Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is Bible history fact or fiction?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
313 replies to this topic

#18 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 29 April 2005 - 07:28 PM

My impression is that there isn't much that is pretty well accepted about this, even among conservative scholars. It looks to me like the "preferred" mechanics of formation of the pentateuch get rewritten about every 50 years, and then the new theory gets discredited.

I misspoke. Shoulda said "resembling its present form." I still think the conventional wisdom is that it changed a *lot*.

But it is still a surprise to me that they hung out in the desert so long, even though it was apparent that they were afraid to enter into Canaan.

Oh my bet is they didn't spend much time in the desert per se, just moving around and not directly into the Canaanite settlements where they would not have been welcome, in fact probably just get thrown into servitude. There was a lot of open country in those days, and in fact there still is, and much of it looks very desert-like (worse now than 3000 years ago though), so open to all kinds of guessing. Not a lot of archeological evidence, but its growing (and the article I mentioned is an example).

The tendency of folks to advocate that the Hebrew monotheism was stolen in some flavor from neighboring cultures is common.

My analysis is that it is extremely rare to develop anything more than a cult if you try to create a religion from scratch. You can't draw people in unless you work from what they know. Jesus was creating a new sect of Judaism, not a new religion. Its inconceivable that the Israelites did not draw upon the existing pantheon of Gods, traditions and morals (!). I do give them credit though for having really put *monotheism* on the map, because all these other religions were polytheistic. Yahweh in form, description and powers bears tremendous similarity to the Canaanite Gods (who were derived from Ur, Sumaria, etc. etc.), but somewhere along the way it became important that he be the only God, and the others needed to be denegrated.

The Biblical story of God being a "jealous" God, not to mention the First commandment, suggests that the simplest story is the Biblical one. God consistently reminded His people that He was not enthusiastic about their dalliances with other dieties.... And it seemd to make God grumpy regularly.

That's what the books say, but my previous paragraph is the explanation for why the books say that.

Grumpy, jealous, wrathful, gee whiz is this guy difficult to keep happy...and don't get me started about Abraham...

Cheers,
Buffy

#19 Biochemist

Biochemist

    Eccentric Heretic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2229 posts

Posted 29 April 2005 - 08:51 PM

...and don't get me started about Abraham...

OK, now I really want to get you started about Abraham. You start the thread.

#20 Raelian1

Raelian1

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 29 April 2005 - 10:56 PM

The Bible, when interpreted correctly, explains the origins of life on this Earth by extraterrestrial scientists and how these extraterrestrials interacted little or a lot with humans. One point to get across is that Elohim has been mistranslated as "God" but really means "Those that came from the sky". Elohim is a plural Hebrew word. These aliens scientists created all life on Earth, including us, as stated in Genesis. The prophets (including Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Mohammed, etc) were messengers of the Elohim. I can make many references relating the Elohim to the Bible, but I'll make just one.

Noah flood. When mankind was getting scientifically advanced, the Elohim, especially Satan, were terrified that humans would invade their planet. So, they planted bombs (similat to H Bombs) all over the Earth (There was one continent at the time what we call Pangaea) and the flooding and nuclear waste spread all over the Earth. But Noah and a few friends were spared from this flood in the safety of their spaceship. After the flood, there were 7 continents we are now familiar with today. And by the way,animals were not in the ark (spaceship), a cell sample from each animal was taken so they can be recreated after the flood was over.

#21 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 29 April 2005 - 11:35 PM

Well, um, that sure sounds like the first vote for "There's intelligent life and they regularly abduct humans for experiments" in our Aliens Poll...

Cheers,
Buffy

#22 Smokinjoe9

Smokinjoe9

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 193 posts

Posted 29 April 2005 - 11:36 PM

Aliens, I like it, it's out there (get it), but I still like it...

#23 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 29 April 2005 - 11:48 PM

Here are some of the true archeological findings that are in suport of the Bible's story of the Hebrew's jurney out of Egypt.

they found the path that was likely taken by the Hebrews on their way out of egypt to the Dead Sea

They found a beach on the dead sea that was big enough to hold the crowd that the Bible discribes, this beach is completely surounded by cliffs with only one small enterence onto it threw the cliffs(connected to the path), so there would be only the Dead Sea to go threw if they where attacked.

Coming directly from the beach strate to the other side is a natural land wall standing under water with cliffs on eather side of it...this wall is also flat on top soft enough to walk on with not hurting your feet, and wide enough to allow a large crowd to cross it.

Under water on eather side (stretching for miles) are numberous chariot wheels (the style of which match the dateing that the Bible clames) they also found bones of people. not to mention two pillers on eather side of the sea that where fallen down and under water, right at the sight of the under water wall. (not sure who put them there).

They found a place of 70 palmtrees and among them where 12 covered holes that could have been wells.

They found a spring with realy bitter water, much too bitter to drink.

they found, on a hill in the middle of a wide open rock terane, a large bolder (about roughly 4 shories high) split in two, and with research that it might have surly sprung water at one time.

They found a pile of large rocks at the base of a mountain built as if it was an alter with drawings of cows all over it. (cows where not native where the alter is located)

The mountain that the alter was at the base, is scrotched on the top of it (as if it was burned), this mountain contains all of the things that the Bible clames are on it.

sorry I have no more...I only got that far...and cannot remember a lot.

You can deny these findings, but what help would that give?

Note: There is no archeoligy found that contradicts the Bible's clames.

#24 Smokinjoe9

Smokinjoe9

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 193 posts

Posted 30 April 2005 - 12:00 AM

I believe they are on the track to finding alot of things that bring the history of the Bible to light, and that will only scratch the surface of actual history. There is no doubting the facts, it is putting them in the right context that will prove to be tough. It is the same thing with science, it is not the math I doubt, it is the reason they are doing it and the variables used...

#25 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 30 April 2005 - 12:31 AM

It suprises me when evolutionists could do so little research to making sure thier theories are correct before they publish it..and say that archeoligy is not good enough to suport the Bible. I do agree that they make sure the findings are correct.

Evolution is made up or theories (unproven clames)...as I notice way too often, that every time I seem to look at the evolutionists ideas, they always have new ideas.
The Bible has more archeoligy suporting it than science suporting evolution. I rest this on my sholders.

Creationists are far from short when it comes to having science to give out...we are having an upcoming debate where I live "creation vs. evolution". the creationists have a lot of willing scientists to take the stand. The evolutionists on the other hand are not having such a success...and are wanting to boycott, because they claim "it's gonna be rigged for inteligent design".

#26 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 30 April 2005 - 12:44 AM

Evolution is made up or theories (unproven clames)...as I notice way too often, that every time I seem to look at the evolutionists ideas, they always have new ideas.
The Bible has more archeoligy suporting it than science suporting evolution. I rest this on my sholders.


Dear eMTee, these are completely groundless claims. Evolution is well proven. Please join in the other discussions on evolution in our evolution history. And please do not slam science because of your own lack of knowledge about it. It is extremely arrogant.

#27 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 30 April 2005 - 12:47 AM

And...theories are not "unproven claims"...a theory is an important part of the scientific method. That is why "creationism" is not a science: their claims cannot be supported by predictive results from scientific evidence.

#28 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 30 April 2005 - 12:47 AM

I am not slaming science...I am in enormuse suport of it.

Can I ask why the Evolutionists are boycotting the debate...science reveals nothing but fact..and the evolutionists use that alot, the creationists "have no scientific suport" thus evolution should win the debate...and why do they not think this?

#29 Smokinjoe9

Smokinjoe9

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 193 posts

Posted 30 April 2005 - 12:59 AM

And...theories are not "unproven claims"...a theory is an important part of the scientific method. That is why "creationism" is not a science: their claims cannot be supported by predictive results from scientific evidence.


On the contrary, science is slowly bringing to light just how true creationism is, digging up more facts everyday. The theory of creationism(stories in the Bible) are slowly being backed by artifacts; Seascrolls, buildings, etc..Just because it takes 6000yrs or more to show proof does not make it false data..Hang in there Creationalists.

#30 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 30 April 2005 - 01:04 AM

I see more Evolutionists falling for creationism than creationists falling for evolution...this does not relate to their religouse beliefs or upbringings...this has to do with science.

Science may not suport creation...but evolution does not go along with true science.

#31 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 30 April 2005 - 01:49 AM

Can I ask why the Evolutionists are boycotting the debate...science reveals nothing but fact..and the evolutionists use that alot, the creationists "have no scientific suport" thus evolution should win the debate...and why do they not think this?


Please listen to me - we are discussing evolution in the *evolution* forum, not here.

#32 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 30 April 2005 - 01:52 AM

...we are having an upcoming debate where I live "creation vs. evolution".


ScienceForums: Evolution vs Creation
http://hypography.co...light=evolution

#33 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 30 April 2005 - 01:54 AM

On the contrary, science is slowly bringing to light just how true creationism is, digging up more facts everyday. The theory of creationism(stories in the Bible) are slowly being backed by artifacts; Seascrolls, buildings, etc..Just because it takes 6000yrs or more to show proof does not make it false data..Hang in there Creationalists.


Another discussion we have been having over and over here at Hypography. You guys need to read up on older threads before you post things like this. It is in fact a part of our site rules (as in every other forum).

#34 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 30 April 2005 - 09:27 AM

The tribes were taken slaves in Egypt because the Pharaohs had waged a few wars against the areas from Sinai toward Lebanon and Syria, they eventually got free but some of the details are a bit fictious.


How would you explain the fact that there is a under water land bridge connected to a large beach goint strate to the other side with Egypyion chariot wheels stretching for miles on eather side. why would they try to cross it when it's under water, why are the chariot wheels off their axels...and not connected to any chariots?

Why at the top of the mountian (clamed to be the real Mt. Sinai), is there a large place where it looks to have been burned to glass?

Who says that there is no evidence of the 10 plagues in Egypt? it is there...but if it has not been found yet, it has not been found. it will be if they havn't already...the evidence found does not contradict the Bible, but goes along with. thus making it not so mythical.