U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-26-2019, 01:41 PM
 
11,341 posts, read 11,344,405 times
Reputation: 3502

Advertisements

Christians are taught from Sunday School that God chose the Israelites to be a particular people unto Himself, but a close examination of the Old Testament reveals this is not true. The earliest Hebrews either came from the Far East, as far east as India and wandered into Canaan and settled among the Canaanites, or they were an indigenous sub-tribe of the Canaanites and branched off as many tribes did in those days to set up their own camps. Contrary to what the Bible teaches, the Hebrews never overpowered the Canaanites and took the land from them as a result of God's promise to the mythical Bible characters Abraham and Moses, via Joshua, also a mythical Bible character. All this is archeologically sound.

Modern archaeology has largely shown that determining the historicity of the religious narrative is impossible,[7] with many scholars viewing the stories as inspiring national myth narratives with little historical value. The Israelites and their culture, according to the modern archaeological account, did not overtake the region by force, but instead branched out of the indigenous Canaanite peoples that long inhabited the Southern Levant, Syria, ancient Israel, and the Transjordan region[8][9][10]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites

As this is all archeological truth, it then points to the fact that EVERYTHING people read in the Torah and Joshua is pure myth invented by Hebrew scribes and scholars to tell a great and glorious fable of early Israel and of God's dealings with His people. But none of it is true. It is no better than Sumerian and Akkadian mythology from which Genesis draws its...well...genesis!
__________________

Garden of Eden

The parallels between the stories of Enkidu/Shamhat and Adam/Eve have been long recognized by scholars.[24][25] In both, a man is created from the soil by a god, and lives in a natural setting amongst the animals. He is introduced to a woman who tempts him. In both stories the man accepts food from the woman, covers his nakedness, and must leave his former realm, unable to return. The presence of a snake that steals a plant of immortality from the hero later in the epic is another point of similarity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_o...Sumerian_poems

Now it is from this pagan background that Jesus emerges when the Jews had evolved into a monotheistic religion and had dumped the pantheon of Canaanite gods they had worshiped as late as the 5th Century BC--gods like El, Asherah, Ba'al, Anat, Dagon, Molech, and two dozen more.

A huge question arises from all this:

If God originally was part of a pantheon of Canaanite gods, and yahweh eventually emerged as the head god of the Israelites and struggled mightily according to the Old Testament to establish his supremacy among all these gods e.g


For who in the skies [which other gods in the skies]above can compare with the Lord?
Who is like the Lord among the heavenly beings [sons of the gods--Hebrew: bene 'elim ]?
7 In the council of the holy ones [the council of the other gods] God (Yahweh) is greatly feared;
Lookie here: >>>>>he is more awesome than all who surround him.<<<<<
8 Who is like you, Lord God Almighty? Psalm 89:5-10


Then how do Christians look to Jesus as the son of the one and only Christian God and a god himself????

If that passage in Psalm 89 doesn't provide clear Biblical evidence that the Jews were worshiping many gods as late as David and Solomon then I imagine nothing truthful could be shown to Christians that would convince them their religion has been ginned from its very beginnings.

Last edited by thrillobyte; 07-26-2019 at 02:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-26-2019, 02:28 PM
 
4,444 posts, read 1,672,869 times
Reputation: 1550
The ancestors of Moses and Abraham were perhaps idol worshippers too. What’s the point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2019, 02:46 PM
 
8,738 posts, read 3,889,126 times
Reputation: 1932
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
Christians are taught from Sunday School that God chose the Israelites to be a particular people unto Himself, but a close examination of the Old Testament reveals this is not true. The earliest Hebrews either came from the Far East, as far east as India and wandered into Canaan and settled among the Canaanites, or they were an indigenous sub-tribe of the Canaanites and branched off as many tribes did in those days to set up their own camps. Contrary to what the Bible teaches, the Hebrews never overpowered the Canaanites and took the land from them as a result of God's promise to the mythical Bible characters Abraham and Moses, via Joshua, also a mythical Bible character. All this is archeologically sound.

Modern archaeology has largely shown that determining the historicity of the religious narrative is impossible,[7] with many scholars viewing the stories as inspiring national myth narratives with little historical value. The Israelites and their culture, according to the modern archaeological account, did not overtake the region by force, but instead branched out of the indigenous Canaanite peoples that long inhabited the Southern Levant, Syria, ancient Israel, and the Transjordan region[8][9][10]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites

As this is all archeological truth, it then points to the fact that EVERYTHING people read in the Torah and Joshua is pure myth invented by Hebrew scribes and scholars to tell a great and glorious fable of early Israel and of God's dealings with His people. But none of it is true. It is no better than Sumerian and Akkadian mythology from which Genesis draws its...well...genesis!
__________________

Garden of Eden

The parallels between the stories of Enkidu/Shamhat and Adam/Eve have been long recognized by scholars.[24][25] In both, a man is created from the soil by a god, and lives in a natural setting amongst the animals. He is introduced to a woman who tempts him. In both stories the man accepts food from the woman, covers his nakedness, and must leave his former realm, unable to return. The presence of a snake that steals a plant of immortality from the hero later in the epic is another point of similarity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_o...Sumerian_poems

Now it is from this pagan background that Jesus emerges when the Jews had evolved into a monotheistic religion and had dumped the pantheon of Canaanite gods they had worshiped as late as the 5th Century BC--gods like El, Asherah, Ba'al, Anat, Dagon, Molech, and two dozen more.

A huge question arises from all this:

If God originally was part of a pantheon of Canaanite gods, and yahweh eventually emerged as the head god of the Israelites and struggled mightily according to the Old Testament to establish his supremacy among all these gods e.g


For who in the skies [which other gods in the skies]above can compare with the Lord?
Who is like the Lord among the heavenly beings [sons of the gods--Hebrew: bene 'elim ]?
7 In the council of the holy ones [the council of the other gods] God (Yahweh) is greatly feared;
Lookie here: >>>>>he is more awesome than all who surround him.<<<<<
8 Who is like you, Lord God Almighty? Psalm 89:5-10


Then how do Christians look to Jesus as the son of the one and only Christian God and a god himself????

If that passage in Psalm 89 doesn't provide clear Biblical evidence that the Jews were worshiping many gods as late as David and Solomon then I imagine nothing truthful could be shown to Christians that would convince them their religion has been ginned from its very beginnings.
Oh so now you support archaeology as evidence when it suits you? Typical. It doesn't bother me. The Bible narrative is that after the towel of Babel, mankind split up into different languages and cultures. Certainly explains why you have a flood story in every major culture around the world. Also would explain how people morphed their beliefs about God into their own pagan ideology. The fact that the first civilization to emerge in recorded history just so happens to be the exact same region that the Bible narrative in Genesis is also set in is more proof to support God's Word.

Just because the Biblical narrative was committed to record many years after something like the Epic of Gilgamesh doesn't mean that it stole from that story either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2019, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
56,633 posts, read 55,009,752 times
Reputation: 67325
It doesn't matter.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2019, 02:58 PM
 
40,412 posts, read 26,927,749 times
Reputation: 6077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
It doesn't matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2019, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Southwest Washington State
22,198 posts, read 14,580,312 times
Reputation: 31420
It is true that archeology has failed to substantiate the earliest origin stories of the Israelites.

But sweeping generalizations are never accurate. IMO, Jesus took what he knew of Torah and created something new on its foundation. He was a radical and beloved teacher who was uninterested in the trappings of high religion.

His teachings about love and the value of repentance have deep meaning, if you dare look into them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2019, 03:35 PM
 
11,341 posts, read 11,344,405 times
Reputation: 3502
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
The ancestors of Moses and Abraham were perhaps idol worshippers too. What’s the point?

Here's the point:


If Jesus were really the Messiah sent by God to redeem us; if God was the ONLY God from the very beginning, then the Jews would NEVER have been an indigenous offshoot of the Canaanites, and everything we read in the Torah would be soundly backed by archeological and historical evidence. All this would be true IF the Israelite God were the true one and only God of the universe.


But none of it is true. The Exodus is made-up. The flood is made-up. Adam and Eve are made-up. All of it is fantasy. This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the God of the Jews is NOT the one true God. He's just a pagan mythical god who sprung from a wide pantheon of pagan Canaanite gods. The Jews then are NOT a special people chosen by God, except in their own minds. If all this is true, then Jesus is just an imposter messiah not spoken of at all in the Old Testament. Thus the Christians are worshiping and giving their lives over to an ordinary mortal man who was crucified and died and never resurrected.



That's the point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2019, 03:49 PM
 
6,096 posts, read 1,744,087 times
Reputation: 925
Quote:
Originally Posted by silibran View Post
It is true that archeology has failed to substantiate the earliest origin stories of the Israelites.

But sweeping generalizations are never accurate. IMO, Jesus took what he knew of Torah and created something new on its foundation. He was a radical and beloved teacher who was uninterested in the trappings of high religion.

His teachings about love and the value of repentance have deep meaning, if you dare look into them.
He's God, so, well....he wrote it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2019, 06:38 PM
 
Location: Ohio
20,089 posts, read 14,333,840 times
Reputation: 16255
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
The ancestors of Moses and Abraham were perhaps idol worshippers too. What’s the point?
X-Moses.

His name is X-Moses.

The word "moses" is not of Hebrew origin. It is Egyptian, and like Canaanite languages it was consonantal, meaning vowels were not used.

The word is rendered m-s-s in Egyptian as it is in Hebrew meaning "emanated from" and it was always prefixed with the name of a deity.

The original name of X-Moses could have been Dedumoses or Ahmoses, or Kamoses, or Tutmoses, or Rameses, or Ptahmoses, or Amenmoses, or Osormeses, or Teomeses, or Achmoses and a dozen or more others I can recall.

If I were to venture an educated guess, I'd say X-Moses' real name was Ahmoses or Amenmoses. It could have been Ankhmoses, too.

If you understood what you're reading then you'd know that in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, every single member of the tribe of Reuben, Simeon and Levi have exclusively Egyptian names, like Aaron -- yeah, that's Egyptian not Hebrew -- and Phineas and such.

At the same time, every single member of all the other tribes have exclusively Canaanite names.

There's a very logical and valid reason why that might be true.

The other tribes always lived in Canaan and never lived in Egypt.

The tribes of Reuben, Simeon and Levi lived in Egypt, but later came to Canaan.

If you understood Sumerian/Akkadian birth-right customs, then you'd know that regardless of birth-order, the ranking is this:

1) preferred half-sister
2) half-sister
3) preferred wife
4) wife
5) ranking concubine
6) all other concubines by rank

Abram (Abraham) was from Ur, an Akkadian city, and his wife was his half-sister Serai (Sarah). Same father (Terah) but different mothers.

Hagar's son was first-born, but Serai is the half-sister wife, and that's why Ishmael didn't get the birth-right.

That's why Joseph got the birth-right.

Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Daniel, Gad, Naphtali and the other 4 brothers were all born before Joseph, yet Joseph gets the birth-right.

Why?

Because Joseph's mother was Rachel, the preferred wife, even though Jacob married Leah first.

So Joseph gets half of all the Hebrew's land in Canaan, and his 12 brothers have to fight over the scraps of the other half.

Except Joseph foregoes his birth-right and passes it on to his two sons Manasseh and Ephraim.

After they say their goodbyes to their father, Manasseh and Ephraim go squat on Joseph's land, which sits right next to Ugarit and that's where they were for the next 11 centuries until the Kingdom of Israel was over run.

All the other brothers went back to Canaan, too, except Reuben, Simeon and Levi.

For whatever reason, those three were cut out of the birth-right and the J text writer is so far removed, he doesn't understand Sumerian/Akkadian customs so he jumps through hoops trying to explain why those three were cut out, saying Reuben slept with his father's concubine and Simeon and Levi murdered the men of Shechem, even though the E text writer says the Hebrews bought Shechem for 100 shekels.

What reason do Reuben, Simeon and Levi have to go back to Canaan?

None.

They have no intention of swallowing their pride and being tenant farmers on the lands of their brothers.

But, if they stayed in Egypt, Joseph could set them up real nice.

Joseph could give them land, and herds of animals and maybe even appoint them to low level government positions.

I suspect Joseph appointed Levi as a priest.

In those cultures, priesthood is hereditary, passing from father to son, so it's no wonder the Levites would be priests.

They could stay in contact and probably did through trade.

Egypt had suzerainty over the region, including Canaan so trade caravans would be very, very profitable.

Ultimately, Egypt lost control, which means trade caravans would be victims of bandits and so trade eventually ground to a halt and contact between the tribes was lost.

The reason I suggest Ahmoses or Amenmoses or Ankhmoses is because there was a short-lived monotheistic cult that arose during the reign of one of the pharaohs. After that pharaoh died, the new pharaoh shut that cult down and persecuted its members. If you were a cult-member, you'd either need to go underground, or change your beliefs.

It's possible that action caused the tribes of Reuben, Simeon and Levi to flee Egypt and return to the land of their brothers.

That's your big Exodus Nothing-Burger.

There's no archaeological evidence to support the Exodus, but there is evidence of expansion in the mountains where the tribe of Reuben was to accommodate about 20,000 people, and evidence of expansion at the same time south of Judah where Simeon was located for about 12,000 to 14,000 people.

That's your big Exodus Nothing-Burger.

The thing about you christians is your total lack of critical thinking and analytical skills.

Who was greater, X-Moses or Aaron?

If you said X-Moses, then why is the Aaronid priesthood running the show at the Temple and not the Mosaic priesthood?

Mmmh?

What egregious sin did X-Moses commit that should allow the Aaronid priesthood to rule over the Temple and the Mosaic priesthood?

Let me ask you this: Did the faith of X-Moses ever waver?

No.

Can you say the same of Aaron?

Nope.

Who built the Golden Calves? Oh, that was Aaron.

Why isn't the Aaronid priesthood totally disqualified?

Given that Aaron's faith wavered, how could there even be an Aaronid priesthood?

You don't even understand the words you read.

Anyway, when Jeremiah and Hilkiah were writing Deuteronomy for their own selfish interests and thus it is not the word of, nor inspired by, nor filled with the spirit of the Yahweh-Jesus-Thing, they made some edits.

Being the Yahweh-fanatics they were, they could never tolerate a name like Ahmoses.

For Jeremiah the name Ahmoses would have been so grotesquely offensive in the eyes of Yahweh, he simply struck it from the texts.

So, Ahmoses became "moses."

When we eventually find early copies of the E text, we'll know the real name of X-Moses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silibran View Post
It is true that archeology has failed to substantiate the earliest origin stories of the Israelites.
Canaanite and Hebrew culture are so nearly identical that archaeologists can't even tell the difference between the two.

That's because from about 1,800 BCE to 550 BCE or so, the Hebrews always lived in Canaan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2019, 07:34 PM
 
39,651 posts, read 11,061,143 times
Reputation: 5135
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
Oh so now you support archaeology as evidence when it suits you? Typical. It doesn't bother me. The Bible narrative is that after the towel of Babel, mankind split up into different languages and cultures. Certainly explains why you have a flood story in every major culture around the world. Also would explain how people morphed their beliefs about God into their own pagan ideology. The fact that the first civilization to emerge in recorded history just so happens to be the exact same region that the Bible narrative in Genesis is also set in is more proof to support God's Word.
We have never done anything but support archaeology, whether it supports the Bible or whether it doesn't. You strawman our position as 'dismissing archaeology when it supports the Bible' when what we have done is shown that very often the archaeology doesn't support the Bible. Thus you are projecting onto us you own dismissal of the archaeology when it doesn't suit you -as you do below.

Quote:
Just because the Biblical narrative was committed to record many years after something like the Epic of Gilgamesh doesn't mean that it stole from that story either.
The archaeology indictates that the Biblical flood was derived from the sequence of three Mesopotamian flood -stories. But you dismiss that archaeological evidence and maintain without a scrap of evidence and in defiance of the evidence we have that the Biblical account was the original. You obviously think that nobody can disprove that so it could be true, but all the evidence is against that, too. The story has Noah ensuring that he has ritually clean beast so that he can so a proper sacrifice according the Mosaic law- which hadn't even been given yet. And what the archaeology does- though the Bible names a lot of places known to the writers- is show that what was written about them isn't believable.

The archaeology does not support the Bible and that's what you are dismissing, Jeff, not us.

Oh-by the way, China did not have a Flood - story and neither did Egypt, who certainly should have done, if the Biblical version was true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top