The Genesis Fraud

[michaelsherlock]

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.

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."

thanks for your post. I have just started reading Gmirikin's, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch and have begun looking into the arguments for Septuigant priority. So far it is a good read and seems well researched. Have you read it?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's what you have to add to the convo Drich, that genesis is part of a jewish fairy tale that was later claimed by christian sects and not written by them?




[/endarcasm]

Pretty sure that's common knowledge. Speaking of common, a new religion claiming authority or authenticity by way of attempting to claim an older established religion as it's herald is about as run-of-the-mill as it gets. I'm sure you think it's complete nonsense in every other case, but, special rules for "special" fairy tales, eh?

[michaelsherlock]

That's what you have to add to the convo Drich, that genesis is part of a jewish fairy tale that was later claimed by christian sects?




[/endarcasm]

that's what Origen said too!

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I don't think Minimalist likes Drich very much. Am I jumping to conclusions?

Not at all,and may I say that's a nice flair for understatement you have there. Are you British?

[Drich]

That's what you have to add to the convo Drich, that genesis is part of a jewish fairy tale that was later claimed by christian sects?




[/endarcasm]

that's what Origen said too!

Maybe he too was trying to avoid answering questions he was not prepared to account for... The default response seems to be to trivialize and dismiss without answering any of the questions that have been presented.

The problem with only quoting the work of others is that it leaves you when you wander beyond the scope being presented. Otherwise why not flourish what has compiled all of this information?

---

That's what you have to add to the convo Drich, that genesis is part of a Jewish fairy tale that was later claimed by Christian sects and not written by them?

Pretty sure that's common knowledge. Speaking of common, a new religion claiming authority or authenticity by way of attempting to claim an older established religion as it's herald is about as run-of-the-mill as it gets. I'm sure you think it's complete nonsense in every other case, but, special rules for "special" fairy tales, eh?

This is a total mis-categorization of the facts being presented. Genesis which is what this thread is about is a well established book in the Pentateuch Which is the Corner stone of the Jewish Faith. It is not a doctrinal book of Christianity in any way shape or form. Which in of itself invalidates your previous argument completely.

This should be a conversation about the Jews and where they sourced materials. The fact that you do not see the separation here and the fact that you misinterpreted the facts being presented in this thread shows you do not understand the basic concept you are trying to force into the conversation..

-Or you do not understand the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.

[michaelsherlock]

This is a total mis-categorization of the facts being presented. Genesis which is what this thread is about is a well established book in the Pentateuch Which is the Corner stone of the Jewish Faith. It is not a doctrinal book of Christianity in any way shape or form.

What about the proto-evangelium?

This should be a conversation about the Jews and where they sourced materials. The fact that you do not see the separation here and the fact that you misinterpreted the facts being presented in this thread shows you do not understand the basic concept you are trying to force into the conversation..

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.

-

Or you do not understand the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.

Oooh, Oooh, I do, I do. Christianity hijacked the legitimacy of the Jewish religion to attain successful propagation.

[Drich]

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"

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)

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?

[michaelsherlock]

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"

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)

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

[The Grand Nudger]

"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.

[Epimethean]

Channeling Stat, I think.