IamJoseph

If Paul wrote Hebrew the writing would be in Hebrew. The same applies to all writers of the NT. Jews never wrote in Latin, and none of their scriptures are in Greek or Aramaic. The Hebrew writings are the world's most authentic and believable writings - over 70% has already been scientifically authenticated, despite its ancientcy and that the Hebrews were in constant exile and despersion.

Paul is the only figure in all of the NT which can be evidenced as a real historical figure. This means all the other writers of the gospels are fictional figures, and their writings are also the same. By subsequence, all of the writings ascribed to Paul are a fiction also.

WHEN NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN, IT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE BY BELIEF - INSTEAD IT AFFIRMS IT IS FICTION.

lpetrich

IamJoseph, do you have even the tiniest speck of support for that assertion?

As to the Old Testament's "history", the Dual Monarchy and afterward is overall fairly reliable, even if rather editorialized.

But before that, its gets more and more questionable.

How big an empire did David and Solomon rule? Or was it the neighborhood of Jerusalem without much extension into the northern or southern kingdoms?

The Conquest never happened as described -- destructions of cities turned out to have very different ages.

The residence in Egypt and the Exodus never happened as described either -- the Egyptians make no mention of a big population of Israelites in their territory, and they give no hint that an Exodus had happened. My pet hypothesis about the Exodus is that it is a mangled memory of the expulsion of the Hyksos under the leadership of pharaoh Ahmose. His name sounds like "Brother of Moses" in Hebrew, and later storytellers expanded on who "Moses" was supposed to be.

The Patriarchs are pure mythology; the accounts of them contain anachronisms like camels as beasts of burden.

Noah's Flood never happened, at least not as described.

The Creation never happened.

IamJoseph

There is evidence of the Exodus. Today's arabs are not the original Egyptans. There is no writings anywhere which is more authentic than the Hebrew - this is a writing which resurrected itself and now 2000 years of falsehoods are being overturned. Many are affronted.

lpetrich

What evidence?

1. What gives you that idea?
2. What does that have to do with the Exodus?

How is that supposed to be the case?

So it beats Euclid's Elements for "authenticity"?

Just to name one ancient example, which I mention because it is the most successful mathematics textbook of all time.

IamJoseph

Hard, indisputable evidence. A 3200 year Egytpian stelle, numerous contempraneous nations described enroute of the exodus, a cencus accounting in the desert, sovereign rule in canaan - and the world's most authentic, alphabetecal books in existence describing the region's terrain, cultures, peoples, wars, nations, kings and diets - with a diarized calendar. Large chunks of ancient history of this region are known only via the Hebrew bible.

A lot. If the Arab race is less than 2,500 years old - they have no claim to Palestine and cannot venture historical descriptions of this region.

IamJoseph

You mean the later Arab robbery of Egypt 2500 years ago? The orignal Egyptians were not Arab, nor was there any arabic writings till 400 CE. There is an Egyptian stelle which quotes a WAR with Israel over 3200 years ago, and more evidences. It is a fact that later rulers systematically erazed past evdences - all archeologists have sited this fact. There is no contemprary disputation of the exodus re-christianity and Islam: all archives of Rome, Greece, Babylon, Persia acknowledges the history of the Hebrews, and there are hard copy books which descrbe this. It does not get better as proof with any other nation!

J-D

The Victory Stele of Merneptah refers to a people called Israel (probably), but it doesn't say anything about the Exodus.The fact that the stories in the Hebrew Bible are detailed is no particular reason to think that they are true.

J-D

The earliest written references to the Arabs are in Assyrian writings more than 2500 years old. Arabs are also mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, in Kings, Chronicles, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. The earliest inscriptions in Arabic are also more than 2500 years old.

IamJoseph

This merits its own thread. You have not evidenced your claims. Arab is not the same as Aramean or Arabian - these predated today's Arab peoples; nor are those Hebrew writings mentioning Arabs.

IamJoseph

It says a war occured with Israel - which does mean the Israelites were in Egypt. We know as fact the Israelites ruled Canaan till 70 CE. Egypt to Canaan = an exodus, with no other plausable alternative. There is a host of grotesque, agenda based denials of this stelle - but it is at the very least, circumstantial evidence when evidence is never seen in such ancient periods. That the stelle also says Israel is destroyed - is also evidence of these falsehoods being endemic with the Pharoahs, who believed that erazing a name would deem that nation destroyed and forgotten - this was done also of previous Pharoahs.


Yes it is. The details are not generic or possible to manipulate or make retrospectively, nor based on 'belief'. Once I wondered why all those pages and pages listing Geneologies are included in the Hebrew bible, with names, dates, locations and dod's. Now I see this as among the greatest evidence of ancient history, with the point being such details cannot be improvised. Every single name in those listings is archeologically authentic of its periods - of note all the names pre-Noah are not Hebrew names.