Ulrich

Where to start? The beginning maybe?

Ther are two different creation myths in Genesis, the orders of creation are different in each of these myths, the manner in which Adam and Eve were created are different as well.

There is absolutely no evidence outside of the Bible that a global flood ever occured. There is evidence that a regional flooding event occured at around 5600 BCE swelling the Black Sea from the size of lake to its current size in an instant, and spilling over into the Bosporus and Mediterranean Seas. This event would have been catastrophic to any communities along the shoreline of these waterways, and was likely the basis for the Flood Myth.

There is no evidence outside of the Bible that the Hebrews were ever enslaved by the Egyptians, wandered in the desert for 40 years, or invaded Canaan. The Exodus event may actually be based on the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt. The Hyksos were a semitic people who controlled much of Northern Egypt during the 17th Dynasty. They were finally driven out of Egypt by the Pharoah Ahmose, and they originated from either Syria or Canaan. They likely returned to Canaan afterwards, but there is no evidence that they took Canaan by force.

This is only from the first two books of the pentatauch, but we already have some serious problems with the supposed "history" contained in the Bible. I am sure other posters will be happy to follow up with more historical flaws.

Anat

I suppose there is astronomical evidence showing changes in earth's rotation sometime in the 13th century BCE or so, causing the sun to stand still over Palestine? And further astrnomical support for even worse rotational perturbations late in the 8th century BCE causing the shadow to move backwards?

Sensei Meela

"Inarguable" in what way? Without an appeal to "magic/miracles?" As such, a world-wide flood, Daniel's (?) extended day and talking animals are all scientifically and historically refuted.

I'd say that the contradictions are probably your best bet, as well as the census gaffe.

Ulrich

Canaan was only part of Egypt by virtue of the Hyksos rule at the time. After the Hyksos were expelled from their capital of Avaris, they withdrew into the Sinai, and the North Eastern border of Egypt then became the Red Sea. The Egyptians did continue to attack the Hyksos in the Sinai and Canaan, but never managed to bring these areas back into the Kingdom.

Anat

No, there was continued Egyptian presence in areas of Canaan until the invasion of the Sea Peoples. Gaza was the center of Egyptian rule over Canaan, and there were Egyptian forces in Jaffa and Beth-Sh'an.

Julian

Thank you. In addition, we also have Egyptian writings which claim that they were holding the Canaan region with a mere 100 soldiers. There is no reason to disbelieve this claim, seeing how Canaan was quite a backwater little area. Makes you wonder what that whole Joshua invasion was about. Who were they fighting? Also, there is no archeological evidence of any such invasion. There is, however, a lot of evidence that they were always there as an indigenous population.

Julian

Ulrich

Although it is true that Egypt may have held influence over this region after the expulsion of the Hyksos, I do not think you can say that Canaan was a part of Egypt at that point. The last major battle between Egypt and the Hyksos was the siege at Sharuhen in the Northen Sinai, afterwards Egypt levyed tribute on Canaan for supporting the Hyksos, and may have chased some Hyksos elements further East into Edom (some reports have them crossing the Euphrates), but did not take control of Canaan. In fact, Ahmose went back to Southern Egypt after the three year siege at Sharuhen to wage war on the Nubians and bring them into the Kingdom, thus securing his rule over the Upper Kingdom.

I guess the fact that Canaan paid tribute to Egypt for their part in aiding the Hyksos can be viewed as Egypt excercising control over the region, but I do not think a case can be made for Egypt actually occupying Canaan during this period.

Of course I could be wrong, and I am not a historian, so any information that you can provide to enlighten me would be appreciated. :thumbs:

Anat

I guess it's a matter of definition. The degree of independence of the Canaanite city-states was limited, and any action that went against Egyptian interests was easily squelched by the local Egyptian forces.

wonkothesane

Hey guys, "Cunjo" over at Trillian has chimed back with this:

Wow, can you say "delusional"????

And the rest can be read here: http://www.trillian.cc/forums/showth...269#post542269

So, the game is afoot.

HEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPPP! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks.

wonkothesane

Actually, I have just re-read Cujo's post, and I have decided to immediately withdraw my offer to discuss this because I can see that he has no only already made up his mind, but is also using very well know and very old YEC tactics and I'm not going to let him play me for a sucker...

he will, no doubt, immediately declare himself the victor.