Amaleq13

A reminder, folks. Insults are inappropriate and will be edited. Focus on the argument and not the person making it.

WILLOWTREE

Herodotus is assumed true based on 12 mss !

We have thousands of Biblical mss written in different languages in different parts of the world that have a maximum 5 percent variation in content yet the secular world ignores these facts.

IOW, on the basis of these three ALL text of antiquity should be viewed untrue until archaeology confirms ?

Archaeology requires an interpreter and that interpreter has preconceived ideas about the Bible.

When was it written ?

Here is the problem:

By our 21st century understanding we are judging text.

Scholars are supposed to unlock the context of what was said and what each word meant when each word was written.

Dip shit modern scholars - come along and presume myth just because they don't understand.

They don't want to understand !

If the text is even remotely seen to jeopardize the validity of their worldview it is forever dismissed.

Nimroud was ASSUMED mythological until Layard came along. IOW, the assumption of false based on worldview and not evidence.

WT

gregor2

Amaleq
It's hard to avoid insults when we have to read assinine statements like the shroud was proved to be valid and the holy ghost burned the image of coins into it. Similarly when someone cites Velikovsky as authority, he just opens himself up to personal insult.

WILLOWTREE

2Chronicles 12:9

So Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, and took away the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king's house; he took all: he carried away also the shields of gold which Solomon had made.

"Ages in Chaos", Velikovsky, page 151:

"Piece by piece the altars and vessels of Solomon's Temple can be identified on the wall of Karnak".

Then Velikovsky documents page after page, matching the scriptural description of vessels with the information inscribed and pictures of the same vessels on the wall of Karnak.

Velikovsky provides a picture of the wall. The booty depicted exactly matches O.T. descriptions. The utter lack of any idolatrous image supports the Hebrew controlled craftmanship and the command by God to not make any graven image of their God. These visual facts rule out the long held belief that Thutmose III conquered pre-Israelite Canaanite peoples who were immersed in idolatry and incessantly depicted their gods on physical objects.

Thutmose III was Shishak who lived in the days of Rehoboam.

This means that Egyptian chronology is incorrect to some 500-600 years.

Thutmose III did not live in the 15th century.

This fact eviscerates the conjecture that the ultra stong Pharoah Thutmose III could not of been destroyed by the alleged Exodus events of the mid-15th century.

The above assumption dismissing the mid-15th century Exodus was based on Thutmose III reigning in the mid-15th century.

The evidence produced by Velikovsky MEANS Egyptian chronology by which, in part, a mid-15th century Exodus is dismissed is gross error. This was in turn used to assume Biblical chronology to be error.

As it turns out Biblical chronology is sound, thus supporting the mid-15th century Exodus date.

Now tell how the source (Velikovsky) negates the evidence ?

WT

WILLOWTREE

In the latter days of Jacob as testified to by the blessing he gave Pharoah and the funeral procession from Egypt.

Somebody was top dog.

David reigned from Egypt to the Euphrates.

I have a source for this claim. What is your source for believing it is not true ?

Source: The O.T.


circa 1900 - 1850 BC (Rutherford)

WT

Sven

Yes. And almost all scholars still do.
The consensus among historians is that all what Schliemann did was finding a city which was burnt down about seven times. That's the only connections to Homer's works. No serious scholar accepts any other claim of his works on face value simply because Schliemann found the city.

That's exactly the same as the bible is treated: What is corroborated by archeology is accepted, the rest is still treated as a myth.
[snipped rant]

After the demonstration of this fact, you simply shifted the goalposts and now claim that archeology is at fault for using this methology. Admitting an error is difficult, isn't it?

You deny all evidence which disproves your worldview.

Edited to add: OK, after realizing that chapka already answered this much better and then reading WT's "response", I can only react with
Bye. I can not near the BS any longer.

Jack the Bodiless

[previous reply edited: I may have misinterpreted what you meant by the location of "idolatrous images"]

Where is your EVIDENCE that these "pre-Caananite peoples" ALWAYS marked their religious paraphernalia with images so obvious that the sculptor would be forced to include them?

I've seen a picture of the face of EL carved on a rock. It wasn't much: a few lines to make a stylized eyes, nose and mouth. Not very prominent, and not really worth reproducing.
And the Greek gods actually existed

I have a source for this claim. What is your source for believing it is not true ?

Source: Homer.

...So you HAVE to believe it, right?

chapka

No; that's the point. Herodotus is NOT assumed to be true. Many classicists call him "The Father of Lies."

In other words, we can't discard the misses and focus only on the hits. All texts of antiquity are considered, at best, questionable, until archaeology confirms them. If the text considers some (or many) elements we know to be untrue for other reasons (for example, an impossible worldwide flood, a trip to the river Styx, a river of jewels), that just makes it more unlikely.

The 14th century.

You tell me then. How do you interpret the passage I gave above to make it true? Where is the kingdom of Prester John?

No. If there is no evidence, the text is not accepted. There's a difference.

You point to a few cases where one or two aspects of a text have been proven genuine. Based on that, you want us to accept all of every text. So I ask you: what is your standard that allows you to accept parts of the Bible which have no corroboration as literally true, but reject parts of the books I posted which have no corroboration?

Jack the Bodiless

...Because they are baloney?

There are now thousands of modern copies of the works of Herodotus. Originally, there would only have been one: the one he wrote. The same applies to ANY other ancient manuscript, including the ones later gathered together to make the various "Bibles".
Where is the EVIDENCE for this "error" in Egyptian chronology, and where is the EVIDENCE that there actually WAS an Exodus, in the 15th century or ANY OTHER century?

And I'd like to revisit this:
The current scholarly position is that there was no Exodus, Judaism developed from Caananite religions, and that the Jews progressed from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism (there is Biblical confirmation of this). Apparently, the reluctance to make "graven images" developed at some point.

Was this before or after Thutmose III? I don't know, and I don't care.

Do you understand this?

So far, the nearest you've got to an argument that the Exodus happened at all is "Schliemann found Troy, this proves that the Greek gods are real, and this proves that the Biblical God is real too" (or something like that).

Amaleq13

I understand your frustration but insults are inappropriate, against the rules, and irrelevant in a rational discussion.

Stick to pointing out factual errors and let any foolishness be exposed by the light of reason rather than emotional tirades. It makes you look more intelligent and you'll probably live longer.