be positive, which wouldn't be present in purely secular modern approaches either. And indeed they aren't.

I challenge you to give me a single such "message" with positive effects on modern life, which is actually dependend on the religious ideas. Such that nobody could think them up by secular means.

On the flip side, many of the negative things are exactly that: dependend on the religious doctrines. Such that nobody would think them up by secular approaches.
I can only tell you what the scriptures say. Feel free to believe, not believe, ridicule, or whatever. So to answer your question;

There is such a thing as God's love. It is called agape in Greek. It is said to not cause any ill to one's neighbor. I don't see how doing no ill to one's neighbor would do anything but good in this world. We certainly don't do that now.

But the rub is this, one must be born again in order to have such love. It can't be had in the secular realm.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
This is your opinion based on what you know and understand.

No, it's historical fact.

Modern science is demonstrably ridiculously better at answering questions.

This is why 2 centuries of science trippled life expectancy and enabled us to fly to the moon.

Modern science accomplishes more in only a few decades then "other methods" managed to accomplish in many millenia.

Theoretical physicists don't agree with you. They spend much of their time trying to probe the frontiers of knowledge with mathematics. Math is quantified logic and Ancient Language was logic expressed as language. It's all in the nature of words and their formatting.

The math theoretical physicists use today didn't even exist back then.

Math, moreover, is just a symbolic language to express ideas. It's not in itself an answer to any question.

You are most probably right that quantum physics could never be discovered using only logic and observation. But you are almost certainly wrong that it defies logic. It defies "common sense" because common sense is based on beliefs rather than logic.

No. Logic, much like common sense actually, pretty much can only take into account things you already know about. Premise + premise = conclusion. The premises are things that are known. Before we knew about quantum mechanics, logic (or common sense) wouldn't lead to a conclusion that things could be in 2 places at once. Logic (or common sense) wouldn't lead to a conclusion that the flow of time slows down relative to an observer influenced by speed / gravity.

It's through scientific experimentation and testing that we discovered this.


Yes...

I believe their was a mutation that created complex language and that this mutation was a closer connection between the speech center and higher brain functions. The ability of the "mutant" to cooperate and better communicate with others caused it to spread through the species of "proto-humans" and Homo Sapiens came into existence in a very few generations. SUDDENLY. This was only 40,000 years ago and then the specific complex language that arose failed 4000 years ago. At this time (in the dust of the "tower of babel") modern man, Homo Omnisciencis arose.

There was no 7000 years of "ancient science" that lasted 7000 years. Agriculture was invented 10,000 years ago and it sustained modern man who was far too superstitious to live in a world that hadn't already been tamed. Without agriculture humans would have died out shortly after the destruction of Ancient Language and science.

Everything is about life and life is change. Nothing at all is static and life must adapt to change. But life doesn't adapt as a species because there is no such thing as "species". This is just a word we use symbolically as a symbol for different types of animals. It is a reductionistic word just as "types" is. There is no such thing as a "type" in reality and we imagine there is and then put ideas and objects to the word. Life doesn't adapt and species don't adapt; only individuals can adapt. It was individuals left after the collapse of the tower and they struggled to survive to create God's "Crown of Creation"; modern man. Everyone knows everything and everyone sees all of reality in terms of this omniscience. You know "evolution" is caused by survival of the fittest and I only know that you make perfect sense and that I believe you are completely wrong.

Your problem with your belief in evolution is that facts and experiment don't fit it. Observation disagrees with you.

This is just preaching and completely besides the point you are replying to.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
This is your opinion based on what you know and understand.

Theoretical physicists don't agree with you. They spend much of their time trying to probe the frontiers of knowledge with mathematics. Math is quantified logic and Ancient Language was logic expressed as language. It's all in the nature of words and their formatting.



You are most probably right that quantum physics could never be discovered using only logic and observation. But you are almost certainly wrong that it defies logic. It defies "common sense" because common sense is based on beliefs rather than logic.



No...

I believe their was a mutation that created complex language and that this mutation was a closer connection between the speech center and higher brain functions. The ability of the "mutant" to cooperate and better communicate with others caused it to spread through the species of "proto-humans" and Homo Sapiens came into existence in a very few generations. SUDDENLY. This was only 40,000 years ago and then the specific complex language that arose failed 4000 years ago. At this time (in the dust of the "tower of babel") modern man, Homo Omnisciencis arose.

There was no 7000 years of "ancient science" that lasted 7000 years. Agriculture was invented 10,000 years ago and it sustained modern man who was far too superstitious to live in a world that hadn't already been tamed. Without agriculture humans would have died out shortly after the destruction of Ancient Language and science.

Everything is about life and life is change. Nothing at all is static and life must adapt to change. But life doesn't adapt as a species because there is no such thing as "species". This is just a word we use symbolically as a symbol for different types of animals. It is a reductionistic word just as "types" is. There is no such thing as a "type" in reality and we imagine there is and then put ideas and objects to the word. Life doesn't adapt and species don't adapt; only individuals can adapt. It was individuals left after the collapse of the tower and they struggled to survive to create God's "Crown of Creation"; modern man. Everyone knows everything and everyone sees all of reality in terms of this omniscience. You know "evolution" is caused by survival of the fittest and I only know that you make perfect sense and that I believe you are completely wrong.

Your problem with your belief in evolution is that facts and experiment don't fit it. Observation disagrees with you.
That means you think tens of thousands of scientists worldwide are following a theory that disagrees with observation.

Logically, you must think either they are all stupid compared to you (someone with no training or expertise in biological science), or that they are all engaged in a global conspiracy to suppress the truth. Which is it?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I think the thing that stuck out most is when you said, and correctly so, that science is as close to the truth as it gets. That's very true and it's fine for those who are satisfied with less than the truth.

:rolleyes:

When I said that "it's as close to truth as it gets", I meant that there is no other method that yields better or more accurate answers.


I'm just not in that group. Doesn't make me any better. It's simply my choice to search for that which is guaranteed to last.

There's no such method.

All that is my belief

Yes. All that is just your belief. A belief that is demonstrably incorrect.

and I understand probably not yours. Isn't choice a wonderful thing?

In this case, no.
It's not a choice. It's being irrational.


Also: you still didn't address the actual point. That point was: if these stories are meant literally, then these stories are demonstrably wrong.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Having been told that very think over and over, it just may be that I don't know how to argue.

If you are told that over and over, perhaps you should reflect on it?

I just wonder if I'm the only one here in that boat.

I'm sure you aren't.
The question is: does it bother you that you employ a double standard?
Do you think it is wise? Do you think this will help you from coming to an accurate worldview or will it rather make sure that you get it wrong?
And, does it bother you to believe false things due to invalid logic / reasoning?

Off course, if you don't care about holding false or unjustified beliefs ...

As for me, I like to believe as many true things as possible and the least false things possible.
I value accuracy.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Well, maybe you could tell me why they don't believe:

Isa 38:18,

For the grave cannot praise thee, death can [not] celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.​

Ps 6:5,

For in death [there is] no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?
Eccl 9:10,

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for [there is] no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
There are others, but these should suffice for now. Again, where's the need to "interpret" these verses. Why not just take it for what it says? Then again, how can you discount the 100% opposite statements of God and the devil?

Gen 2:17,

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen 3:4,

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
I just can't help but see the churches are more aligned with the devil. I don't understand it, but there it is.

One day Jesus told the religious leaders that they were making the scriptures of no effect by their tradition. Read Matthew 5 if you want the whole story. I think a very salient point in this story is the fact that Jesus was talking to the religious leaders. It was those leaders who taught the next generation of leaders who taught the next generation, all the way to our modern days.

No. I don't have any special knowledge. All I do is read what's written and not what's preached from the pulpits. I guess I'm just lucky that I can get past the traditions and see the simplicity of the scriptures. Any accolades go to God, not me.
I don't care at all why christian denominations read the same text and believe different things about it.

I'm just saying... they are as convinced as you are that they are right and you are wrong.
From the sidelines, it looks like people fighting a war with action figures.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I can only tell you what the scriptures say.

And I'm sure you'll focus on all the nice bits and completely ignore the reprehensible bits. Just like all those other people that come to my door to tell me about "the good news".


There is such a thing as God's love. It is called agape in Greek. It is said to not cause any ill to one's neighbor. I don't see how doing no ill to one's neighbor would do anything but good in this world. We certainly don't do that now.

As I said, this is not dependent on anything religious at all. It's not even original to christianity.

Just about every society that ever existed, even the bad ones, came up with some variation of the so-called "golden" rule. It's common sense.

Maybe you required an iron age book to inform you about this, but I sure didn't.
All it takes is a bit of empathy and 2 seconds of thought to realise that in a cooperative society where we will have to share space, being nice to one another is probably a good idea.

Tell me honestly....
Do you really believe that if your bible didn't say this, that people wouldn't have any reason to be nice to one another? Be honest now.....

But the rub is this, one must be born again in order to have such love.

Demonstrably and ridiculously false.


It can't be had in the secular realm.

Demonstrably and ridiculously false.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
If you are told that over and over, perhaps you should reflect on it?



I'm sure you aren't.
The question is: does it bother you that you employ a double standard?
Do you think it is wise? Do you think this will help you from coming to an accurate worldview or will it rather make sure that you get it wrong?
And, does it bother you to believe false things due to invalid logic / reasoning?

Off course, if you don't care about holding false or unjustified beliefs ...

As for me, I like to believe as many true things as possible and the least false things possible.
I value accuracy.
You've not addressed one single scripture I've quoted. You ask me a question, I answer it from the scriptures in such a way that it ought to give anyone pause for thought, and you just come back to tell me I'm this, or I'm that. Come on, I know you are better than that.

So do you see why I might have said the churches are wrong about the dead floating around looking after their earth bound relatives? If not, what was unclear about the verses that I think make it quite clear that dead is really, really dead?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
No, it's historical fact.

No. There is no "history" before 4000 years ago. despite the fact writing (a means to record history) was invented 5000 years ago there is no history until 4000 years ago. Calling people before 4000 years ago superstitious sun addled bumpkins is a belief based on no evidence at all and contradicted by real evidence. You BELIEVE we are the crown of creation and the crown was invented by science.

Modern science is demonstrably ridiculously better at answering questions.

...Than what? ..,.Reading tea leaves?

This is why 2 centuries of science trippled life expectancy and enabled us to fly to the moon.

If we're so damn smart and science is so omniscient than why is life expectancy now decreasing exactly as I predicted 15 years ago? Look and See Science and a failed educational system should get most of the blame but corruption, bigotry, and stupidity are sufficient explanation.

Modern science accomplishes more in only a few decades then "other methods" managed to accomplish in many millenia.

Modern science is afraid to figure out how they built the great pyramids and couldn't duplicate it in a century.

The math theoretical physicists use today didn't even exist back then.

Irrelevant. Logic is logic.

No. Logic, much like common sense actually, pretty much can only take into account things you already know about. Premise + premise = conclusion. The premises are things that are known. Before we knew about quantum mechanics, logic (or common sense) wouldn't lead to a conclusion that things could be in 2 places at once. Logic (or common sense) wouldn't lead to a conclusion that the flow of time slows down relative to an observer influenced by speed / gravity.

"Known" is very ephemeral. In the 1860's surgeons all knew washing their hands was a waste of time as their patients were dying of disease or blood loss. Instead they died of infection.

Incidentally ancient science was aware of germs without ever observing one directly.

This is just preaching and completely besides the point you are replying to.

Evolution is change in individuals and I simply cited groups of individuals which have "evolved" over 40,000 years.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
No. The evidence stays the same.
What might change is the explanation of said evidence, as more evidence comes in.

It's called "learning" and "progress".
I was thinking about evidence changing as more facts are discovered. But even if that is not that case and it is, as you suggest, the explanation that changes, the net result is the same; what we thought was the case is not really the case at all.

On the other hand,

1Pet 1:24-25,

24 For all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

*That would include nature, and, almost sorry to say, science.

25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.​
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
If you are told that over and over, perhaps you should reflect on it?
I don't really think it's me. It is more of the emotional responses that tend to arise when scriptures are the topic of discussion. Even more so than politics in my experience.[/QUOTE]
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
I don't care at all why christian denominations read the same text and believe different things about it.

I'm just saying... they are as convinced as you are that they are right and you are wrong.
From the sidelines, it looks like people fighting a war with action figures.
You sure sounded like you cared when you asked the question. Do you not care about any of my replies?
 
Top