Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 2:59 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Genesis Fraud
#31
RE: The Genesis Fraud
(April 10, 2012 at 9:22 am)Rhythm Wrote: "Not doctrinal"..lol, complete bullshit Drich. Which god was christ again? What is christ coming to save us from again? When did that happen again? Are you going to start blathering on about "not doctrinal" but "true enough"? Give me a fucking break. You shouldn't be so willing to come off like a snake in service of christ, if you want to spread that message. That's just my opinion.

But hell, let's run with it. God did not create us (or anything else in this world), there was no garden, no original sin, no sin at all, no fall of man, and death isn't some sort of curse placed upon us. I love your doctrine Drich.

I understand your frustration. I have been on many apologetic forums and debated with some of America's "Top" apologists, and at times I think I might have lost fewer braincells by repeatedly smashing my head against an iron wall. Belief is a fickle mistress!

Your words remind me of the early Church father, Origen, who said:

"Could any man of sound judgment suppose that the first, second and third days (of creation) had an evening and a morning, when there were as yet no sun or moon or stars? Could anyone be so unintelligent as to think that God made a paradise somewhere in the east and planted it with trees, like a farmer, or that in that paradise he put a tree of life, a tree you could see and know with your senses, a tree you could derive life from by eating its fruit with the teeth in your head? When the Bible says that God used to walk in paradise in the evening or that Adam hid behind a tree, no one, I think, will question that these are only fictions, stories of things that never actually happened, and that figuratively they refer to certain mysteries."

Phillip Schaff. Ante-Nicene Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen Parts First and Second. Grand Rapids. Christian: Origen. De Principiis. Pg. 616

And with regards to the NT, said:

"The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically…"

Ibid.

In the end, we eat, drink, sleep, shit, wake up (not necessarily in that order) we occupy the same physical plain with those who dream of other plains and it is natural that these sleepwalkers occaisionally step on our toes.

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL

http://michaelsherlockauthor.blogspot.jp/
Reply
#32
RE: The Genesis Fraud
(April 10, 2012 at 3:21 am)michaelsherlock Wrote:
(April 9, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Drich Wrote:
(April 9, 2012 at 10:27 pm)michaelsherlock Wrote: What about the proto-evangelium?
In that He will strike at the Heel and God will deliver a death blow to "him?"

what about it? It was a promise to established in the beginning Hence the "proto"

Quote:I disagree. The two (OT and NT) have been bound by the doctrines of Christianity for centuries, but for a few attempts by the likes of Marcion and his followers.
I disagree with your disagreement. As Judism was an established religion for several thousand years before the establishment of Christianity and for the majority of that time Genesis was apart of that system of belief.
Thus seperating Genesis from Christianity and placing it in the Corner of Judism first. Meaning Jewish interpertation must and will take percedent over a simply traditional Christian interpertation of the book.
(This includes but not limited to the orgins of the books and stated timelines)

Quote:Oooh, Oooh, I do, I do. Christianity hijacked the legitimacy of the Jewish religion to attain successful propagation.
Oooh, Oooh!! thus sealing the arguement to my side in that Judism was a well established religion long before christian historeans messed up the interpertations and traditional readings of books like Genesis. Which again points to the futility of the OP. Why address a flawed christian interpertation of another's Religious corner stone text? Why not speak to the orginal interpertations of the texted in question?

Again at best all you efforts point to are mistakes made by earily church historeans.

Which beggs me to ask again: So what?

Whether you are aware of this fact or not, Christianity is built upon Judaism, and in reality quite a large sprinkle of "Paganism" as well. So, if you manage to demonstrate that the foundations of a given religion, or idea are built on less than solid foundations...what does that guy say happens to those who build things on sandy foundations?

and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall
Matthew 7:27
Exactly! Christianity is BASED on Judaism. So as you say why not attack the foundations OF Judaism? The OP looked at the Christian only interpretation of the book in question. Christians who accept the traditional roman catholic views do not see eye to eye with all of the same Jewish views. (Or with the rest of Christianity for that matter) That means if there is a discrepancy in a Jewish view, of a Jewish text then it should be addressed from a Jewish perspective and not a Christian perspective. Again what the OP has done is address the flaws in Christianity that most of us are willing to admit they exist, because of the discrepancies of the Jewish accounts of the very same texts.

So again what does it matter that he has found flaws in a Christian interpretation of a Jewish text. This literally changes nothing.

(April 10, 2012 at 9:22 am)Rhythm Wrote: "Not doctrinal"..lol, complete bullshit Drich. Which god was christ again? What is christ coming to save us from again? When did that happen again? Are you going to start blathering on about "not doctrinal" but "true enough"? Give me a fucking break. You shouldn't be so willing to come off like a snake in service of christ, if you want to spread that message. That's just my opinion.

But hell, let's run with it. God did not create us (or anything else in this world), there was no garden, no original sin, no sin at all, no fall of man, and death isn't some sort of curse placed upon us. I love your doctrine (or lack thereof) Drich.
Big Grin again you show the limits of your understandings. You are desperately trying to make what I am saying fit your understanding of the church.
So I guess we need to address your understanding of "doctrine." I have not discussed doctrine for a very specific reason. Why you ask? Because "we" in the church can make a doctrine say anything we want it to say. Which means doctrine is not the standard you believe it to be. The bible however is that standard to worshiping the God of the bible. That is why I defer to the bible rather than "doctrine."



Reply
#33
RE: The Genesis Fraud
(April 10, 2012 at 10:55 am)Drich Wrote: Exactly! Christianity is BASED on Judaism. So as you say why not attack the foundations OF Judaism? The OP looked at the Christian only interpretation of the book in question. Christians who accept the traditional roman catholic views do not see eye to eye with all of the same Jewish views. (Or with the rest of Christianity for that matter) That means if there is a discrepancy in a Jewish view, of a Jewish text then it should be addressed from a Jewish perspective and not a Christian perspective. Again what the OP has done is address the flaws in Christianity that most of us are willing to admit they exist, because of the discrepancies of the Jewish accounts of the very same texts.

You must have posted in the wrong thread, all this one is about is that there is good reason to speculate that Genesis is actually a much more recent document than previously believed.
Whether it is Jewish or Christian interpretation of that book is irrelevant to the dating of the original text and it is misleading to a discussion over its roots to discuss how different religions interpret that same text.

What does it change? It increases the probability the accounts are fictional, but by no means disproves anything.

So whats your point? Is there supposed to be a single piece of evidence that destroys religion? No, its done by pointing out all the little inaccuracies and chipping away at the base until its weakness and empty core is exposed.

(April 10, 2012 at 10:55 am)Drich Wrote: Big Grin again you show the limits of your understandings. You are desperately trying to make what I am saying fit your understanding of the church.
So I guess we need to address your understanding of "doctrine." I have not discussed doctrine for a very specific reason. Why you ask? Because "we" in the church can make a doctrine say anything we want it to say. Which means doctrine is not the standard you believe it to be. The bible however is that standard to worshiping the God of the bible. That is why I defer to the bible rather than "doctrine."

Any deference to the "bible" instead of "doctrine" is a pretence by default, since it relies on a specific interpretation of the text which is then asserted to be the correct interpretation.

However, apart from the assertion, sadly, it still makes your points as irrelevant as the next bible-assertion.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog

If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic.
― Tim Minchin, Storm
Reply
#34
RE: The Genesis Fraud
(April 10, 2012 at 11:26 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote:
(April 10, 2012 at 10:55 am)Drich Wrote: Exactly! Christianity is BASED on Judaism. So as you say why not attack the foundations OF Judaism? The OP looked at the Christian only interpretation of the book in question. Christians who accept the traditional roman catholic views do not see eye to eye with all of the same Jewish views. (Or with the rest of Christianity for that matter) That means if there is a discrepancy in a Jewish view, of a Jewish text then it should be addressed from a Jewish perspective and not a Christian perspective. Again what the OP has done is address the flaws in Christianity that most of us are willing to admit they exist, because of the discrepancies of the Jewish accounts of the very same texts.

You must have posted in the wrong thread, all this one is about is that there is good reason to speculate that Genesis is actually a much more recent document than previously believed.
Whether it is Jewish or Christian interpretation of that book is irrelevant to the dating of the original text and it is misleading to a discussion over its roots to discuss how different religions interpret that same text.

What does it change? It increases the probability the accounts are fictional, but by no means disproves anything.

So whats your point? Is there supposed to be a single piece of evidence that destroys religion? No, its done by pointing out all the little inaccuracies and chipping away at the base until its weakness and empty core is exposed.

(April 10, 2012 at 10:55 am)Drich Wrote: Big Grin again you show the limits of your understandings. You are desperately trying to make what I am saying fit your understanding of the church.
So I guess we need to address your understanding of "doctrine." I have not discussed doctrine for a very specific reason. Why you ask? Because "we" in the church can make a doctrine say anything we want it to say. Which means doctrine is not the standard you believe it to be. The bible however is that standard to worshiping the God of the bible. That is why I defer to the bible rather than "doctrine."

Any deference to the "bible" instead of "doctrine" is a pretence by default, since it relies on a specific interpretation of the text which is then asserted to be the correct interpretation.

However, apart from the assertion, sadly, it still makes your points as irrelevant as the next bible-assertion.

Nicely said.

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL

http://michaelsherlockauthor.blogspot.jp/
Reply
#35
RE: The Genesis Fraud
(April 10, 2012 at 11:26 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: You must have posted in the wrong thread, all this one is about is that there is good reason to speculate that Genesis is actually a much more recent document than previously believed.
Whether it is Jewish or Christian interpretation of that book is irrelevant to the dating of the original text and it is misleading to a discussion over its roots to discuss how different religions interpret that same text.

What does it change? It increases the probability the accounts are fictional, but by no means disproves anything.

So whats your point? Is there supposed to be a single piece of evidence that destroys religion? No, its done by pointing out all the little inaccuracies and chipping away at the base until its weakness and empty core is exposed.

Man you guys are all under the assumption that you are the smartest there by the first to ever come up with the obvious answer.

This point has been made and shot down by everyone except the op.

Short answer the Jews have different time lines than the traditional christians. Which put the genesis of the book of Genesis in the Hands of aberham rather than Moses, which can make the work about 1500 years or so older than than the OP's efforts to date the work. (Based on 1000 year old tradition of the roman catholic church)

The fact that the beginings of the work Moses named Genesis were first penned down by Aberham/Abramwould refute another claim that God can only speak Hebrew. Because Aberham was not the only Hebrew speaking person of his time. abram branched off of his father's nomadic tribe when God told him he would take him to a promised land.

Then I posted a link on Archeology.com that put the destomication of camels about 2000 years before what the OP claimed. After three unanswered challenges I assumed the OP could not or simply would not refute what has been contested..
Reply
#36
RE: The Genesis Fraud


Quote:Then I posted a link on Archeology.com that put the destomication of camels about 2000 years before what the OP claimed. After three unanswered challenges I assumed the OP could not or simply would not refute what has been contested..

I will respond to this when I get a chance, but I have addressed this apology in the 2nd volume of a three volume series I have authored. But I will get to you.

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL

http://michaelsherlockauthor.blogspot.jp/
Reply
#37
RE: The Genesis Fraud
Jesus freaks can always find some fuckhead to tell them the lies they want to hear. And they gladly believe whatever bullshit they are told because believing bullshit is what they do best.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/...ted-camels

Quote:According to 3,000-year-old evidence discovered at two excavation sites in Sharjah, people in what is now the UAE were probably the first to domesticate the wild camel.

The rest of us are stuck with scholarship.
Reply
#38
RE: The Genesis Fraud
(April 8, 2012 at 9:50 pm)michaelsherlock Wrote: This tradition has now been proven to be founded upon nothing more than erroneous and unsubstantiated belief.
Tradition and logic says the Moses books were written at times in which people would have to have known the places they were talking about, as well as the style. The names (Abram, Jacob, and Job) were typical of early Mesopotamia, not Babylon. Genesis lists details such as the inheritance right of an adopted household member or slave (15:1-4), the obligation of a barren wife to furnish her husband with sons through a servant girl (16:2-4), strictures against expelling such a servant girl and her son (21:10-11), the authority of oral statements in ancient Near Eastern law, such as a deathbed bequest (27:1, 22, 33)--these and other legal customs, social contracts and provisions are illustrated in earlier Mesopotamian documents, as opposed to 6th century BC. The writer(s) would have to know all these details. Chapters 39-50 reflect Egyptian influence, such as Egyptian grape cultivation (40:9-11), the riverside scene (41), Egypt as Canaan's breadbasket (42), Canaan as the source of numerous products for Egyptian consumption (43), Egyptian religious and social customs (ends of 43, 46), Egyptian administrative procedures (47), Egyptian funerary practices (50), as well as Egyptian words and names distributed throughout. Reading Genesis, one would logically guess that Israel did indeed originate in Mesopotamia, moved to Canaan, fall under Egyptian rule, and backtracked through Canaan again. The author(s) would have no reason to write otherwise; Genesis' stories were known tradition, either written on cuneiform or passed orally, and the author(s) simply put it on paper. Epics like Gilgamesh are written in hyperbolic style, in which Gilgamesh goes to the underworld to get a plant and loses it to a snake. It was made to entertain. Any similarities between Mesopotamian writings and the Bible are meaningless because the Mesopotamian writings could just have easily been copied and manipulated from the Bible. In fact, historically, the more detailed document is almost always the source. So the Torah is written in account format; the writer(s) believed it true and had to know a good portion of the real history in order to write the way they did. Stories are able to be stretched over time, but the thickness of details suggests Genesis did not stray far. The Israelites would not likely be selective about recalling old laws and habits yet blatantly forget or distort the more miraculous events. Don't let the large number of years cloud your judgment. Legends form on the level of individual people with the motivations and abilities to get it done, as well as the approval of all their peers.

Quote:With regards to the relatively late development of the Hebrew language the ‘Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages’ relates that:
"No extant inscription that can be identified specifically as Hebrew antedates the tenth century BC, and Hebrew inscriptions in significant numbers do not begin to appear before the early eighth century BC."

The link <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445132,00.html> shows a Hebraic inscription from the early 10th century. That's within four hundred years. Languages change very little in four hundred years, particularly in isolated peoples. It isn't a step affect, like one day it's one language and the next it's a brand new language. Languages evolve slowly, so it is more than likely someone in 10th century BC could read Old Hebrew from the 15th century, in the way that you and I can decipher Shakespearean English. If Genesis was not written in Hebrew as we know it, it was certainly copied from older forms of Hebrew.

Quote:The Philistines, a group of migrants from the Aegean or eastern Mediterranean, had not established their settlements along the coastal plain of Canaan until sometime after 1200BCE.
The name 'Philistines' is used loosely for enemies in the region. Critical archeologists assume the Philistines arrived in 1200BC because the pottery changed. All this means is that the older 'Philistines' were conquered, as evidenced by the debris layer below 1200BC. When groups assumed control of lands they often took the name. You can see this in Assyria's conquering of the Hittite Kingdom, in which the Hittites remained Hittites while art styles and government changed. Even more common is the retaining of the city name. City names almost never change. 'Jericho' was rebuilt dozens of times under many different powers--the hill it sits on is the remains of every time it was destroyed.

Quote:"According to the archaeological evidence, the camel could not have been domesticated as a beast of burden before the first millennium B.C."
This journal explains the wide presence of camels in the area: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/38...0712280481
As it states, camels are found in Egypt as early as the First Dynasty (3100-2850 BC). Whether they were domesticated is hard to tell using archaeology. The Egyptians had pens for livestock; one cannot tell what those livestock were without proper fossils. I ask you: if you had camels in the area, would you not domesticate some? The Egyptians had the same IQ as we do today. It's not going to take them two thousand years to figure out the uses of a camel. When there is a gap in the evidence, look for more evidence and use logic in the meantime. Furthermore, if Abram passed through Egypt at 1000BC, King David could not possibly have been alive for his inscription dated 9th century (http://teldan.wordpress.com/house-of-david-inscription).

Quote:The problem with the use of the word ‘Kasdim’ is that it was not used to describe ancient Babylonia until the 6th century BCE.
In translation, names are updated. This does not mean the Pentateuch was altered in any other way; it was simply a device to help contemporary Hebrews understand. The first known Old Testament was compiled in Babylon. It is not unreasonable for clarifications to be made without losing the inspired message. Either Genesis was on cuneiform (http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?opti...Itemid=104) or oral. Either way, transitions need to be added during compilation to link all the pieces together. That is likely the reason the phrase "before there reigned any king" was used. One cannot logically jump from "Genesis contains contemporary terminology" to "all its stories were made up." The only breach in story detail you pointed out was the inclusion of camels, which I disputed.

Quote:The capital city of Babylon was Asshur, yet there is no mention of this city, instead we see three major cities listed; Nineveh, Rehoboth and Calah.
Ashur became occupied around 2500BC. That is just about when the Flood is dated also. In the Genesis 10:11 verse, Cush and his people are building the three above cities. Either he did not build Ashur or Ashur was too small to be recognized then. If Ashur had been mentioned, that might have been an inconsistency. Instead, the writer shows superior knowledge of the time period by omitting the great city. Coincidentally, Ashur appears in Numbers 24:24, also written by Moses, there in a more suitable context.

Given all this evidence, it seems unlikely 6th century Jews in captivity would have had the tools to fabricate such a detailed and convincing account as Genesis. Any alterations would have had to be approved by Mosaic Law-abiding peers. Believing Jews would not modify the Word of God. Non-believing Jews would have no reason to keep it over many generations. One cannot look at the God of Genesis as a mere object of storytelling. He was written in such a way as to convince the reader of His divinity. Michael, I applaud your diligent research. But I cannot agree with you. The Bible is the largest, most precise, and most misunderstood ancient book in all of history. The 'inconsistencies' are few for a document of its magnitude, and the parts labeled such are typically explainable when one knows the culture, time period, and intent of writing.

Reply
#39
RE: The Genesis Fraud
(April 11, 2012 at 12:31 am)Drich Wrote: Short answer the Jews have different time lines than the traditional christians. Which put the genesis of the book of Genesis in the Hands of aberham rather than Moses, which can make the work about 1500 years or so older than than the OP's efforts to date the work. (Based on 1000 year old tradition of the roman catholic church)

Irrelevant. Christianity is founded on Judaism, nobody said otherwise.
Whether Mr michealsherlock is correct or not is certainly up for debate and I stand undecided, but this response does nothing to move the discussion forward. What does it change? Nothing.
So the Jewish put a different timeline on things than Christians? It matters not one jot which timeline is correct, what matters is when it was written.
Personally I suspect its a bit of both. Very ancient scraps, with extra bits tagged on and thrown together over the years. Bit like the NT.

Quote:The fact that the beginings of the work Moses named Genesis were first penned down by Aberham/Abramwould refute another claim that God can only speak Hebrew.

I assume you mean Abram or Abraham. I find no reference to him being called Aberham or Abramwould.
You may well be right, I'm sure you've studied it more closely, but I found no immediate references to these spellings. Curious why you would use them, if Abraham would be a clearer method of getting your point across, since we are more aware of that usage. Why would you use an archaic or nonsense term instead of the one that would be understood by the audience it is intended for?

(April 11, 2012 at 12:31 am)Drich Wrote: Then I posted a link on Archeology.com that put the destomication of camels about 2000 years before what the OP claimed. After three unanswered challenges I assumed the OP could not or simply would not refute what has been contested..

I think the fact remains that the question is not clearly answered by archeology yet and may never be. The OP's source on domestication of camels is not 100% convincing to me either.
Its definitely the weakest point in the text.

Look at that, we agree on something Drich! Big Grin
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog

If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic.
― Tim Minchin, Storm
Reply
#40
RE: The Genesis Fraud
Quote:The OP's source on domestication of camels is not 100% convincing to me either.
Its definitely the weakest point in the text.

Look at that, we agree on something Drich! Big Grin

I agree too. The camel issue is one which is not settled, yet the archaeological evidence seems to suggest that camels were not domesticated in EGYPT before the first millenium BCE, the place where the camels are mentioned to have been in abundance.


You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL

http://michaelsherlockauthor.blogspot.jp/
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Is this a contradiction or am I reading it wrong? Genesis 5:28 Ferrocyanide 110 9018 April 10, 2023 at 3:32 pm
Last Post: Ferrocyanide
  There are no answers in Genesis LinuxGal 248 19248 March 24, 2023 at 7:34 pm
Last Post: Ferrocyanide
  Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis GrandizerII 614 63421 March 9, 2019 at 8:38 pm
Last Post: Bucky Ball
  Genesis interpretations - how many are there? Fake Messiah 129 16831 January 22, 2019 at 7:33 pm
Last Post: donlor
  If Yahweh exists, is he a fraud? Cecelia 33 5266 November 17, 2016 at 5:00 pm
Last Post: Drich
  Free interpretation of the Genesis 3:5 KJV theBorg 19 3626 November 13, 2016 at 2:03 am
Last Post: RiddledWithFear
  Genesis - The Prequel! Time Traveler 12 3230 May 17, 2016 at 1:16 am
Last Post: Love333
  Jewish Geneology: A Fraud? Rhondazvous 36 5242 April 13, 2016 at 7:41 am
Last Post: abaris
  Rewriting the bible part 1 - Genesis dyresand 4 1914 March 12, 2016 at 3:14 am
Last Post: robvalue
  god is a moron - genesis dyresand 70 18712 August 7, 2015 at 5:03 pm
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)