daft
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by daft on Mar 23, 2020 7:17:36 GMT -5
you either believe the bible or you don't...pretty simple even for a scientist to understand i think.... Another way of putting it is as follows, You either believe in scientific facts or you have faith in the bible. This is exactly what I had in mind when I started this post. And as time goes on, evidence continues to mount that the Bible story is comforting, but deeply flawed. To exercise absolute belief in scripture is to disregard facts that are literally staring us in the face.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 23, 2020 13:38:10 GMT -5
Have you ever noticed that people who "believe the bible" disagree sometimes? That's because there are infinite differences in interpretation. My faith is not in the bible, but my faith is found in the bible. you should remember that then when taking an atheist position over a brothers understanding of genesis...oh right you don't do that do you.... Fundamentalism creates Atheists. If you try to interpret the bible literally you're heading down a dead-end street. You'll eventually have to morph into an Atheist to retain your sanity. When you can see the bible as a spiritual book it will be much more valuable to you, and save you from a lot of grief.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2020 15:07:07 GMT -5
you should remember that then when taking an atheist position over a brothers understanding of genesis...oh right you don't do that do you.... Fundamentalism creates Atheists. If you try to interpret the bible literally you're heading down a dead-end street. You'll eventually have to morph into an Atheist to retain your sanity. When you can see the bible as a spiritual book it will be much more valuable to you, and save you from a lot of grief. wrong, wrong and wrong...the bible has both literal and metaphorical components and some verses have both....nice try though
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Mar 23, 2020 15:14:51 GMT -5
Fundamentalism creates Atheists. If you try to interpret the bible literally you're heading down a dead-end street. You'll eventually have to morph into an Atheist to retain your sanity. When you can see the bible as a spiritual book it will be much more valuable to you, and save you from a lot of grief. wrong, wrong and wrong...the bible has both literal and metaphorical components and some verses have both....nice try though ** Yes, very true according to people spiritual level of understanding and interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 23, 2020 17:01:24 GMT -5
Fundamentalism creates Atheists. If you try to interpret the bible literally you're heading down a dead-end street. You'll eventually have to morph into an Atheist to retain your sanity. When you can see the bible as a spiritual book it will be much more valuable to you, and save you from a lot of grief. wrong, wrong and wrong...the bible has both literal and metaphorical components and some verses have both....nice try though Your going to take things in the Bible as literal only if they line up with you WANT or NEED to be literal. For example, Jesus resurrection is certainly not literal but because your required to believe it as part of core Christian belief, you read it as literal...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 23, 2020 18:10:20 GMT -5
wrong, wrong and wrong...the bible has both literal and metaphorical components and some verses have both....nice try though Your going to take things in the Bible as literal only if they line up with you WANT or NEED to be literal. For example, Jesus resurrection is certainly not literal but because your required to believe it as part of core Christian belief, you read it as literal... It's a cherry pick at best.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Mar 23, 2020 18:38:49 GMT -5
Your going to take things in the Bible as literal only if they line up with you WANT or NEED to be literal. For example, Jesus resurrection is certainly not literal but because your required to believe it as part of core Christian belief, you read it as literal... It's a cherry pick at best. When I see folks discussing these sort of issues its like they have never read a single thing I have posted here (or if they have, they have never bothered to offer fact why I was wrong). So lets do an experiment. What is the difference between stories of King Arthur, Aesop"s fables, the story of Gilgamesh and the Gosples?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2020 20:31:15 GMT -5
It's a cherry pick at best. When I see folks discussing these sort of issues its like they have never read a single thing I have posted here (or if they have, they have never bothered to offer fact why I was wrong). So lets do an experiment. What is the difference between stories of King Arthur, Aesop"s fables, the story of Gilgamesh and the Gosples? well king arthur may have been a real king called "Artognou" up for debate... i think the fables in aesops title tells you a lot... gilgamesh was loosely based on noah and the ark... the gospels are based on the real life of Jesus Christ...
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Mar 23, 2020 20:41:48 GMT -5
When I see folks discussing these sort of issues its like they have never read a single thing I have posted here (or if they have, they have never bothered to offer fact why I was wrong). So lets do an experiment. What is the difference between stories of King Arthur, Aesop"s fables, the story of Gilgamesh and the Gosples? well king arthur may have been a real king called "Artognou" up for debate... i think the fables in aesops title tells you a lot... gilgamesh was loosely based on noah and the ark... the gospels are based on the real life of Jesus Christ... well Wally you almost got it correct. Noah was based on the Gilgamesh not the other way around. And I have never seen you offer anything close to fact to support your last one. As I posted elsewhere at best the Gospels are propagandize and at worst a Roman device to take the fight out of the Jews.
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 23, 2020 20:51:38 GMT -5
It's a cherry pick at best. When I see folks discussing these sort of issues its like they have never read a single thing I have posted here (or if they have, they have never bothered to offer fact why I was wrong). So lets do an experiment. What is the difference between stories of King Arthur, Aesop"s fables, the story of Gilgamesh and the Gosples? Sometimes one needs to dumb things down in order to make a point. And our little discussion was aimed at Wally, not anything you’ve said. Wally doesn’t take scholarly views very well, he would rather just say your wrong. I’m well aware that a thorough study of the bible involves taking an historical approach, and being a literary citric and at times a religious and cultural critic. From my understanding, the bible is full of myths, historical narrative, fictions, laws, prophecies, proverbs, hymns etc. Many things come into play when determining how one is going to interpret all of that..
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 23, 2020 20:53:30 GMT -5
When I see folks discussing these sort of issues its like they have never read a single thing I have posted here (or if they have, they have never bothered to offer fact why I was wrong). So lets do an experiment. What is the difference between stories of King Arthur, Aesop"s fables, the story of Gilgamesh and the Gosples? well king arthur may have been a real king called "Artognou" up for debate... i think the fables in aesops title tells you a lot... gilgamesh was loosely based on noah and the ark... the gospels are based on the real life of Jesus Christ... I suggest you do some research of the story of Gilgamesh... Noah and the ark came after and that’s a fact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2020 22:14:24 GMT -5
well king arthur may have been a real king called "Artognou" up for debate... i think the fables in aesops title tells you a lot... gilgamesh was loosely based on noah and the ark... the gospels are based on the real life of Jesus Christ... well Wally you almost got it correct. Noah was based on the Gilgamesh not the other way around. And I have never seen you offer anything close to fact to support your last one. As I posted elsewhere at best the Gospels are propagandize and at worst a Roman device to take the fight out of the Jews. the oral story of noah was around long before the written story of gilgamesh....and the only reason you think there is no fact's on jesus is you ignore the testimonies of the gospels and about 7 or so references from outside the bible.. and just because you were born 1967 years too late for other evidences just means too bad so sad...
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Mar 23, 2020 22:45:23 GMT -5
well Wally you almost got it correct. Noah was based on the Gilgamesh not the other way around. And I have never seen you offer anything close to fact to support your last one. As I posted elsewhere at best the Gospels are propagandize and at worst a Roman device to take the fight out of the Jews. the oral story of noah was around long before the written story of gilgamesh....and the only reason you think there is no fact's on jesus is you ignore the testimonies of the gospels and about 7 or so references from outside the bible.. and just because you were born 1967 years too late for other evidences just means too bad so sad... How could that be when there were no Jews to past around the oral story at that time? The Babylonian epic Gilgamesh was written around 2000 BCE and has survived in several versions. and they got it from the Ubraid's (which I wrote about a few days ago) It predates the scriptural story. A tradition dates the revelation of the Bible to 2448 after creation, or about 1312 BCE. Scholars offer a date of around 1200 BCE. but here we are back to the young earth flaw again. Which just has so much proof against. All one has to do is read google news to find almost ever day some find is reported that drives the history of mankind back further and further. As time goes by the Old Testament is gaining a not so long ago creation date for it composition including the tribal oral traditions.
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 23, 2020 22:47:23 GMT -5
well Wally you almost got it correct. Noah was based on the Gilgamesh not the other way around. And I have never seen you offer anything close to fact to support your last one. As I posted elsewhere at best the Gospels are propagandize and at worst a Roman device to take the fight out of the Jews. the oral story of noah was around long before the written story of gilgamesh....and the only reason you think there is no fact's on jesus is you ignore the testimonies of the gospels and about 7 or so references from outside the bible.. and just because you were born 1967 years too late for other evidences just means too bad so sad... Wrong. Let’s put things in order shall we.. the first such story of a flood was by the Sumerian’s, dating somewhere around 2700 BCE. It features man named Ziusudra who survives the flood. Then several hundred years later there is a version with a person who survived the flood named Atrahasis. Around 1800 was the epic of Gilgamesh and it is Utnapishtim who survives the flood and tells the story to the epic’s protagonist, Gilgamesh. The biblical story of Noah and the flood came much later and was written down sometime between 1200 and 900 BCE. My source for this information is from Eric H. Cline in his book, biblical archaeology. While you can blur the image of all this amongst theological nonsense, you can’t change history..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2020 23:03:38 GMT -5
the oral story of noah was around long before the written story of gilgamesh....and the only reason you think there is no fact's on jesus is you ignore the testimonies of the gospels and about 7 or so references from outside the bible.. and just because you were born 1967 years too late for other evidences just means too bad so sad... How could that be when there were no Jews to past around the oral story at that time? The Babylonian epic Gilgamesh was written around 2000 BCE and has survived in several versions. and they got it from the Ubraid's (which I wrote about a few days ago) It predates the scriptural story. A tradition dates the revelation of the Bible to 2448 after creation, or about 1312 BCE. Scholars offer a date of around 1200 BCE. but here we are back to the young earth flaw again. Which just has so much proof against. All one has to do is read google news to find almost ever day some find is reported that drives the history of mankind back further and further. As time goes by the Old Testament is gaining a not so long ago creation date for it composition including the tribal oral traditions. ummm noah wasn't a "jew" niether was adam or even those in between those times or even between noah and abraham its not a "jew" reliant story to be honest...the oral traditions were in operation long before 2000 BC what ever the babylonians got they got from earlier oral stories...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2020 23:06:59 GMT -5
the oral story of noah was around long before the written story of gilgamesh....and the only reason you think there is no fact's on jesus is you ignore the testimonies of the gospels and about 7 or so references from outside the bible.. and just because you were born 1967 years too late for other evidences just means too bad so sad... Wrong. Let’s put things in order shall we.. the first such story of a flood was by the Sumerian’s, dating somewhere around 2700 BCE. It features man named Ziusudra who survives the flood. Then several hundred years later there is a version with a person who survived the flood named Atrahasis. Around 1800 was the epic of Gilgamesh and it is Utnapishtim who survives the flood and tells the story to the epic’s protagonist, Gilgamesh. The biblical story of Noah and the flood came much later and was written down sometime between 1200 and 900 BCE. My source for this information is from Eric H. Cline in his book, biblical archaeology. While you can blur the image of all this amongst theological nonsense, you can’t change history.. wrong..written histories came long after the oral ones thats a FACT...
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Mar 23, 2020 23:25:05 GMT -5
How could that be when there were no Jews to past around the oral story at that time? The Babylonian epic Gilgamesh was written around 2000 BCE and has survived in several versions. and they got it from the Ubraid's (which I wrote about a few days ago) It predates the scriptural story. A tradition dates the revelation of the Bible to 2448 after creation, or about 1312 BCE. Scholars offer a date of around 1200 BCE. but here we are back to the young earth flaw again. Which just has so much proof against. All one has to do is read google news to find almost ever day some find is reported that drives the history of mankind back further and further. As time goes by the Old Testament is gaining a not so long ago creation date for it composition including the tribal oral traditions. ummm noah wasn't a "jew" niether was adam or even those in between those times or even between noah and abraham its not a "jew" reliant story to be honest...the oral traditions were in operation long before 2000 BC what ever the babylonians got they got from earlier oral stories... Well, you caught me out there didn't you? I got mentally lazy and should have said those people who occupied the area lying between the river Nile and Mesopotamia. Surrounded by ancient seats of culture in Egypt and Babylonia, by the deserts of Arabia, and by the highlands of Asia Minor, the land of Canaan (roughly corresponding to modern Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan and Lebanon).
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 23, 2020 23:30:26 GMT -5
Wrong. Let’s put things in order shall we.. the first such story of a flood was by the Sumerian’s, dating somewhere around 2700 BCE. It features man named Ziusudra who survives the flood. Then several hundred years later there is a version with a person who survived the flood named Atrahasis. Around 1800 was the epic of Gilgamesh and it is Utnapishtim who survives the flood and tells the story to the epic’s protagonist, Gilgamesh. The biblical story of Noah and the flood came much later and was written down sometime between 1200 and 900 BCE. My source for this information is from Eric H. Cline in his book, biblical archaeology. While you can blur the image of all this amongst theological nonsense, you can’t change history.. wrong..written histories came long after the oral ones thats a FACT... Remove your theological bias and you will see it for what it is.. history.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2020 23:34:48 GMT -5
wrong..written histories came long after the oral ones thats a FACT... Remove your theological bias and you will see it for what it is.. history. there is nothing theological about stating oral traditions pre-date written history....nice try though...
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 23, 2020 23:41:03 GMT -5
Remove your theological bias and you will see it for what it is.. history. there is nothing theological about stating oral traditions pre-date written history....nice try though... Yes there is, especially in your case, or any Christians for that matter. Much of what history tells us does not line up with theological views. As a Christian you only need to believe the bible as something that is the inspired word of god, no matter now much that view differs from actually reality. Nice try though..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2020 23:49:39 GMT -5
there is nothing theological about stating oral traditions pre-date written history....nice try though... Yes there is, especially in your case, or any Christians for that matter. Much of what history tells us does not line up with theological views. As a Christian you only need to believe the bible as something that is the inspired word of god, no matter now much that view differs from actually reality. Nice try though.. maybe a review of what theological means is in order here?
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Mar 24, 2020 0:18:05 GMT -5
Yes there is, especially in your case, or any Christians for that matter. Much of what history tells us does not line up with theological views. As a Christian you only need to believe the bible as something that is the inspired word of god, no matter now much that view differs from actually reality. Nice try though.. maybe a review of what theological means is in order here? Okay so your really going to make me work for my cookie?
Archaeology reveals the origins of the Jewish people: they did not necessarily leave the Levant. The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel in Canaan is "overwhelming" and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness". Many archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit". Ref - Dever, William G. (2002). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-8028-2126-3.p. 99
A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence that can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness, leading to the suggestion that Iron Age Israel—the kingdoms of Judah and Israel—has its origins in Canaan. Ref - Finkelstein, Israel and Nadav Naaman, eds. (1994). From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Israel Exploration Society. ISBN 978-1-880317-20-4 and - Compare: Ian Shaw; Robert Jameson. Ian Shaw (ed.). A Dictionary of Archaeology (New edition (17 Feb 2002) ed.). Wiley Blackwell. p. 313. ISBN 978-0-631-23583-5.
The Biblical account of the origins of the people of Israel (principally recounted in Numbers, Joshua and Judges) often conflicts with non-Biblical textual sources and with the archaeological evidence for the settlement of Canaan in the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age. [...] Israel is first textually attested as a political entity in Egyptian texts of the late 13th century BC and the Egyptologist Donald Redford argues that the Israelites must have been emerging as a distinct group within the Canaanite culture during the century or so prior to this. It has been suggested that the early Israelites were an oppressed rural group of Canaanites who rebelled against the more urbanized coastal Canaanites (Gottwald 1979). Alternatively, it has been argued that the Israelites were survivors of the decline in the fortunes of Canaan who established themselves in the highlands at the end of the late Bronze Age (Ahlstrom 1986: 27). Redford, however, makes a good case for equating the very earliest Israelites with a semi-nomadic people in the highlands of central Palestine whom the Egyptians called Shasu (Redford 1992:2689-80; although see Stager 1985 for strong arguments against the identification with the Shasu). These Shasu were a persistent thorn in the side of the Ramessid pharaohs' empire in Syria-Palestine, well-attested in Egyptian texts, but their pastoral lifestyle has left scant traces in the archaeological record. By the end of the 13th century BC, however, the Shasu/Israelites were beginning to establish small settlements in the uplands, the architecture of which closely resembles contemporary Canaanite villages.
The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute. Ref - Killebrew, Ann E. (2005). Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300–1100 B.C.E. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. p. 176. ISBN 978-1-58983-097-4. Retrieved August 12,2012.
Much has been made of the scarcity of pig bones at highland sites. Since small quantities of pig bones do appear in Late Bronze Age assemblages, some archaeologists have interpreted this to indicate that the ethnic identity of the highland inhabitants was distinct from Late Bronze Age indigenous peoples (see Finkelstein 1997, 227–230). Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish (1997) advise caution, however, since the lack of pig bones at Iron I highland settlements could be a result of other factors that have little to do with ethnicity.
This then gives a picture of the Israelite's being a small people cut off from the circle of learning from that far older cultures that sounded them.
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 24, 2020 0:30:28 GMT -5
Yes there is, especially in your case, or any Christians for that matter. Much of what history tells us does not line up with theological views. As a Christian you only need to believe the bible as something that is the inspired word of god, no matter now much that view differs from actually reality. Nice try though.. maybe a review of what theological means is in order here? Ok.. the study of the nature of god and religious beliefs. When do you ever study or view the bible outside of this? The only way you view the bible, is “through the study of the nature of god and religious belief”. When it comes to the flood story, you only see it “through the study of the nature of god and religious belief”, regardless of how one can see it through actual history. Take away “study of the nature of god and religious beliefs” that your entire world view is based on, and you will see history in a different, more realistic light. Only then might you realise there are experts in these fields and what they say about these matters shouldn’t be so easily dismissed.. I and many others believe that a study of the bible should be multifaceted, and not just simply a study of the bible..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2020 0:34:34 GMT -5
maybe a review of what theological means is in order here? Okay so your really going to make me work for my cookie?
Archaeology reveals the origins of the Jewish people: they did not necessarily leave the Levant. The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel in Canaan is "overwhelming" and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness". Many archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit". Ref - Dever, William G. (2002). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-8028-2126-3.p. 99
A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence that can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness, leading to the suggestion that Iron Age Israel—the kingdoms of Judah and Israel—has its origins in Canaan. Ref - Finkelstein, Israel and Nadav Naaman, eds. (1994). From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Israel Exploration Society. ISBN 978-1-880317-20-4 and - Compare: Ian Shaw; Robert Jameson. Ian Shaw (ed.). A Dictionary of Archaeology (New edition (17 Feb 2002) ed.). Wiley Blackwell. p. 313. ISBN 978-0-631-23583-5. The Biblical account of the origins of the people of Israel (principally recounted in Numbers, Joshua and Judges) often conflicts with non-Biblical textual sources and with the archaeological evidence for the settlement of Canaan in the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age. [...] Israel is first textually attested as a political entity in Egyptian texts of the late 13th century BC and the Egyptologist Donald Redford argues that the Israelites must have been emerging as a distinct group within the Canaanite culture during the century or so prior to this. It has been suggested that the early Israelites were an oppressed rural group of Canaanites who rebelled against the more urbanized coastal Canaanites (Gottwald 1979). Alternatively, it has been argued that the Israelites were survivors of the decline in the fortunes of Canaan who established themselves in the highlands at the end of the late Bronze Age (Ahlstrom 1986: 27). Redford, however, makes a good case for equating the very earliest Israelites with a semi-nomadic people in the highlands of central Palestine whom the Egyptians called Shasu (Redford 1992:2689-80; although see Stager 1985 for strong arguments against the identification with the Shasu). These Shasu were a persistent thorn in the side of the Ramessid pharaohs' empire in Syria-Palestine, well-attested in Egyptian texts, but their pastoral lifestyle has left scant traces in the archaeological record. By the end of the 13th century BC, however, the Shasu/Israelites were beginning to establish small settlements in the uplands, the architecture of which closely resembles contemporary Canaanite villages.
The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute. Ref - Killebrew, Ann E. (2005). Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300–1100 B.C.E. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. p. 176. ISBN 978-1-58983-097-4. Retrieved August 12,2012.
Much has been made of the scarcity of pig bones at highland sites. Since small quantities of pig bones do appear in Late Bronze Age assemblages, some archaeologists have interpreted this to indicate that the ethnic identity of the highland inhabitants was distinct from Late Bronze Age indigenous peoples (see Finkelstein 1997, 227–230). Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish (1997) advise caution, however, since the lack of pig bones at Iron I highland settlements could be a result of other factors that have little to do with ethnicity. well we all know what i think of "biblical scholars" right? from abraham to moses they were known as the hebrews...it was after moses had died and joshua took over that the word "jew(s)" came about 2 Kings 16:6(bob taught me that, thanks bob)...so we're still back to it wasn't a jewish oral Noah story BEFORE that time period....no cookie for you...
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 24, 2020 0:38:50 GMT -5
Okay so your really going to make me work for my cookie?
Archaeology reveals the origins of the Jewish people: they did not necessarily leave the Levant. The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel in Canaan is "overwhelming" and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness". Many archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit". Ref - Dever, William G. (2002). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-8028-2126-3.p. 99
A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence that can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness, leading to the suggestion that Iron Age Israel—the kingdoms of Judah and Israel—has its origins in Canaan. Ref - Finkelstein, Israel and Nadav Naaman, eds. (1994). From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Israel Exploration Society. ISBN 978-1-880317-20-4 and - Compare: Ian Shaw; Robert Jameson. Ian Shaw (ed.). A Dictionary of Archaeology (New edition (17 Feb 2002) ed.). Wiley Blackwell. p. 313. ISBN 978-0-631-23583-5. The Biblical account of the origins of the people of Israel (principally recounted in Numbers, Joshua and Judges) often conflicts with non-Biblical textual sources and with the archaeological evidence for the settlement of Canaan in the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age. [...] Israel is first textually attested as a political entity in Egyptian texts of the late 13th century BC and the Egyptologist Donald Redford argues that the Israelites must have been emerging as a distinct group within the Canaanite culture during the century or so prior to this. It has been suggested that the early Israelites were an oppressed rural group of Canaanites who rebelled against the more urbanized coastal Canaanites (Gottwald 1979). Alternatively, it has been argued that the Israelites were survivors of the decline in the fortunes of Canaan who established themselves in the highlands at the end of the late Bronze Age (Ahlstrom 1986: 27). Redford, however, makes a good case for equating the very earliest Israelites with a semi-nomadic people in the highlands of central Palestine whom the Egyptians called Shasu (Redford 1992:2689-80; although see Stager 1985 for strong arguments against the identification with the Shasu). These Shasu were a persistent thorn in the side of the Ramessid pharaohs' empire in Syria-Palestine, well-attested in Egyptian texts, but their pastoral lifestyle has left scant traces in the archaeological record. By the end of the 13th century BC, however, the Shasu/Israelites were beginning to establish small settlements in the uplands, the architecture of which closely resembles contemporary Canaanite villages.
The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute. Ref - Killebrew, Ann E. (2005). Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300–1100 B.C.E. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. p. 176. ISBN 978-1-58983-097-4. Retrieved August 12,2012.
Much has been made of the scarcity of pig bones at highland sites. Since small quantities of pig bones do appear in Late Bronze Age assemblages, some archaeologists have interpreted this to indicate that the ethnic identity of the highland inhabitants was distinct from Late Bronze Age indigenous peoples (see Finkelstein 1997, 227–230). Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish (1997) advise caution, however, since the lack of pig bones at Iron I highland settlements could be a result of other factors that have little to do with ethnicity. well we all know what i think of "biblical scholars" right? from abraham to moses they were known as the hebrews...it was after moses had died and joshua took over that the word "jew(s)" came about 2 Kings 16:6(bob taught me that, thanks bob)...so we're still back to it wasn't a jewish oral Noah story BEFORE that time period....no cookie for you... lol, was waiting for that. Have some trust in the experts Wally, I mean i am sure you trust experts in other fields..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2020 0:39:19 GMT -5
maybe a review of what theological means is in order here? Ok.. the study of the nature of god and religious beliefs. When do you ever study or view the bible outside of this? The only way you view the bible, is “through the study of the nature of god and religious belief”. When it comes to the flood story, you only see it “through the study of the nature of god and religious belief”, regardless of how one can see it through actual history. Take away “study of the nature of god and religious beliefs” that your entire world view is based on, and you will see history in a different, more realistic light. Only then might you realise there are experts in these fields and what they say about these matters shouldn’t be so easily dismissed.. I and many others believe that a study of the bible should be multifaceted, and not just simply a study of the bible.. that still doesn't make the statement "written histories came long after the oral ones thats a FACT" theological by any measure...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2020 0:44:04 GMT -5
well we all know what i think of "biblical scholars" right? from abraham to moses they were known as the hebrews...it was after moses had died and joshua took over that the word "jew(s)" came about 2 Kings 16:6(bob taught me that, thanks bob)...so we're still back to it wasn't a jewish oral Noah story BEFORE that time period....no cookie for you... lol, was waiting for that. Have some trust in the experts Wally, I mean i am sure you trust experts in other fields.. not when it comes to the bible or some general history for that matter...."experts" are a dime a dozen in those fields....
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Mar 24, 2020 0:45:39 GMT -5
Okay so your really going to make me work for my cookie?
Archaeology reveals the origins of the Jewish people: they did not necessarily leave the Levant. The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel in Canaan is "overwhelming" and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness". Many archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit". Ref - Dever, William G. (2002). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-8028-2126-3.p. 99
A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence that can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness, leading to the suggestion that Iron Age Israel—the kingdoms of Judah and Israel—has its origins in Canaan. Ref - Finkelstein, Israel and Nadav Naaman, eds. (1994). From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Israel Exploration Society. ISBN 978-1-880317-20-4 and - Compare: Ian Shaw; Robert Jameson. Ian Shaw (ed.). A Dictionary of Archaeology (New edition (17 Feb 2002) ed.). Wiley Blackwell. p. 313. ISBN 978-0-631-23583-5. The Biblical account of the origins of the people of Israel (principally recounted in Numbers, Joshua and Judges) often conflicts with non-Biblical textual sources and with the archaeological evidence for the settlement of Canaan in the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age. [...] Israel is first textually attested as a political entity in Egyptian texts of the late 13th century BC and the Egyptologist Donald Redford argues that the Israelites must have been emerging as a distinct group within the Canaanite culture during the century or so prior to this. It has been suggested that the early Israelites were an oppressed rural group of Canaanites who rebelled against the more urbanized coastal Canaanites (Gottwald 1979). Alternatively, it has been argued that the Israelites were survivors of the decline in the fortunes of Canaan who established themselves in the highlands at the end of the late Bronze Age (Ahlstrom 1986: 27). Redford, however, makes a good case for equating the very earliest Israelites with a semi-nomadic people in the highlands of central Palestine whom the Egyptians called Shasu (Redford 1992:2689-80; although see Stager 1985 for strong arguments against the identification with the Shasu). These Shasu were a persistent thorn in the side of the Ramessid pharaohs' empire in Syria-Palestine, well-attested in Egyptian texts, but their pastoral lifestyle has left scant traces in the archaeological record. By the end of the 13th century BC, however, the Shasu/Israelites were beginning to establish small settlements in the uplands, the architecture of which closely resembles contemporary Canaanite villages.
The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute. Ref - Killebrew, Ann E. (2005). Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300–1100 B.C.E. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. p. 176. ISBN 978-1-58983-097-4. Retrieved August 12,2012.
Much has been made of the scarcity of pig bones at highland sites. Since small quantities of pig bones do appear in Late Bronze Age assemblages, some archaeologists have interpreted this to indicate that the ethnic identity of the highland inhabitants was distinct from Late Bronze Age indigenous peoples (see Finkelstein 1997, 227–230). Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish (1997) advise caution, however, since the lack of pig bones at Iron I highland settlements could be a result of other factors that have little to do with ethnicity. well we all know what i think of "biblical scholars" right? from abraham to moses they were known as the hebrews...it was after moses had died and joshua took over that the word "jew(s)" came about 2 Kings 16:6(bob taught me that, thanks bob)...so we're still back to it wasn't a jewish oral Noah story BEFORE that time period....no cookie for you... Humm said the Dark Crystal Skeksis: Doesn't the Hebrew Bible uses the term Hebrew to refer to Israelites when they are introducing themselves to foreigners?
|
|