Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

It doesn't matter if it is Saul or not, personally I don't think is.

What matters if that some people called the Habiru were conquering this area and this letter proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: What matters if that some people called the Habiru were conquering this area and this letter proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Of course it does, and as this letter and the other Amarna letters show, these Habiru were little more than marauding, murdering, nomadic raiders .. are you *honestly* prepared to equate these peoples w/ the Hebrews?

Most scholars aren't.. :?

[cap'n queasy]

psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: What matters if that some people called the Habiru were conquering this area and this letter proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Of course it does, and as this letter and the other Amarna letters show, these Habiru were little more than marauding, murdering, nomadic raiders .. are you *honestly* prepared to equate these peoples w/ the Hebrews?

Most scholars aren't.. :?

That's exactly what the Bible says they were. And that's not true.
Archeaology shows that the accounts in the Bible are extremely accurate.

Many of the people mentioned in the Bible are also mentioned in inscriptions found in the area, made by many other cultures. There are hundreds of thousands of finds that verify the Bible account and none that seriously dispute it.

You can spin it however you like but the facts remain.

Israel and Judeah existed, King David existed, Moses existed. All have been mentioned in extra-biblical accounts.

You have no evidence. Just conjecture with nothing to base it on.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: You can spin it however you like but the facts remain.
What facts?

You keep bringing up these Hapiru raiders, but there are no facts (that I've uncovered so far) that indicate these Hapiru were successful in "conquering" much of anything. Yes, they randomly attacked and raided isolated towns here and there, but there's nothing to suggest that they ever had an organized plan to take over a specific geographic area and build a nation, and there's nothing to indicate that anything like that ever happened.

Like I said before, the Hapiru raiders didn't just attack towns in Judea.. the attacked towns as north as Anatolia and as far east as Mesopotamia and they attacked consistently before, during and after your alleged "Hebrew enslavement" in Egypt. To me, these facts don't corroborate the Biblical account very well at all, at least not if you want to connect the Hapiru w/ the Hebrews..

Quote: Israel and Judeah existed, King David existed, Moses existed. All have been mentioned in extra-biblical accounts.
Extra-Biblical references don't mean they *really* existed... it means they existed in local folklore just like they exist in the folklore of the Bible.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Extra-Biblical references don't mean they *really* existed... it means they existed in local folklore just like they exist in the folklore of the Bible.

People don't erect monuments because they defeated a "legend" in combat and made this "legend" pay tribute . Yet evidence of this nature is all over the place.

Really man, you're too much.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Extra-Biblical references don't mean they *really* existed... it means they existed in local folklore just like they exist in the folklore of the Bible.

People don't erect monuments because they defeated a "legend" in combat and made this "legend" pay tribute . Yet evidence of this nature is all over the place.
What monument are you talking about this time? :?

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: The Hapiru were also active in the Near East before, during and after your alleged dates for the "enslavement" of the Hebrews in Egypt. When Tutmoses I conquered the city of Joppa, he insisted on bringing the horses inside the city gates, for fear of Hapiru raiders. In your time frame, however, the Hapiru were still being held in bondage as slaves in Egypt.. Again, the dates don't line up..


This is exactly what the scriptures describe. There were Semitic tribes raiding from Egypt to Mesopotamia since before the Sumerians. Abraham was one the Semitic nomads that settled with the Ubaidians near the Euphrates, from this beginning Sumer sprang. One of these nomadic tribes sojourned in Egypt because of famine, making good there at first and then being subjected to slavery over the course of time. Eventually they were redeemed from slavery and founded a great nation.




Quote: Which is to say, it looks like Canaan was very firmly under Egyptian Imperial control during this time period (and which is also to say, there doesn't seem to be much record at all of an independent "Israeli" tribe wandering about the area in that time frame).

Not so firmly according to the Amarna letters and other records. They lost control of the area at this time. The historical and archeaological evidence is quite clear. Furthermore it is obvious from the scripture account that Saul was a vassal of Egypt, he married an Egytian wife etc. For several centuries after Saul and other vassels and generals lost Canaan in this period the Egyptians did not rule this area any longer. They do not mention it in any accountings of there holdings during this time. Isreal had become a nation. Any contact with Egypt during this time was strictly voluntary. Egypt was being conquered by the Sea People (the Philistines were from this people) from the north coast and the west. They even had several treaties with Israel who were involved in repelling the Philistines.
They had a common enemy invading from the sea.

[Nathyn]

cap'n queasy wrote: As I said, Zoroastrianism is obviously the result of Israel's influence on Persia, and not the reverse.

Probably via Daniel, as he was Grand Vizier of both the Babylonian and Persian Empires and was thus a man of enormous prestige and influence in that part of the world. It seems to me basically a garbled version of the worship of the Living God thus imparted, syncretized with Indo-Aryan sensibilities.
Zoroastrianism and Judaism may have had some influence on eachother, but it's difficult to say. They appeared at around the same time and you couldn't conclusively say that one "created the other," but they definitely shared some common influence, from what we know of them.

However, with regard to Judaism, Mesopotamian mythology predates Judaism and the parallels between Genesis and Mesopotamian mythology are striking.

See this article for more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamian_mythology

Just as mainstream historians acknowledge that Islam was influenced by pre-Islamic Arabian theology ("the djinn," is a distinctly Arabic creation), Judaism, too, did not just appear out of nowhere. It, too, was influenced by the prevailing mythologies of the day.

[Duchifas]

Nathyn wrote: Just as mainstream historians acknowledge that Islam was influenced by pre-Islamic Arabian theology ("the djinn," is a distinctly Arabic creation), Judaism, too, did not just appear out of nowhere. It, too, was influenced by the prevailing mythologies of the day.

Or.........................the Mesopotamians and Jews share somewhat similar accounts of the flood............because..............there was a flood.

Nathyn, we Americans have a historical account of WWII. If someone stumbles on this account 3,000 years from now, he will probably find it to be strikingly similar (though not identical, of course) to the British account of WWII. Finding the similarity, he could arrive at two conclusions (at least):

1) He could arrive at your conclusion, namely, that the American culture was influenced by the British culture (yup, it was) and thus, Americans borrowed liberally from British mythology, for example, the myth of Normandy invasion. Thus, WWII is still a myth to our futuristic buddy, but because different cultures influenced each other, the myth can be found in both.

2) He could alternatively conclude that the fact that (at least two) different cultures have a substantially similar historical account of certain events, could indicate that such an event did in fact take place, and the accounts are similar because both societies witnessed that event in a similar way.

Can you please tell me why, in an analogous situation, you prefer 1) to 2)????? I am not saying that your conclusion is wholly implausible. It is plausible. I just want to understand your reasoning.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: the djinn," is a distinctly Arabic creation

No, it's not. It's the same as the Roman or Greek "genius". A localized spirit.

Quote: Mesopotamian mythology predates Judaism and the parallels between Genesis and Mesopotamian mythology are striking.

The people in Genesis do not practice Judaism. They are not Jews. They are Mesopotamian Semites, beginning in an age before the first civilization. Or the later descendents of Abraham, a semite who live in the pre-Sumerian Ubaidian city of Ur. Part of Genesis is the story of his migration into Canaan, and his descendents migration into Egypt. Which is where the account ends.

It cannot be said that Sumerian mythology is older than the historically accurate information contained in Genesis, they describe the same events, one must look at the character of the accounts and decide which is more accurate. The Sumerian accounts are extremely fanciful, employing inanimate objects as protaganists etc. By ancient standards the account in Genesis is sober and explains the world around them in rationalistic manner, despite the lack of technical language at the time.

Sumerian artifacts that describe their mythology may be older than our oldest copy of the Tanahk, but the information itself dates from a slighty later period and is obviously a corruption of the much more historically accurate and scientifically plausible account found in Genesis. Hebrews routinely ritually burned worn out copies of their holy writings and that is why no truly ancient example exists. They also employed extremely rigorous methods of copying new ones. We can see by the accuracy of the information concerning known people and places that the information is as ancient as anything the Sumerian evidence can provide. Sumerian accounts vary wildly, and are not uniform.

[Nathyn]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: the djinn," is a distinctly Arabic creation

No, it's not. It's the same as the Roman or Greek "genius". A localized spirit.
Djinn did not become related with the "genie," (modern form of genius) until 1655.

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Mesopotamian mythology predates Judaism and the parallels between Genesis and Mesopotamian mythology are striking.

The people in Genesis do not practice Judaism. They are not Jews. They are Mesopotamian Semites, beginning in an age before the first civilization. Or the later descendents of Abraham, a semite who live in the pre-Sumerian Ubaidian city of Ur. Part of Genesis is the story of his migration into Canaan, and his descendents migration into Egypt. Which is where the account ends.

It cannot be said that Sumerian mythology is older than the historically accurate information contained in Genesis, they describe the same events, one must look at the character of the accounts and decide which is more accurate. The Sumerian accounts are extremely fanciful, employing inanimate objects as protaganists etc. By ancient standards the account in Genesis is sober and explains the world around them in rationalistic manner, despite the lack of technical language at the time.

Sumerian artifacts that describe their mythology may be older than our oldest copy of the Tanahk, but the information itself dates from a slighty later period and is obviously a corruption of the much more historically accurate and scientifically plausible account found in Genesis. Hebrews routinely ritually burned worn out copies of their holy writings and that is why no truly ancient example exists. They also employed extremely rigorous methods of copying new ones. We can see by the accuracy of the information concerning known people and places that the information is as ancient as anything the Sumerian evidence can provide. Sumerian accounts vary wildly, and are not uniform.
God making human beings out of clay, then breathing life into them, tossing them onto a garden, having them both eat an apple and get thrown out because of being deception by a serpent, and then later having the human race virtually annihilated by a massive flood -- this is not "historically accurate."

There is a plethora of reasons to support that claim. Everything from carbon-dating to dating tree rings, from estimating the amount of time it took for pangaea to form today's seven continents to estimating how long it took for separate human skin colors to develop, and also, there's dating the depth of certain sediments, . And there's the archaelogical evidence of human beings which have existed far before the 6,000 or 8,000 years before Christ, claimed by Biblical literalists. Even the story of Noah's ark is improbable upon the claims that it makes.

In order to believe that the book of Genesis is literal, you have to believe:

1. That God purposely made fossils, trees, and sediments seem older than they actually are (and of false comparable age-difference, that is, dinosaur fossils seem older than human fossils).

2. God wiped out all dinosaurs in some cataclysmic act of destruction, which somehow managed to not be recorded in human history.

3. The development of human skin color and the seven continents happened so quickly that it was actually visible.

4. God distorted the genetic to record so as to make it appear that skin colors develop as a result of adaptations to new climates, whether melanin was a benefit to survival and whether or not there were natural sources of vitamin D (like fish), because we actually all came from the Tower of Babel, where we all had the same skin color.

5. God gave Noah superhuman speed, superhuman strength, and the ability to fly, in order to catch all of the animals across the world, as well as a supply of food for each animal, the ability to shrink each animal (almost like Santa Claus's bag of toys) down to microscopic size so they'd all fit in the ark. And then, God temporarily suspended the laws of biology by allowing a healthy population of each species to develop from the incestuous offspring of two creatures, despite the fact that there's no genetic record of this ever having occurred.

Furthermore, it's ludicrous to claim that Judaism predates Sumerian mythology when the Sumerians, themselves, existed for several thousand years before the Israelites. The Epic of Gilgamesh was formally recorded in 7th century B.C.. The Tanakh was formally recorded around 1st century B.C.. The earliest manuscripts containing the book of Genesis date back only to 900 B.C.. But Sumerian tablets containing the flood myth date back almost two millenia before that.

Your argument, here, is virtually identical to the claims by Muslims that the Koran is the true divine text and the earlier Tanakh was a "corrupted version," of the Koran, even though there's no evidence to claim that. In addition, the Israelites were a minority in Mesopotamia and intolerant of outside religions, so it makes little sense that their beliefs would somehow spread to other cultures, peacefully, if they were such a minority and so hostile to outsiders.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Djinn did not become related with the "genie," (modern form of genius) until 1655.

The Latin word "genius" was used to describe a local spirit long before the "Arabian Nights" was written. That website says the French word genie is derived from the Latin word "genius" and that the French term "genie" to describe a "Djinn" originated at this time. Nothing more.

The Greek mystery religion was concerned with manipulating these local spirits. This religion originated in Mesopotamia and was exposed to Greek culture when the pagan worship center of the ancient world moved from Babylon to the city that later became known as Pergamos after the Persian invasions of Babylon. Many people realize that the Roman gods and myths were derived from Greek gods, but is not so well known is that these Greek gods and myths are also derived from Babylonian gods and myths which in turn were derived still earlier gods and myths.

It's a form of animism, basically. Common to all ancient pagan belief structures. The Delphic oracle supposedly got her prophecies from such a spirit, that dwelt in smoke emitted from a crack in the rock in a cave, for example. This is very similar to the story of how Mohammed got his revelation from a being that appeared from a crack in the rock, in a cave. Or other descriptions of Djinn from Arabic culture, which was known for preserving many Greek cultural features.

It is thought that the Celtic myths of the "little people" have the same origin, this people originated in Anatolia and Mesopotamis.

[Nathyn]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Djinn did not become related with the "genie," (modern form of genius) until 1655.

The Latin word "genius" was used to describe a local spirit long before the "Arabian Nights" was written. That website says the French word genie is derived from the Latin word "genius" and that the French term "genie" to describe a "Djinn" originated at this time. Nothing more.
But the terms are unrelated. The word "n1ggardly," eventually came to be associated with African-Americans, but again, n1ggardly has a totally different root than the N-word. Just because they sound similar and are used to describe similar things doesn't mean the two words are related.

I.E., people on one side of the globe can say, "Let's give cheese the name: bloobak!"

And people on another side of the globe can say, "Let's give cheese the name: blooback!"

But that doesn't mean bloobak and blooback are in any way related. Both Wikipedia and the Etymology dictionary says that genie and djinn are unrelated terms.

cap'n queasy wrote: The Greek mystery religion was concerned with manipulating these local spirits. This religion originated in Mesopotamia and was exposed to Greek culture when the pagan worship center of the ancient world moved from Babylon to the city that later became known as Pergamos after the Persian invasions of Babylon. Many people realize that the Roman gods and myths were derived from Greek gods, but is not so well known is that these Greek gods and myths are also derived from Babylonian gods and myths which in turn were derived still earlier gods and myths.

It's a form of animism, basically. Common to all ancient pagan belief structures. The Delphic oracle supposedly got her prophecies from such a spirit, that dwelt in smoke emitted from a crack in the rock in a cave, for example. This is very similar to the story of how Mohammed got his revelation from a being that appeared from a crack in the rock, in a cave. Or other descriptions of Djinn from Arabic culture, which was known for preserving many Greek cultural features.

It is thought that the Celtic myths of the "little people" have the same origin, this people originated in Anatolia and Mesopotamis.
I agree with what you're saying, but you're sort of going off on a tangent here. Based upon the datings of documents of both Mesopotamian and Jewish flood myths, you'd have to believe that the Israelites had the "true," flood myth before there's any credible evidence of them even existing (before the 9th century B.C.). Also, on a side-note: Muhammad getting a revelation from an angel in a cave is no different than Moses speaking to a burning bush.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Furthermore, it's ludicrous to claim that Judaism predates Sumerian mythology when the Sumerians, themselves

As I said once already, Judaism didn't appear until Moses at about the same time when Sumer was winding down, after Genesis. Genesis describes history that is pre-Sumerian and Sumerian. No one practiced Judaism until Moses. To get an idea when this was in a comparitive timeline, Assyria doesn't even appear as a power in the scriptures until after the Davidic Kingdom split into Israel and Judeah, in the post Davidic era 500 or so years after Moses brought the Hebrews out of Egypt. Babylon becomes a power at the end of the Tanahk, Persia is barely introduced. Our earliest manuscripts of the scriptures are from this era of Persian domination, but they accurately describe history to this point so they obviously are copies of much earlier texts.

You have to ask yourself which is more accurate, the core idea that the earth was created by the slaying of a giant snake, or the close analog of the modern "Big Bang" theory that is the core concept found in Genesis. "Let there Be Light" is a very good description of this event for ancient people using strictly non-technical terms.



Quote: God making human beings out of clay, then breathing life into them, tossing them onto a garden, having them both eat an apple and get thrown out because of being deception by a serpent, and then later having the human race virtually annihilated by a massive flood -- this is not "historically accurate." Well, whether you want to believe accounts of supernatural events or not is up to you, but I am speaking about the historical aspects. The civilizations and description of the cultures encountered areaccurate, there are specific people who ruled these civilizations cities that are discussed accurately, actual battles that are described and a plethors of other accurate information is found as well, much of it verified by archaeology.

The things is, the Sumerian descriptions of history are fanciful in comparison, with kings becoming gods (some living ten thousand years) because of their feats of strength, extremely exaggerated accounts of battles they fought and lands they conquered etc.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: and the Etymology dictionary says that genie and djinn are unrelated terms.

That's not what it says.

[Duchifas]

Quote: Also, on a side-note: Muhammad getting a revelation from an angel in a cave is no different than Moses speaking to a burning bush.

On the same side-note, Jews do not believe in G-d because Moses spoke to a burning bush.

Jews believe in G-d because of the Divine revelation at Sinai to the entire nation. That is the most important difference between Judaism and any other religion that I know of.

When a farmer in Kansas tells you that he personally witnessed a space ship land on his farm -- maybe you believe him, maybe you don't.

When you have 3 million normal people tell you that they have personally witnessed, with their own eyes, that a space ship landed in Central Park in New York City -- I would be more inclined to believe that something landed in Central Park. Especially if nobody can come up with a convincing theory explaining why 3 million normal people would allow themselves to be duped.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: you'd have to believe that the Israelites had the "true," flood myth before there's any credible evidence of them even existing (before the 9th century B.C.).

Genesis deals with history that happened before Israel existed. Why is that so hard for you to understand? There is plenty of evidence of nomadic semitic tribes such as the one Abraham founded that predate or are synonymous with the Sumerian era. Sumer was formed when these Semitic nomads assimilated with a sedentary people called the Ubadians and formed the first city states, another sub group, the Hyksos, also conquered Egypt. Any archeaology book will tell you all this. Manetho's Aegyptiaca tells us that Egypt was conquered by the Hyksos, or heka khasewet (Rulers of Foreign Lands).

And this is what Genesis describes, in more detail than any other account handed down to us. Archeaology backs this up.

[Nathyn]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Furthermore, it's ludicrous to claim that Judaism predates Sumerian mythology when the Sumerians, themselves

As I said once already, Judaism didn't appear until Moses at about the same time when Sumer was winding down, after Genesis. Genesis describes history that is pre-Sumerian and Sumerian. No one practiced Judaism until Moses. To get an idea when this was in a comparitive timeline, Assyria doesn't even appear as a power in the scriptures until after the Davidic Kingdom split into Israel and Judeah, in the post Davidic era 500 or so years after Moses brought the Hebrews out of Egypt. Babylon becomes a power at the end of the Tanahk, Persia is barely introduced. Our earliest manuscripts of the scriptures are from this era of Persian domination, but they accurately describe history to this point so they obviously are copies of much earlier texts.
OK, but what I'm saying that Israelite account of the flood is different but similar to the Sumerian account which came first. Therefore, far from being handed from God to Moses, the account from Genesis is based upon a previous fable.

Also, suggesting that they are "copies from earlier texts," that doesn't necessarily distinguish that they weren't influenced. And, upon thinking about it further -- that is the documentary hypothesis -- claiming they were "copied" from earlier texts rather than handed to Moses by God.

cap'n queasy wrote: You have to ask yourself which is more accurate, the core idea that the earth was created by the slaying of a giant snake, or the close analog of the modern "Big Bang" theory that is the core concept found in Genesis. "Let there Be Light" is a very good description of this event for ancient people using strictly non-technical terms.
There's so much more going on in Genesis other than God just saying "let there be light." One major distinction, for instance, is the fact that the Bible claims God divided light from darkness, but in reality, there is no such thing as "darkness."

Small amounts of light, in the form of radiation, permeate every corner of the universe, including rooms with no doors or windows. Darkness is not a separate "substance," that is the "opposite of light," but rather, darkness is the human optical perception of lesser amounts of light. So, even the claim that God create light and then divided it is false, based upon the common misconception that "darkness," is actually the "absence of light."

The Big Bang wasn't just the creation of light, but the creation of time and space, nor was its creation ordinal, according to the seven periods of described (initially interpreted as "days," even if interpreted as "ages," it still doesn't hold up).

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: God making human beings out of clay, then breathing life into them, tossing them onto a garden, having them both eat an apple and get thrown out because of being deception by a serpent, and then later having the human race virtually annihilated by a massive flood -- this is not "historically accurate." Well, whether you want to believe accounts of supernatural events or not is up to you, but I am speaking about the historical aspects. The civilizations and description of the cultures encountered areaccurate, there are specific people who ruled these civilizations cities that are discussed accurately, actual battles that are described and a plethors of other accurate information is found as well, much of it verified by archaeology.
...Are you trying to tell me that the garden of Eden and Noah's flood actually existed?

cap'n queasy wrote: The things is, the Sumerian descriptions of history are fanciful in comparison, with kings becoming gods (some living ten thousand years) because of their feats of strength, extremely exaggerated accounts of battles they fought and lands they conquered etc.
Fanciful solely because the Sumerian religion is not predominant today. Had things been different and this forum were for Sumerism, Sumerians would regard Jewish explanations as fanciful.

[Nathyn]

Duchifas wrote: Quote: Also, on a side-note: Muhammad getting a revelation from an angel in a cave is no different than Moses speaking to a burning bush.

On the same side-note, Jews do not believe in G-d because Moses spoke to a burning bush.

Jews believe in G-d because of the Divine revelation at Sinai to the entire nation. That is the most important difference between Judaism and any other religion that I know of.

When a farmer in Kansas tells you that he personally witnessed a space ship land on his farm -- maybe you believe him, maybe you don't.

When you have 3 million normal people tell you that they have personally witnessed, with their own eyes, that a space ship landed in Central Park in New York City -- I would be more inclined to believe that something landed in Central Park. Especially if nobody can come up with a convincing theory explaining why 3 million normal people would allow themselves to be duped.
Oh really?

Well, that is quite convincing. Could you tell me, then: where on a map is this Mt. Sinai?

Is it anywhere near the town of Nazareth, where Jesus grew up? What about the mystical Buddhist city of Shambhala? Or perhaps it was on the island of Atlantis? Plato claimed that thousands died when that island sank into the sea. If not Atlantis, then about the island of Avalon? There are also several islands described by Homer in the Odyssey which we haven't yet been able to pinpoint. Perhaps it's there? Or what about the Lost Continent of Mu?

Do you think it's maybe somewhere near the Garden of Eden? Still can't figure out why we can't find that place. It's the only place on Earth that's guarded by a cherubim with a ghostly flaming sword that flies over and attacks anyone that comes nearby. Being such an oddity and being that we now have satellite imagery, one would assume it wouldn't be that difficult to find.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: OK, but what I'm saying that Israelite account of the flood is different but similar to the Sumerian account which came first. Therefore, far from being handed from God to Moses, the account from Genesis is based upon a previous fable.

Previous to Moses was the Sumerian era.
It's the same time frame.

Moses didn't just make it all up, the history of the antediluvean world, the flood, Nimrod and the first city on the banks of the Euphrates (the Sumerian account comes from this civilization), Abraham and how he came to cross the Jordan coming from another of the first city states, and Jacob's family's going into Egypt was handed down to the Hebrews of Egypt. He compiled what he knew of history up to that point into the book of Genesis, and the other four books of the Torah tell his and the other Israelites history. Job is another book of the Tanahk that describes life in Sumer.