theists attack atheism because they are insecure

[Grumpuss]

Quite a few, as well as evidence from archeology. Sorry if the facts don't agree with your superstition.

Perhaps you could list them, please?

 

[Desert Snake]

One who believes in the existence of one or more gods

, subjective,

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps you could list them, please?

Well, you can begin with the following books:

The Archaeology of Ancient Isreal, by Ammon Ben-Tor

Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, by Amihai Mazar

A History of Ancient Egypt, by Nicolas Grimal


All of these give references to research literature, if you want to pursue the matter.

 

[Grumpuss]

Well, you can begin with the following books:

The Archaeology of Ancient Isreal, by Ammon Ben-Tor

Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, by Amihai Mazar

A History of Ancient Egypt, by Nicolas Grimal


All of these give references to research literature, if you want to pursue the matter.

Sorry, but no.

The texts you listed may provide alternative histories in the form of conjecture, but all were written recently. The Bible dates to at least 3,000 years old.

I'm willing to believe that some events in the Old Testament are murky. The Exodus, for example, does not appear to be a single event. But slaves the Jews were, as Egypt frequently took slaves. As for Jericho- what is your source of history there: that you don't like the Jews and therefore they couldn't have reconquered Israel and Judea- because you don't want them to have? Is Joshua an invented character in Jewish mythology?

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry, but no.

The texts you listed may provide alternative histories in the form of conjecture, but all were written recently. The Bible dates to at least 3,000 years old.

I'm willing to believe that some events in the Old Testament are murky. The Exodus, for example, does not appear to be a single event. But slaves the Jews were, as Egypt frequently took slaves. As for Jericho- what is your source of history there: that you don't like the Jews and therefore they couldn't have reconquered Israel and Judea- because you don't want them to have? Is Joshua an invented character in Jewish mythology?

The books are the results of archaeological research. That goes way beyond the textual evidence. The fact of the matter, based on the excavations of Jericho, is that The description in the Bible is simply not what happened to any extent. I don't know whether Joshua is fictional or not. But the story of the fall of Jericho is.

I'm not sure why you think I don't like Jews.

The evidence from archaeology is that the Jews lived in the area of Canaan and did not come from Egypt. The cultural history is in Canaan, not in Egypt.

 

[Grumpuss]

The books are the results of archaeological research. That goes way beyond the textual evidence. The fact of the matter, based on the excavations of Jericho, is that The description in the Bible is simply not what happened to any extent. I don't know whether Joshua is fictional or not. But the story of the fall of Jericho is.

And? Based on the excavations of Troy, it's unclear, even doubtful when and if the Trojan War occurred. The point is you need documentation from historians from around the time the events occurred. Otherwise, it's just conjecture and theory based on inconclusive (or in your presented case- imagined) evidence.

I'm not sure why you think I don't like Jews.

Why else would you slam the Tanakh as a source of history?

The evidence from archaeology is that the Jews lived in the area of Canaan and did not come from Egypt. The cultural history is in Canaan, not in Egypt.

You're basing this on whether or not there are a significant number of Egyptian items unearthed from the area. It's not as though archaeologists have DNA to make that case. Refugees typically carry little with them, as can be seen from modern examples.

 

[Polymath257]

And? Based on the excavations of Troy, it's unclear, even doubtful when and if the Trojan War occurred. The point is you need documentation from historians from around the time the events occurred. Otherwise, it's just conjecture and theory based on inconclusive (or in your presented case- imagined) evidence.

Both are required and important. The evidence from archaeology can show the biases of the writings and the writings can inform what is discovered by archeology.

Why else would you slam the Tanakh as a source of history?

It is a *source*. But it is one of many and should be treated just as any other source would be. As with *all* writings, the context, the biases of the authors, the motivations of the authors, and whether the authors could have the information they state are always things to be considered. And the writings should always be compared to the other physical evidence before conclusions are made. Many societies invent origin myths. The Tanakh is one such set of origin myths.

You're basing this on whether or not there are a significant number of Egyptian items unearthed from the area. It's not as though archaeologists have DNA to make that case. Refugees typically carry little with them, as can be seen from modern examples.

Not just. It is also based on digs in Canaan showing that the Israelites were native to the area, from historical records from both the Egyptians and other societies of the area and from the more general archeology from the area.

 

[YmirGF]

All a UFO is is an Unidentified Flying Object. That there are people who can't identify what's flying around shouldn't be an issue. If you don't know what that particular bird is flying around your backyard, it's an unidentified flying object, no?

Hehehe. Yep, UFO is actually a vague catch-all term due to our inability to discern a given object. Here at Chez Ymir though UFO is colorfully stretched to include any unknown $&#@ing object and not just flying ones. OK, me bad.

 

[Grumpuss]

Both are required and important. The evidence from archaeology can show the biases of the writings and the writings can inform what is discovered by archeology.

Except it isn't absolute. And often is biased itself.

It is a *source*. But it is one of many and should be treated just as any other source would be. As with *all* writings, the context, the biases of the authors, the motivations of the authors, and whether the authors could have the information they state are always things to be considered. And the writings should always be compared to the other physical evidence before conclusions are made. Many societies invent origin myths. The Tanakh is one such set of origin myths.

Except there are no competing documents written anywhere close to the same period that offer the conclusions you so willingly embrace. Why would a set of mythology contain so much that is true? The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. The First and Second Temples really existed and were destroyed. Jesus really did live and die.

Not just. It is also based on digs in Canaan showing that the Israelites were native to the area, from historical records from both the Egyptians and other societies of the area and from the more general archeology from the area.

The Jews were relatively few in number, and were known from corroborating historical accounts to emigrate to neighboring lands in times of strife. They were repeatedly enslaved and taken away, including by the Egyptians. They didn't just live quietly in Judea and Israel all along until one day becoming militaristic and establishing a modern kingdom.

But hey- you have all the vast archaeological evidence of... what- lack of pig bones or something?

 

[Polymath257]

Except it isn't absolute. And often is biased itself.

Is it more biased than the historical writings? No. because of peer-review, it is much less so.

Except there are no competing documents written anywhere close to the same period that offer the conclusions you so willingly embrace. Why would a set of mythology contain so much that is true? The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. The First and Second Temples really existed and were destroyed. Jesus really did live and die.

The Biblical narrative is good from about 1000BC forward and quite poor before that. Prior material is clearly legendary and part of an origin myth. Such are quite common (Rome has some good origin myths also).

The Jews were relatively few in number, and were known from corroborating historical accounts to emigrate to neighboring lands in times of strife. They were repeatedly enslaved and taken away, including by the Egyptians. They didn't just live quietly in Judea and Israel all along until one day becoming militaristic and establishing a modern kingdom.

But hey- you have all the vast archaeological evidence of... what- lack of pig bones or something?

Thousands of people roaming a smallish area for 40 years would have left many detectable traces.

 

[Grumpuss]

Is it more biased than the historical writings? No. because of peer-review, it is much less so.

Sure. Archaeology has never been more biased than a pure book, written by committee.

The Biblical narrative is good from about 1000BC forward and quite poor before that. Prior material is clearly legendary and part of an origin myth. Such are quite common (Rome has some good origin myths also).

How wonderful- you throw out the only historical document based on quality concerns, and then substitute an even poorer one. I can only speculate as to why you would want to do such a thing.

Thousands of people roaming a smallish area for 40 years would have left many detectable traces.

Which traces would you be referring to? If you've got anything other than the lack of pig bones, I'm all ears.

The truth is that genetically, Jews and Canaanites (as well as many other Semitic peoples) are very similar. They also lived very similarly, having the same professions and such, in the same geographic area.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure. Archaeology has never been more biased than a pure book, written by committee.

That is laughable. A book written by committee is probably the *most* biased version you can get: it inevitably goes to what the rulers want.

How wonderful- you throw out the only historical document based on quality concerns, and then substitute an even poorer one. I can only speculate as to why you would want to do such a thing.

On the contrary, I treat this book as I would any other from that time period (or any other, for that matter): as a product of the place and time in that society. Because it deals with events prior to when it was written, it inevitably gets things wrong and the biases are always in favor of the society in which it is written. That is just as true of the Egyptian or Hittite writings as it is of those in the Bible. ALL have to be investigated and interpreted in light of context and archeology.

You take a single text and elevate it to the status where it cannot be questioned, even if the data on the ground is contrary.

Which traces would you be referring to? If you've got anything other than the lack of pig bones, I'm all ears.

Remains of any food eaten, other discards: clothes, tents, animal by-products. the same as for any other archeological site for a nomadic society.

The truth is that genetically, Jews and Canaanites (as well as many other Semitic peoples) are very similar. They also lived very similarly, having the same professions and such, in the same geographic area.

And the worship of YHWH as a mountain deity is from Canaan. The story of Moses shows YHWH to be such a mountain God.

 

[Grumpuss]

That is laughable. A book written by committee is probably the *most* biased version you can get: it inevitably goes to what the rulers want.

That's not the issue with a book written by committee. One author can be biased. Several authors being biased requires some sort of conspiracy.

On the contrary, I treat this book as I would any other from that time period (or any other, for that matter): as a product of the place and time in that society. Because it deals with events prior to when it was written, it inevitably gets things wrong and the biases are always in favor of the society in which it is written. That is just as true of the Egyptian or Hittite writings as it is of those in the Bible. ALL have to be investigated and interpreted in light of context and archeology.

Archaeology is a supporting science. You can infer things from it, but cannot draw conclusions from it alone. Fossils of mastodons would be worthless without modern elephants, otherwise the existence of a trunk would be unknown. You have a history of Jews in the Middle East, combined with the knowledge that the Egyptians took slaves. Yet, you want to throw that out because you can't stomach some or all the magical mumbo-jumbo in the Bible.

You take a single text and elevate it to the status where it cannot be questioned, even if the data on the ground is contrary.

You have no data on the ground. You started with a position that the Bible can't be believed at all, and now search for confirmation in the non-existence of animal bones in a geographic area. That's not science.

Remains of any food eaten, other discards: clothes, tents, animal by-products. the same as for any other archeological site for a nomadic society.

Show me the references to the specific Jewish items found. Pray indulge me with your vast acquired knowledge of what you can tell from clothes and tents or whatever it is you're claiming can be found in 4,000 year-old soil.

And the worship of YHWH as a mountain deity is from Canaan. The story of Moses shows YHWH to be such a mountain God.

Wow. Is Jesus an alien too?

 

[Polymath257]

That's not the issue with a book written by committee. One author can be biased. Several authors being biased requires some sort of conspiracy.

Not at all. It just requires a common bias.

Archaeology is a supporting science. You can infer things from it, but cannot draw conclusions from it alone. Fossils of mastodons would be worthless without modern elephants, otherwise the existence of a trunk would be unknown.

Not true. You can learn of the existence of the trunk from considering the attachment sites on the bones of the supporting muscles.

You have a history of Jews in the Middle East, combined with the knowledge that the Egyptians took slaves. Yet, you want to throw that out because you can't stomach some or all the magical mumbo-jumbo in the Bible.

Egyptians took slaves of those it conquered. And yes, it conquered the lands of Canaan for a while. That doesn't support the Exodus story. Now, it is possible that the Exodus story is a confusion of the Hyksos domination of Egypt along with some other legends.

You have no data on the ground. You started with a position that the Bible can't be believed at all, and now search for confirmation in the non-existence of animal bones in a geographic area. That's not science.

You misinterpret my position. It can be relied on in just the same ways as any other text. It has to be taken in context and with an awareness of the biases of those who wrote it.

Show me the references to the specific Jewish items found. Pray indulge me with your vast acquired knowledge of what you can tell from clothes and tents or whatever it is you're claiming can be found in 4,000 year-old soil.

Sorry, at most 3000 years old. The story back dates a legend. But the point is that there isn't evidence of such crossings. That is why the Exodus account is not supported by most scholars of the time.

Wow. Is Jesus an alien too?

Why would you suggest that? An itinerant preacher saying the types of things attributed to Jesus is fairly likely in that area and that time. We know of several others. After that, legends grow.

 

[Grumpuss]

Not at all. It just requires a common bias.

Not very likely. I'd more trust a few dozen contemporary authors writing about what they saw in their lives instead of a single archaeological conclusion made by looking back a thousand years and taking guesses.

Not true. You can learn of the existence of the trunk from considering the attachment sites on the bones of the supporting muscles.

Nope. The noses could just as easily look like a giant sloth's or ours. Likewise, we don't know what color the dinosaurs were, or how trilobites communicated.

Egyptians took slaves of those it conquered. And yes, it conquered the lands of Canaan for a while. That doesn't support the Exodus story. Now, it is possible that the Exodus story is a confusion of the Hyksos domination of Egypt along with some other legends.

Did you ever consider that the details of Exodus were exaggerated, and the main story is correct? Perhaps Exodus occurred over a period of decades, rather than a gigantic caravan. That would better support the wandering-in-the-desert part, which is never a wise idea.

You misinterpret my position. It can be relied on in just the same ways as any other text. It has to be taken in context and with an awareness of the biases of those who wrote it.

There are no other historical texts. It's not perfect: it lacks exact dates and some other details. But the people who wrote their own histories, understood the importance of doing so. We have clearer records of the Jews than we do of many of the various cultures that conquered them.

Sorry, at most 3000 years old. The story back dates a legend. But the point is that there isn't evidence of such crossings. That is why the Exodus account is not supported by most scholars of the time.

Oh? And what scholars are those? I have Herodotus and the Bible. You have... the lack of items in the dirt dug up yesterday.

Why would you suggest that? An itinerant preacher saying the types of things attributed to Jesus is fairly likely in that area and that time. We know of several others. After that, legends grow.

I'm detecting a wave of Antisemitism here from you. I'm just not sure why...

 

[Polymath257]

Not very likely. I'd more trust a few dozen contemporary authors writing about what they saw in their lives instead of a single archaeological conclusion made by looking back a thousand years and taking guesses.

Perhaps, although I would understand their writings would have their social spin on them. But I would prefer archeology to the views of those 'contemporaries' writing about things 1000 years before.

Nope. The noses could just as easily look like a giant sloth's or ours.

Nope. The bones show how muscles are attached.

Likewise, we don't know what color the dinosaurs were, or how trilobites communicated.

Very different. The color of skin is usually not fossilized. We do have some evidence of color in one or two cases. As for trilobites, it probably differed from species to species.

Did you ever consider that the details of Exodus were exaggerated, and the main story is correct? Perhaps Exodus occurred over a period of decades, rather than a gigantic caravan. That would better support the wandering-in-the-desert part, which is never a wise idea.

Or it could be a cultural memory of the Egyptian empire retreating from the region of modern Israel.

There are no other historical texts. It's not perfect: it lacks exact dates and some other details. But the people who wrote their own histories, understood the importance of doing so. We have clearer records of the Jews than we do of many of the various cultures that conquered them.

Oh? And what scholars are those? I have Herodotus and the Bible. You have... the lack of items in the dirt dug up yesterday.

if you have read Herodotus, you know that he was quite gullible. Remember the stories of the flying reptiles in Egypt? How about the critters in ancient Afghanistan?

I'm detecting a wave of Antisemitism here from you. I'm just not sure why...

I've no idea.

 

[Grumpuss]

Perhaps, although I would understand their writings would have their social spin on them. But I would prefer archeology to the views of those 'contemporaries' writing about things 1000 years before.

Nope. The bones show how muscles are attached.

Wrong. You would have no idea what the appendage might look like, how long it is, how much it weighed, or if it was articulated.

Very different. The color of skin is usually not fossilized. We do have some evidence of color in one or two cases. As for trilobites, it probably differed from species to species.

You have an amazing amount of knowledge for things it's impossible to know. Please tell me where this "evidence of color" for dinosaur skin is.

Or it could be a cultural memory of the Egyptian empire retreating from the region of modern Israel.

It could be, except that it was written down, at the time it happened. Not 500 years later, not 2500 years later.

if you have read Herodotus, you know that he was quite gullible. Remember the stories of the flying reptiles in Egypt? How about the critters in ancient Afghanistan?

You have a pretty low opinion of anyone who lived before the industrial age. I wonder what such people would think of you, who thinks everything done without iPhones or the Internet is probably a lie.

I've no idea.

It was rhetorical. You seem to dislike Jews. Perhaps ask yourself what causes this emotion.

 

[Polymath257]

Dinosaur pigmentation:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144422.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160916134251.htm
Dinosaur Skin Color Revealed

The writings from the early Old Testament come from the time period of 900BC or so. And a 500 year difference *would* be problematic. I wouldn't want to rely on an oral tradition for the history of 1500 now.

I have much more respect for Judaism than, say, for the other Abrahamic religions. I have attended and enjoyed many Seders. And the intellectual traditions of Judaism are to be commended.

Why you think I am anti-semitic simply because I subject the Old Testament to exactly the same treatment I would any other text is beyond me.

 

[Polymath257]

And? Based on the excavations of Troy, it's unclear, even doubtful when and if the Trojan War occurred. The point is you need documentation from historians from around the time the events occurred. Otherwise, it's just conjecture and theory based on inconclusive (or in your presented case- imagined) evidence.

And do I think the Trojan War happened as described in the Iliad? Of course not! For example, I reject that a Golden Apple disputed over by the Gods was the origin of that war.

You seem to think that I treat the Old Testament differently than I would some other document.

So, for example, the early books of Livy's history of Rome are clearly a mixture of mythology and patriotic propaganda. Horatio at the bridge is very unlikely to be a true story.

I wouldn't take a Hittite account of events 500 years before the writings any more seriously than I take the account in Exodus. There may well be some historical value to be gleaned from both, but there would also be a lot of cruft. Separating the value from the cruft is the work of archeology.

 

[Grumpuss]

Dinosaur pigmentation:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144422.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160916134251.htm
Dinosaur Skin Color Revealed

Feathers are skin?

The writings from the early Old Testament come from the time period of 900BC or so. And a 500 year difference *would* be problematic. I wouldn't want to rely on an oral tradition for the history of 1500 now.

Yet that's exactly what you're doing by considering alternative sources to Biblical history: taking modern agglomerations of oral traditions that don't include Biblical canon. Great if they were contemporary, but they're not.

I have much more respect for Judaism than, say, for the other Abrahamic religions. I have attended and enjoyed many Seders. And the intellectual traditions of Judaism are to be commended.

Why you think I am anti-semitic simply because I subject the Old Testament to exactly the same treatment I would any other text is beyond me.

You go out of your way to denigrate Jews and their history, with no real basis for doing so. It's perplexing. I'm not Jewish, but you have some real animus there. Palestinian supporter, maybe?