Gracchus

How about accountability for your own claims?

What is really fascinating is your inability or unwillingness to support yourself.

I promise to address that when you have answered the questions asked of you.

We can discuss that when you answer the questions.


You first.

So:
The answers to the questions could be given in 20 keystrokes or less. Why don't you answer?

Amedeo

From the questions you ask, I can see we are NOT on the same track of mind. So, let me rephrase my position and I will provide some specific details:

I do not know and I do not need to know when the Bible was WRITTEN DOWN. But I presume that it wrote down ORAL reports coming down from historically undetermined periods of time.

I presume that OCCASIONALY (before the writing down of the Bible at possibly different times), some people COMPOSED STORIES. So, I speak of Bible Narrators (aside from the writers/recorders of the traditional stories).

Finally, I presume that a given story, anecdote, or thesis, was composed and narrated AFTER the occurrences of the narrated events, or after the existence of the named people.

There may be fictitious names, names made up by the story teller, but I presume, on principle, that unless the contrary can be shown, the stated NAMES OF PEOPLE, PEOPLES, AND PLACES, have been taken from the memory reservoir of the People among whom the narrators arose, and possibly from adjacent Peoples.

Speaking of the Table or Catalogue of the Nations allegedly founded by Noah's sons and grandsons and great-grandsons [3 generations or about 100 years of time], the Narrator did not have to be acquainted more than his own People, but he compiled information based on the pool of memory which goes back to the narrators of the creation by the Elohim or by Yahweh.

So, what I said earlier was that if the Flood took place in the year "F", then, within 100 years or so, the nations stated in the Table were INITIATED. (Then they grew and other were generated. In fact, when the remark was made that the Philistines descended from one of the sons of Ham, the ovbious implication is that additional Peoples were generated or founded after the Table-Nations.)

We don't need to know how long the listed Nations lasted. What we know -- or must presume [barring divine revelations, which are not even claimed by the narrator] -- is that the Table was compiled AFTER those nations had been founded (initiated).

Now, the Table has names of Peoples that do not correspond to any people WE know independently from OUR historical/archeological researches. There are others that are recognizable. Well, then, the Table must have been compiled AFTER the listed YOUNGEST nation -- youngest from the standpoint of our historical knowledge. (The Table give no specific hit of chronology: it simply assumes that ALL of those nations were founded within 100 years or so.)

Nations that we can check out are at least: Babylon, Erech, Akkad, Assyria, Assur, and
Hittites. Notice that according to the Table, Assyria is Hamitic, whereas Assur (Ashur) is Shemitic. (Possibly "Assyria" is the memory of a nation that, in our terms, was founded around 2000 B.C., and that the city-state of Ashur was the contemporary or recent one that established "merchant colonies" in Anatolian Cappadocia around 1798-1740 B.C.)

Babylon is older (ca. 2300 B.C.). Akkad is still older, at least from around 2500 B.C. I would say that Canaan and Phoenicia were older still, but nobody in this world ever thinks that, for example, Canaan HAD AN ORIGEN, older than Akkad but not present in any historical record. Most people do not look for the pre-history of Canaan. [[Canaan, which included the Hebrews, was formed out of two ethnic currents BEFORE Ebla became a flourishing city, that is, before 2560 B.C., but there are no written accounts; etymology and customs-analyses are my main tool of research.]]

Well then, as we are uncertain about the listed Ashur, we turn to the Hittites (an Indo-European People, which may not be bunched up with Canaan, as the Table does). According to the Encyclopedia of the Orient,

http://www.lexicorient.com/e.o/hittites.htm

the Old Hittite kingdom was from about 1620 to 1500 B.C. So, information about the nation of the Hittites reached the Bible narrator any time during this period, at the earliest around 1620 B.C.

If the narration took place around 1600 B.C. (possibly later), the date of the stated Flood is around 1700 B.C. -- assuming that there were really 3 generations of humans between this narrator and the narrator of the Flood story.

Personally, I feel that the Bible preserves the memory of the recent Hittite kingdom and of other peoples (such as the Japhethites) who go back a few thousands of years, and the memory of devastating indundation that really took place around 1635/1600 B.C. at Santorini (close to Anatolia).

--
See my thread, The Philistines, for some particular investigations. (I think that there was a Hebrew migration to Egyptian territory, but not in Egypt itself.)

Amedeo

(I didn't realize there were so many misprints... Too late for corrections now.)

I wanted to add a note about the frequent view that the Biblical story of the Flood is based on the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh. To begin with, this flood story may be based on some inundation of the rivers of Mesopotamia, but there is no point speculating on the realistic bases of any Flood tale.

The point is that the Sumerian Epic [Cf. Wikipedia's good treatment] seems to have been composed in 2100-2000 B.C. However, Tablet XI, which deals with the Flood and other matters, is demonstrably a Sumerian version of the Akkadian Epic, Athrasis [Atra-Hasis]. This is an 18th century B.C. account of creation and of a flood. (Versions or fragments are founds far and wide, as in Ugarit tablets of 1200 B.C.)

If the Bible Flood story is based on oral reports of Mesopotamian stories, then the Hebrew story was composed AFTER the 18th century B.C., which is closer to my date of 1700/1600B.C. than one traditional Bible-Chronology calculation of 2304 B.C.

Ebla in Canaan has tablets which do back to around 2500 B.C. They make mention of the divine pre-Biblical Yah, of pre-Israelitic Jerusalem, and of many names which will appear in the Bible, but there seems to be no mention of any flood; and the archeological record does not bear out any cataclysmic inundation of Canaan either around 2300 or around 1700/1600 B.C.

Hex

Fine, you never ACTUALLY claimed they were ARCHAEOLOGISTS.

But in the 'Why no Archaeological Evidence for the Biblical Exodus' thread, you post, in this post (thread closed so not easy to quote, but I WILL if you're too lazy to click the link), as experts and reputable sources to back up your assertion, Charles A. Whittaker and Dr. Lennart Möller. Both of these deal with the ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE that they claim supports their claims. Thus, through inference and context, you claim them as ARCHAEOLOGISTS who have the QUALIFICATIONS to render valid input on the subject.


One is a theologan and the other an environmental scientist. NEITHER is an archaeologist qualified to deal with the ARCHAEOLOGY of the topic in question. You make a tiny attempt later in the thread to bring up that Möller has peer reviewed 'mulidisciplinary' works. Other than those dealing with air-borne environmental hazards, what has he done that's RELEVANT to ARCHAEOLOGY? Especially biblical Archaeology, or the archaeology of the Middle East?

Hence, I call you on it. It is junk science. You have no authoritative sources for the subject matter at hand, and therefore they do not qualify within an archaeological context.



Now, since my comments on your ducking have been addressed, would you care to answer the simple questions at hand?

RED DAVE

Way back on January 25, praxeus wrote, on another thread:
After some batting this around on this thread, eventually two questions evolved for praxeus, which are printed below.

On April 13, on this this thread, praxeus wrote:
Now, it is now May 14. More than a month has passed, so, one more time, I am asking praxeus the two questions.

Let’s see what his answer(s) will be:
Several people have urged praxeus to answer these two questions. I request that people continue to do so on this thread.

On you, praxeus.

RED DAVE

Steven Avery

A whole mess of presumptions here upon which to base a supposedly definitive claim.

So why should I care about your claim then ? I'm simply not going to bother with the rest, none of what you are writing is making a lot of sense.

I originally thought there might be a simple chronological argument actually made in there somewhere to consider.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

Correct, not professional archaeologists that would be acceptable to the skeptics of the thread who are looking to say "no evidence". Apparently you only want input from some special group that has what you call :

"the QUALIFICATIONS to render valid input on the subject".

Hmmm.. that list of valid input folks was not given in the OP.

Yet in fact you all acknowledged that the professional archaeologists you will accept are silent (let's also mention that this strange crew, short on logic, often wants the professionals they will accept to only be non-Christian).

They simply have not looked for evidence in Arabia. And you, Hex will not even look at evidence from any other sources. Pretty dumb. Transparent. Tacky.

( This is quite amazing from the mythicist crew who are always crying .. look at our 'scholarship' .. why Richard Carrier is an aspiring professional historian !)

So we have fully the answer to the question that was asked ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex ... in the 'Why no Archaeological Evidence for the Biblical Exodus' thread,

Simply because the people who you consider experts or professionals or whatever have not looked at all for the evidence in the proper region. And even Frank Moore Cross and Herschel Shanks have both acknowledged that Arabia is significant for the Sinai question so it should be agreed by all (not just the believers) that there is nothing "bogus" or "junk science" about researching and looking in Arabia, as well as giving a wealth of historical references.

Those claims are flat-out false integrity accusations that only darkens the three rah-rah skeptics trying to float and support it on this thread. As if folks hadn't read the earlier thread. If the professional archaeologists you seem to think are the only competent folks aren't doing their job - you should simply be thankful for the professional scientists and laypeople who are out there actually doing the legwork and writing.

So the thread was answered fully.

No evidence (by your artificial standards) .. why ?

The people you find acceptable for convenience haven't looked in the right region.

End of story.
The thread was fully answered.

You also fabricated words into my mouth, as you acknowledged quite reluctantly with a lot of hand-waving diversion.

And RedDave, it is time for you to retract, modify or attempt to support your integrity accusation of a "bogus" (counterfeit, sham, fraudulent, spurious) theory of the Exodus in Arabia. You have successfully demonstrated one thing - skeptics will trip over each other to try to somehow support each other in such a false integrity accusation. Now it is your turn to answer.

Shalom,
Steven

Amedeo

PLEASE, do not accept anything on faith!

At the same time, it would be well to understand what a "presumption" is, in the legal use of the term: A court makes and states various presumptions, which are prior to and independent of evidences which are going to be presented. An example of a presumption: If one uses a switch-blade knife to stab someone, he will stab in the direction of the blade, rather than by arching the arm and stabbing downwards (which would take time and allow the attacked person to see the move and to protect himself). Presumptions are made everyday by any presenter of evidences on this Board, but usually writers to not list their basic presumptions and... sometimes they are not aware that they make FALSE ASSUMPTIONS.

Why doesn't it make sense to look into OUR history and archeology to determine when some nations started? I know: For instance, if the Amorites founded Babylon, then it is false that it was founded by one of the sons of Noah. In many instances, historical/archeological facts falsify the Biblical doctrines and the related chronology.

Hex

Derail from topic at hand. I'm starting a separate thread for this discussion, praxeus (and everyone else who's interested). Please look at What Qualifications do 'Professonals' need?.

Here, though, praxeus, please answer the two simple questions without trying to distract us with rthetoric or thinly veiled ad hominims, please?

EthnAlln

The people who wrote the Bible and the legends you mention were grotesquely ignorant of geography and geology. They had no idea that most of the world even existed. How could they possibly know there was a flood there?