razlyubleno

I'm not sure what you're asking. But to be sure, you didn't say "2000 years" in your last post... you said, rather, 4000 years, which is a different number altogether.

razly

Species8472

Monotheism comes from Egypt, not genesis.

Stephen T-B

"That agriculture predated hunter gathering is a very recent assessment, not a fact, and is not conclusive. But I am not certain of this stat. For sure, it defies logic - specially ToE logic, which says man came from chimps! This factor cannot be posited as a proof of an error in the Hebrew bible, which has yet never been disproven any place: over 70% of its historical stats are scientifically evidenced - a status which is not equatable by any other writings. The fundamental things apply." (IamJoseph)

What does all that mean?
"That agriculture predated hunter gathering is a very recent assessment, not a fact, and is not conclusive." How can it be a "recent assessment" if it's in Genesis?
I think IamJoseph got it the wrong way around: I think he meant to say that it is a "very recent assessment" that hunter/gathering pre-dated agriculture.
So what?
Until relatively recently rather little was known - factually - about mankind's early history because the tools for learning about it were not available. As they have become available, so more has been discovered.
That's not very surprising, is it?

Consider this:
If I find a mysterious metallic object in the ground with mysterious marking on it, and have no way of dating it or identifying it, I conclude it was placed there five days ago by an angel. I inform my neighbours of this, and if they are as ignorant (and superstitious) as I am, they might well believe it.
What are we to make of it, then, when along comes a metalurgist who subjects it to tests and says it is made of bronze; and an achaeologist who says the inscription is Germanic; and a physicist who carbon dates it and says it is about 1,200 years old?
What would you think: that the artefact is made of bronze, is about 1,200 years old and was made by a Germanic people, or that it was put in my garden five days ago by an angel?

"I am not certain of this stat. For sure, it defies logic - specially ToE logic, which says man came from chimps" (IamJoseph)
Which stat? That agriculture preceded hunter-gathering? If so, IanJospeh has every reason not to be certain of it, since there is a mountain of hard evidence that agriculture was a relatively recent development in mankind's history.
As for this "...it defies logic - specially ToE logic, which says man came from chimps" (IamJoseph). That's like saying "Gravitational theory says the moon is made of cheese."
ToE does not say man came from chimps. If IamJoseph thinks it does, then he thinks wrong.

Which brings me to: “This factor (agriculture pre-dating hunter-gathering) cannot be posited as a proof of an error in the Hebrew bible“
Yes it can. The Hebrew Bible is wrong. End of story.

And then: “…which (the Hebrew Bible) has yet never been disproven any place.”
Yes it has. To think otherwise is to be ignorant of so much that I can’t be bothered to innumerate it all.

“…over 70% of its (the Bible's) historical stats are scientifically evidenced”
Where did that figure come from? I don‘t believe it for a moment.
“- a status which is not equatable by any other writings.”

Garbage.

semiopen

I was hoping to go through life without typing ToE but...

We know the earth is very old, we know the earth was inhabited by different kinds of plants and animals at different times. The TofE explains this phenonema, and is regarded as scientific fact, some aspects of it are too technical for me. If there is a viable alternate, it would have to explain the hard geological, archaeological evidence.

Regarding the Chimp analogy, I mentioned in an evolution thread that we probably would not want to have sex with our distant ancestors.

There is hard evidence for modern man living over 250,000 years ago as a hunter gatherer, but no evidence of agriculture or domestication until say 20,000 years ago.

I can understand your desire to see some secular, verifiable truth in the Torah, but there doesn't seem to be any.

spamandham

That doesn't mean they thought it was history. :wave:

Uhm, I don't think anyone here denies that Hebrew existed 3000 years ago. :wave:

FYI, you're link doesn't work. :wave:

spamandham

According the Genesis, 2000 years = 4000 years = 6000 yeears = 6 days, proving the world is flat.

It's the most accurate book ever recorded because it talks about a river and a mountain, and some 3000 year old artifacts have Hebrew on them. Plus, it has a talking snake. How cool is that?!

Toto

fixed linkThere is so little confirmation of the Biblical events that a broken piece of pottery with a few letters in common with a king is news.

semiopen

This link may work better:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

One could also google "ancient hebrew script from Judah"

It says this is from the 8th century BCE and may be from the time of King Hezekiah, but it's only a few letters. This is interesting, but there isn't much controversy that Hezekiah was a historical figure. Nice to know they knew how to write, makes running a kingdom a lot easier.

Sheshbazzar

Yep, and that is the problem, the evidence for what you would like to claim, is scanty, piss poor, and far too often proven to be faked.
We have more solid and genuine evidence for the culture, history and religions of the Sumerians, and for The Epic of Gilgamesh circa 2000-3000 BCE than exists for the Hebrews, and for the Torah prior to 1000 BC.
The Sumerians left copious archaeological evidence both proving their existence and their genuine historicity.
We have excavated Sumerian cities, and surviving clay tablets of the Gilgamesh epic, and countless records and artifacts inscribed during The Third Dynasty of Ur 2000-3000 BCE.
But evidence for the existence of a Hebrew culture, and for the Torah almost entirely disappears from archaeological evidence any earlier than 1000 BCE.

The Torah claims that millions of Hebrews traveled and camped around the Sinai for forty years, yet strangely, not one single verifiable archaeological evidence of that claim has ever been produced.
Amazing ballyhoo is to be found within the Biblical texts about the greatness and strength of Solomon's and David's conquests and their legendary kingdoms, yet the archaeological record is hard pressed to find any evidence that these legendary figures even existed at all.
The cities that they allegedly "destroyed" or "built", turn out time after time to have been built and or destroyed by others either well before or well after their supposed reign.
So, it is true, "that it just doesn't get any better than this:" -for the Jewish Hebrew religion-.
The only reason you have "yet to see anything more reliable than the Hebrew anyplace" is the fact that you refuse to see the evidence of your folly.

Most educated Jews are well aware of the distinction that exists between their legendary national history, and real world actual history, and are proud of their culture for what it is, and what it has achieved.

But then Joseph, you are not a practicing Jew are you?
You cannot even read Hebrew, and are not a Hebrew, are you?
Just an -outsider-, a goy, Jewish wannabe.
If you were -Jewish-, and if you could read the Torah in -Hebrew-, and participated in Jewish culture, then you might have some valid basis for your song and dance number here, but as it stands you are only succeeding in making an ever bigger ass of yourself.

Jews that are Jews indeed, that love their religion, their culture, and their nationality, know better, while obviously you do not.

Sheshbazzar

I should add in this context, my acquaintance with my American "Indian" friends that proudly hold fast to their native culture and religious traditions in the modern world.
They also realise that the world is not scientifically speaking, actually a giant turtle, but the proud tradition of The Nations embraces and celebrates the legends and traditions of their ancestors, As they well should.
I have been invited to, and have attended POW-WOWs and have conversed with their Medicine Men and Chiefs. I respect their wisdom and understanding for what it is. I do not need to try to force any interpretation upon it that attempts to harmonise it with the findings modern scientific theory.
This would be disrespectful to The People, to The Nations, to their religion and their culture.
I celebrate and cherish their distinctive culture with them. And do not attempt to mongrelize it to fit it to modern scientific theory.
So also with Judaism, one needs learn to respect peoples religion and culture for what it is, not idealize and idolise it into becoming something it was not and is not.
Same goes with my Muslim, Hindu, Adventist, and Amish friends and acquaintances, it is enough, that one learns to respect them, and their culture as they are.