The anachronisms in the OT suggest a very late date for its composition (and even more important) editing. We have nothing tangible prior to the 3d century BC and even that is written in Greek.
Let's just take the first line of your dissertation.
I do not give a flying fuck about xtian "tradition." Xtian "tradition" created names for the 3 wise men and turned them into "kings" several centuries after the Matthew tale was written. We now know that for the bulk of the time period you specified either Thutmoses III or Amenhotep II ruled Egypt. These two kings oversaw the greatest extent ever attained by the Egyptian empire, far surpassing the later realm of Seti and Ramesses II. Far from being laid low by some prick of a god, Egypt was at its absolute height of imperial power and there is no indication whatsoever of any sort of calamity. Egypt retained hegemony over Canaan until the middle of the 12th century BC.
So when people start whining about Genesis being literal, as fundies will do ad nauseam, there are two main things which must be overcome.
One: Exodus is a bullshit story. Nothing like it ever happened. This means that there was no "conquest" of Canaan either since the two tales are dependent on one another.
Two: Even more important for xtians, if the "Fall of Man" story is nothing but fairly useless poetry who needs "jesus." In this sense the fundies are absolutely right. If there was no Adam, no Eve, no tree of knowledge and talking snake then WTF is "jesus" coming back to "redeem?" To atheist ears the story is preposterous bullshit but without it there is no point whatsoever to the later insertion of the jesus character into the yarn to save us. If it never happened in the first place WTF are we being saved from.
Now, do you seriously think that characters like drich and G-C will grant that their stories are fictional or even allegorical? They regard fairy tales as "evidence."
Let's just take the first line of your dissertation.
Quote:According to Christian tradition the book of Genesis was written somewhere between 1513-1440BCE, at around the time of the Israelite’s alleged exodus from Egypt.
I do not give a flying fuck about xtian "tradition." Xtian "tradition" created names for the 3 wise men and turned them into "kings" several centuries after the Matthew tale was written. We now know that for the bulk of the time period you specified either Thutmoses III or Amenhotep II ruled Egypt. These two kings oversaw the greatest extent ever attained by the Egyptian empire, far surpassing the later realm of Seti and Ramesses II. Far from being laid low by some prick of a god, Egypt was at its absolute height of imperial power and there is no indication whatsoever of any sort of calamity. Egypt retained hegemony over Canaan until the middle of the 12th century BC.
So when people start whining about Genesis being literal, as fundies will do ad nauseam, there are two main things which must be overcome.
One: Exodus is a bullshit story. Nothing like it ever happened. This means that there was no "conquest" of Canaan either since the two tales are dependent on one another.
Two: Even more important for xtians, if the "Fall of Man" story is nothing but fairly useless poetry who needs "jesus." In this sense the fundies are absolutely right. If there was no Adam, no Eve, no tree of knowledge and talking snake then WTF is "jesus" coming back to "redeem?" To atheist ears the story is preposterous bullshit but without it there is no point whatsoever to the later insertion of the jesus character into the yarn to save us. If it never happened in the first place WTF are we being saved from.
Now, do you seriously think that characters like drich and G-C will grant that their stories are fictional or even allegorical? They regard fairy tales as "evidence."
